On Nathan Cofnas’ paper

Now that Cofnas’ paper criticising Kevin MacDonald’s study on Judaism is being mentioned in several forums, I’d recommend Luke Ford’s recent interview of the admin of Age of Treason after minute 40. Or if you want a debate on the JQ simply listen to the whole interview, but take note that Ford is a convert to Judaism. (The pic of Ford was taken eighteen years ago, about the time when he visited Israel.)

4 Replies on “On Nathan Cofnas’ paper

  1. I replied the following to Nathan Cofnas at Quillette:

    Re: Jewish over-representation in western societies,
    The article is confusing apples with oranges. We are not talking about over-representation in science, the arts or the financial sector in the abstract. The thrust of MacDonald’s argument is that Jews are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority.

    A Quillette commenter tried to respond to me. He cited a few examples of so-called good Jews but missed my whole point: They are never overrepresented in pro-Aryan movements. What the commenter argued in that thread are the exceptions that confirm the rule. And the point, of course, is that Jews are overrepresented in movements that weaken Aryans.
    Anyway, MacDonald’s scholarly reply can be read: here.

  2. The more I think about MacDonald’s various theories, the more they strike me as a defense of the Christian worldview of white people. In his reply to Cofnas (p.12), he points to an “indigenous culture of critique” that has helped along Jewish efforts, an oblique reference to this Christian worldview without naming it specifically. Yet neither Cofnas nor MacDonald spend much time on this. It’s little more than a passing mention in both papers. First, Cofnas blows it because he misses the most obvious, and most injurious white self-inflicted wound, the American Civil War, which is the archetypal case of an indigenous white Christian culture of critique run amok. Jewish involvement in the War was negligible, unless you count Christianity itself as the precipitating influence. But MacDonald has always taken a hands-off approach to Christianity, writing that it is compatible with racism, was the religion of whites during periods of civilizational expansion and confidence, etc. He doesn’t see, or more likely, realizes he can’t admit, that Christianity is a Jewish intellectual movement that has adversely affected whites, because it would make nonsense of his thesis. It would put him in the position of having to aver that all of white history for the past 2000 years, even what are to him the “good parts”, has been a result of Jewish manipulation.
    Worse for MacDonald, the American Civil War actually deals a fatal blow to his theory, as it’s the control; it demonstrates the null hypothesis, that there’s no correlation between Jewish activities and white racial self-destructiveness. If his theory is a scientific theory as it purports to be, having a control is necessary to see how whites behave in the absence of Jewish influence. But the Civil War showed how they behaved. They were, if anything, even more fanatically liberal than in modern times. In terms of racial equality, the negro made his greatest progress during the 19th century. Whites murdered each other by the hundreds of thousands and devastated their own country in their effort to make him a citizen equal to themselves, and give him the vote. In comparison to that, the Civil Rights riots and marches of the 60s were a cakewalk.
    MacDonald mentions in his reply that he expects to finish his forthcoming book on western peoples this year, and that his analysis of the “indigenous culture of critique” will be central to it. It will be interesting to see how he gets out of this dilemma, if he can. The existence of an indigenous culture of critique renders the role of Jews in changing white culture moot.

    1. Absolutely. Later in the series “Why Europeans must reject Christianity” you will see that the author takes MacDonald to task for his blind spot on Xtianity.
      Before reading Soberana’s “Rome vs. Judea” I was under the impression that MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents was a good piece of academic work. Now I doubt it. I think it’s fair to say that every honest reader of the material I have been accumulating on this site will reach the conclusion that Xtianity has been a major factor in the suicidal West.
      Since I was born in Mexico I’m very conscious that even with the Inquisition targeting cryptos, the New Spaniards managed to ruin their gene pool here. Obviously, there’s a CQ (Christian Question) that American WNsts are unwilling to tackle.

    2. I’m reading that there were more (((Freemasonic))) machinations behind the scenes than has been appreciated, behind the (((Abolitionist))) movement, Judah Benjamin’s career, Freemasons on both sides including Confederates Jefferson Davis, Albert Pike whose statue in Washington still stands. But of course, how were the heebs able to leverage such influence over mid-19th Century American Whites into mass slaughtering one another? The AP, CP, JP.