Reply to Nathan Cofnas’s Review of “The Culture of Critique”

32 replies
  1. Chinese Nat Maiden
    Chinese Nat Maiden says:

    I have read Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s entire trilogy multiple times and I have read the 23-page review by Nathan Cofnas.
    Being intimately familiar with Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s work, I must say that Nathan Cofnas said nothing particularly impressive.
    It appeared rather amusing to me that Nathan Cofnas did not entirely grasp what he was criticising.
    I had to delve deep into evolutionary psychology to understand Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s work and so I can empathize with misunderstandings to some extent. However, there seems to be an unwillingness to understand on the part of Nathan Cofnas.
    This unwillingness to understand is what characterizes the detractors of Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s work.
    Nathan Cofnas appears to make an effort to appear as a person who has been eager to understand, but actually he already assumed Prof. Kevin MacDonald was wrong and so he forced his own biases on his “critical analysis” of Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s work.
    Nathan Cofnas immediately lost all credibility when he did that and so I found it merely amusing to read through everything he said, but I found it very lacking in any insight. When I read some analysis, I hope to learn something new and Nathan Cofnas merely reiterated the “conventional wisdom” of the usual detractors of any serious critical analysis of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.
    In fact, I do not find it hard to understand how Jews as a group can network with each other and manipulate outsiders for their own gain. If an individual Machiavellian can do this, then so can a well-organised group live by Machiavelli’s advice for princes. Jews are a Machiavellian group and they act this way without analysing their own behaviour so much. Most Machiavellians never notice their own behaviour, they are not deeply aware of it.
    As a Chinese, I come from a highly collectivistic society and I find it deeply naïve to think that Jews as a group will not have a major advantage over individuals who do not network in the same ethnocentric way. There is no more evidence needed to support this thesis because it has already been sufficiently proved that Jews are ethnocentric, which requires that they network with their own people.
    Nathan Cofnan’s typical disbelief that Jews can pull off such huge things as a group is disingenuous. He paints Prof. Kevin MacDonald as a “dangerous” individual (whatever that “danger” of honest intellectual work might be is beyond me), but if he has such an obsession with individuals who could potentially be dangerous, then he should also consider that entire groups could potentially be dangerous….. He fails to see that if he thinks an individual human can be immensely influential, then an ethnic group can be even more so, and therefore his concern about an individual human being is exaggerated as well as exhibiting a typical White naïve individualist understanding of the world which other more highly ethnocentric groups do not share.

      • J-Jalove
        J-Jalove says:

        To be clear my, “Hear, hear” was in compliment to Chinese Nat Maiden’s comment, which rang true logically & even more so anecdotally, as I’m confident most in their everyday lives, witness these behaviors.

        The JQ conflicts me greatly, as the finest family I’ve ever known is Jewish. Loving, generous in the extreme, considerate, & dignified as anyone I’ll ever know.

        Still, evidence has brought me to believe an informally organized, but extremely well “networked” group of Jews have effectively taken control of the USA – financially, politically, & especially – via Hollywood movies & tv – media that influences American culture, so.

        I do think Judaism’s belief system, as well as group history, leads its members to put their own preservation ahead of any others – especially western civilization’s interests. As KMD has quite persuasively argued, Jews sought & heavily influenced, 1965’s disastrous Immigration Act; & the multiculturalism it has wrought has, for this land, been culturally catastrophic.

        What before then was a homogenous nation has become a “diversity is our strength” factionalized, & frayed at its seams, “country.”

        Is the USA more unified? Safer?
        You tell me but as I type this, another school shooting story has crossed the news wires. Growing up that never happened – wasn’t even conceivable – now school kids pass thru metal detectors. This is societal insanity and I hold those who fostered the ’65 Immigration Bill accountable.

        So yes, I hold the jewish family I know in highest esteem but it is members of their faith whose actions, between the end of WW1 up to 1965, and forward to today, that have so negatively affected the US. I am for peaceful civility & only hope that type of solution can be found.

    • Bennis Mardens
      Bennis Mardens says:

      I agree. KM’s basic observations are actually quite obvious if you open your eyes.
      Cofnas’ work is not at all impressive, and his paper is a tactical error in that instead of debunking KM, this will only succeed in bringing more attention to the CofC.

    • DeplorableNationalConservative
      DeplorableNationalConservative says:

      Do you think the Jews will be able to infiltrate China and rule in alliance with treasonous native elites, like they have in the West?

      Frankly, I think the only hope for a dignified future for the human race is if the Chinese manage to supplant the Jews as the world’s most influential ethnic group.

      • Chinese Nat Maiden
        Chinese Nat Maiden says:

        That is a false hope. It is Jews who are the ones who have cheered the loudest about the rise of China, because “China’s rise” really means the rise of the Chinese Communist Party. It is in fact “the West”, this really means the Jews, who saved the Communist Party from suffering the same fate as the Soviet Union. The Jews came with lucrative economic deals in order to save the Communist Party, because suffering economic backlashes would have meant the end of the Party. The Tiananman Massacre was carried out with the full support of the Jewish elites in the West. This anti-Chinese crime should always be remembered.

        The anti-Chinese Communist Party, which reveres the Jew Karl Marx and the Chinese Mao Zedong as supreme Gods in the Marxist pantheon, has a long history of oppressing, censoring and even exterminating Chinese people. Being a hostile elite in China, this makes the Communist Party the ideal partner for the Jews. As a kind Japanese writer named Riki Rei at Counter Currents points out, the Chinese elite is in bed with the Jewish elite. If the world becomes ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, this will be an Orwellian nightmare that you cannot even begin to imagine. Apart from the Jewish regime in the West, the Chinese Communist Party is the most anti-White regime in the entire world. As a former Party member, I know how much the Chinese Communists are brainwashed to distrust and hate non-Jewish White people as well as ordinary Chinese people. These people are seen as the scum of the earth, and therefore the rule of the Communist Party is needed to control them, i.e. this Marxian sense of ideological/scientific superiority “legitimises” the brutal oppression, censorship and extermination of ordinary Whites and Chinese people alike.

        When you become a Party member, you cannot leave. You swear to give your body and soul to the Party, you must give your all to fight for the Party, which means you must always be ready to sacrifice your life for the Party. This immense sense of pressure, even to sacrifice your own life, gives you an idea of what the Party really is. The admission oath of the Communist Party is truly the admission oath to a demonic cult that demands total and complete obedience. It took huge effort from me to distance myself from the Party and to get out of the country. Many people do not manage to leave the Party alive.

        If you still want to know what the Party trult stands for and what the Party has in mind for the entire world, they are developing a social credit system to be used in China in 2020. You can google (banned in China) this information online and find out more about the social credit system. China is developing a cyber-totalitarianism of total thought control that will out Orwell’s visions of a global totalitarianism to shame. The Jewish Western elites are in full support of this and they have even handed the needed expertise and technology to China in order to achieve the goals of global cyber-totalitarianism. This is why the Party says that the rise of “China” (i.e. the Party) on the global stage will bring “peace and stability” which means, to the Party, that there will be no more dissent. The Party sees the West as a place full of people, i.e. non-Jewish Whites, who are always dissenting against the interests of the Party. Therefore, they must be controlled and this can be achieved by the Party’s continued economic rise and the development of new cyber technology for thought control. As the Party says openly, it supports globalism.

        Conclusion: Be careful what you wish for, you better not cheer along with the Jewish elite about the rise of the Chinese Communist Party and the coming reign of global terror under cyber-totalitarianism that is becoming ever more sophisticated with the development of new cyber technology and AI.

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          You have confirmed my belief that (((capitalism))) and (((communism))) are two sides of the same coin.

        • Kai Wesselchak
          Kai Wesselchak says:

          Fascinating insight, Nat Maiden. Thanks a lot for posting here. Communists are truly vile traitors to their people (or enemy agents, in the case of Jewish Communists).

    • Eric Mueller
      Eric Mueller says:

      Totally agree, Chinese Nat Maiden. China’s totalitarianism is becoming more real than ever now that it’s combined with cutting edge computer technology.
      In Hong Kong – the “special zone” – just the ubiquitous “Octopus Card” credit card is already effecting this kind of total surveillance and control. The Octopus card is used for all kinds of payments – of course it’s not mandatory – but being “convenient” it’s everywhere. For transport, parking, subways, busses, obviously for all purchases of reading material, medical costs, etc. People praise how easy it is to find your car because when you park in a high-rise parking garage, you scan your Octopus Card and then when you return for your car, scan your card again and it highlights a map, showing where your car is parked.

      In other words, this “convenience” means that your every movement is being tracked and monitored. And that’s only the “unobtrusive” side of authority.

      In the older days, control there was somewhat hit or miss at times. But now, combined with high tech it’s much slicker, more insidious, and totally ubiquitous. It’s becoming a kind of nightmare of control that old Orwell couldn’t have imagined.

      And it’s surely going to be an attractive “model” for authorities all over the world. Not a future to be desired.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      exhibiting a typical White naïve individualist understanding of the world

      With respect, you ARE aware, of course, that the “critic” Nathan Cofnas, is NOT in fact White at all – but, naturally, like his writing sidekick in this endeavour… Jewish ?

  2. C.T.
    C.T. says:

    This is how I replied to Nathan Cofnas at Qulliette:

    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.

    • Kai Wesselchak
      Kai Wesselchak says:

      Good reply. Also, Nathan conveniently forgets to mention that many of his “counter-examples” of “based conservative Jews” are controlled-opposition neocon guys like David Whoreowitz (who called Ron Paul a “vicious anti-Semite” for wanting to end the FED–which should tell us all we need to know about who runs the FED, and that even guys who don’t explicitly name Jewish influence will still be tarred as “anti-Semites”). A large part of Dr. MacDonald’s critique of Jewish influence is that they have subverted the conservative movement, which philosophy-student Cofnas didn’t want to address.

  3. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    I think one reason why there’s so much confusion about Jewish power is we confuse identity with interest with ideology with inheritance. So, Jewish inheritance gets confused with Jewish interests that gets confused with ideologies adopted by Jews.

    I think the Right should use the term Inheritance. Identity tends to mean what one chooses or identifies with according to fad or fashion. Inheritance is deeper. It goes back to ancestors and tradition. It is not plucked out of the air like 50 genders. So, the Right needs to be Inheritarian.

    Also, we must not confuse Interest with Identity or Inheritance. A labor union is about shared interests, not identity, let alone Inheritance.
    A black worker and white worker can have shared interests. But their inheritances are different in race, history, memory, and narrative.
    Another case of Shared Interest is tacit alliance of Saudi Arabia & Israel. They have different inheritances in ethnicity & religion BUT they have shared interest in opposing Iran and trying to mess up Assad in Syria. Interests change all the time according to shifting alliances based on Realpolitik. In contrast, Inheritance is about Realethnic.

    Another distinction should be made between Inheritance and Ideology. Ideology is a belief system. Christianity & Communist are Ideologies or belief systems. One can be African, European, or Asian AND be a Christian or Communist. It’s not an Identity or Inheritance.
    In terms of ideology, a Russian communist has more in common with a Chinese communist. But in terms of Inheritance, a Russian communist has more in common with a Russian rightist and traditionalist than with a Chinese Communist. In the end, Inheritance trumps Ideology. The Sino-Soviet rift was huge. And the Communist Bloc broke apart into independent nation-states.

    Vietnamese communists and Chinese communists were united by interest and ideology — anti-Americanism and communism — but eventually separated along lines of Inheritance. In due time, China and Vietnam came to blows even though both were communist. Commie Viets and commie Cambodians also ended up in war.

    So…
    Inheritance is about deep ancestry, history, & narrative.
    Identity is about self-identification.
    Ideology is about your spiritual or philosophical worldview.
    Interest is about pragmatic strategy to achieve short-term goals.

    Inheritance is rich & meaningful because it has real basis in ethnicity, history, & hopefully territory. Its also self-sustaining. Jews on an island can survive forever as Jews by having children who will also have children ad infinitum who can keep alive the fire of Jewish memory and history.
    But ‘gay’ or ‘feminist’ is a weak identity & not self-sustaining. Homos or women alone on island can’t reproduce on their own. Also, almost all homos are born of straight parents. We can’t predict when and where the next homo kid will be born. In contrast, Jewish parents can always give birth to Jewish kids, Irish parents can always give birth to Irish kids, and Japanese parents can always give birth to Japanese kids. There is a continuity with Ethnic Inheritance whereas we can never tell which parents might give birth to homos. Also, there are homos all over the world, so there is no single homo identity. There are Anglo Homos, Arab Homos, Black Homos, Chinese Homos, Hindu Homos, etc.

    Inheritance is autonomous & self-sustaining. If the Irish only remained in Ireland, they could last forever by producing descendants who also carry down Irish tradition & memory. But imagine an island of lesbians only. It is a biologically incomplete identity. It will die out soon. This is why so many faddish identities are useless. They are not autonomous, complete, continuous, and self-sustaining. At best, they are contiguous and mostly they are peripheral or trivial.

    Irish people on an island may not constitute a big community or a great power, but it is complete. It has the essential components of a self-sustaining and whole community. It has the unity of Irish men and Irish women to have Irish children on their homeland to carry on their Irish tradition and memory. Even if shut from the rest of the world, they can survive indefinitely. That is wholeness.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      “. . .Jews on an island can survive forever as Jews. . .”

      How? How will this parasite exist without a host?

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ T.J.

        Moses Hess and Theodor Herzl thought a homeland to farm, mine and develop would change Jewry from a parasitic to a normal nation; this view was held privately and not just a propaganda device.

  4. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Mr. Cofnas isn’t a Jefferson A. Singer, a George J. Michael or even a Damon T. Berry.* To use the vernacular he’s a “joker.”

    *author of Blood & Faith

  5. stretch23
    stretch23 says:

    I am a lapsed Catholic – the product of a youth that couldn’t have been more Catholic; altar boy, catechism, all the sacraments. When I went away to college I started to think about what it meant to be a Roman Catholic. I recited the Nicene Creed and pondered what each of its assertions meant and concluded that I didn’t really believe any of it. I stopped being a Catholic.

    I am married to a secular Jew who has never been a practicing Jew. She is the daughter of socialists who were only ever secular Jews. But while I am finished with Catholicism, she will never stop being a Jew. It’s much more than a religion or even just a cultural practice, it’s a most fundamental aspect of her being. And that’s the exact quality that McDonald speaks of.

  6. Ritual
    Ritual says:

    Actually, I think a lot of Jews have it all wrong on CofC and the rest of Kevin MacDonald’s research on Jews.

    Breathless, awestruck when I stumbed across the Hornbeck review way back when.

    But then happy. Don’t have to be perplexed about Jews anymore. Just a matter of science now.

    I really expected way more Jews and Gentile leadership people to get on board.

    Really disappointed after no leadership people got on board. Continue to be disappointed. I mean Twighlight Zone disappointed.

  7. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    “Too little too late” may characterize the importance of the fact that Confas, an academic, has responded as such to “A Culture of Critique”, the third book of Kevin MacDonald’s academic trilogy on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. That it took 2 decades for _any_ academic response, during which the neocon agenda unleashed by 9/11/2001 cost untold human and economic damage, is a damning indictment of academia. Of course, the fact that “A Culture of Critique” provides a scholarly basis for the analysis of necon excess is one, of a number of its attributes, that made it radioactive to academia. It is clear from MacDonald’s preliminary response that he welcomes this long overdue scholarly discourse. Unfortunately, it does appear that Confas is knocking over strawmen — which is a consistent pattern in pseudo-science. Hence, it is “too little” as well as “too late”.

  8. Bernd Lauert
    Bernd Lauert says:

    During WWII Adorno wrote letters to his parents which were published as Briefe an die Eltern in 2003 by C. Gödde and H. Lonitz. Among other things he wrote:

    It is almost necessary to beg that it shouldn’t go too quickly: that there’s not a political collapse which saves the Germans from open military defeat and prevents them from feeling at first hand what they have done. … I have nothing against revenge in itself, even if one wouldn’t want to be the executor—only against the rationalisation of revenge as law and justice. So: May the Horst Güntherchens [diminutive of the male first name Günther] wallow in their blood and may the Inges be transferred to the Polish brothels, with preferential tickets for the Jews.

    Letter of 26 September 1943.

    In Germany the large-scale general gymnastics program has set in which I follow with undivided joy.

    Letter of 7 April 1945. In the same letter he complains about his headache and a focus of inflammation in nose and throat.

    Everything one has wished for years has come to pass, the land is trashed, millions of Hansjürgens and Utes dead.

    Letter of 1 May 1945

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/buecher/rezensionen/sachbuch/die-vielen-hansjuergens-und-utes-1119685.html

    • Bernd Lauert
      Bernd Lauert says:

      The state financed leftist Zionist and anti-German propagandist Clemens Heni (clemensheni.net) has written a book about Critical Theory and Israel in which he proves Kevin MacDonald’s point. In chapter 6 he covers the following topics:

      6) Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory and Israel
      6.1) Research of Critical Theory on Anti-Semitism
      6.2) Horkheimer and Judaism: what does research say?
      6.3) Horkheimer and Judaism: what do his texts say?
      6.4) (Erich) Fromm against Israel
      6.5) Adorno: not a Zionist, but pro-Israel?
      6.6) Herbert Marcuse: Jews need a Jewish state
      6.7) Leo Löwenthal: ‘Even Jews have a right to an armed force’ …
      6.8) Is Critical Theory pro-Israel?

      http://www.editioncritic.de/allgemein/neuerscheinung-24-april-2014-kritische-theorie-und-israel/
      The book hasn’t yet been published in English but he has given a talk on this topic in English here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt4iDHOMizo.

      Heni does complain about contemporary leftist anti-Zionist Jews like Judith Butler. He stresses that they don’t understand Critical Theory and aren’t in line with the founders of this movement.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Wow, talk about hate, Adorno is right in the front of the scornful, Semitic big league with Maurice Samuel, Susan Sontag, Theodore Kaufman et al.

  9. katana
    katana says:

    Luke Ford with MacDonald Vs Cofnas On Culture Of Critique – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT.

    https://katana17.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/luke-ford-with-macdonald-vs-cofnas-on-culture-of-critique-mar-2018-transcript/

    Luke Ford, an Australian living in the USA, who “converted” to Judaism in 1993, interviews Kevin MacDonald and his response to a recent critique of his highly ignored (by academia), yet important book, “The Culture of Critique“, by the 30 year old, academically unknown, New York jew, Nathan Cofnas. Cofnas was scheduled to come on with MacDonald, but was unable to, due to time zone differences, as he’s in England, studying at Oxford.

    Ford plays somewhat of a devil’s advocate on behalf of Cofnas, quoting some of Cofnas’, yet to be released, responses to MacDonald’s 18,0000 word response to Cofnas’s critique.

    This transcript covers the first 71 minute part of the Youtube video with MacDonald, and not (currently) the remaining part of the total 220 minute video, where Cofnas does appear in the last third of it.

    Overall, my take is that, it’s all a storm in a teacup, with very weak tea being dished up by Cofnas.

    Now, the most likely reason that until now there has been, apparently, no proper academic response to MacDonald’s work, is because its main ideas are true and significant. So what was the message that has been sent out by organized jewry to academics? For over 20 years, it’s been, “Kill the message by totally ignoring it!“

    MacDonald’s main point in his book is that jews, just like other human groups, act as a group to advance their interests often at the expense of other groups. Since organized jewry has maneuvered itself into being the most powerful group in Western societies, it has, and is wrecking utter destruction upon us! Especially by engineering the flooding of every White country, from New Zealand to Norway, with non-Whites, in order to racially and culturally destroy us! And part of the jewish group evolutionary strategy, to use Kmac’s terminology, is to prevent Whites from waking up to what they are doing to us, and responding in kind.

    So, this interview is interesting, in that we get to see Kmac defend his book, his position, in his mild mannered, yet strong way, against a young upstart jew making a name for himself. He fails, but rest assured, that another jew, defending their tribal war against Whites, will step into the breach and fire away.

    Organized jewry is at total war with Whites, attempting to genocide us through whatever means. Kmac has helped us in exposing that, with his academic work, so we should all join together in supporting him, and others like him, in what ever way we can.

    — KATANA

  10. Rich Faussette
    Rich Faussette says:

    Noah Efron wrote REAL JEWS about the orthodox who are the only ones practicing the whole Jewish program making them – a monolithic group – self dispersing throughout the world spreading the Holy Seed. It is their high birthrate and assortative mating for intelligence that generates the anti-Semitic cycle which existed before Jewish emancipation created the Jewish liberal class. The first few lines of Exodus tell us why the anti-Semitic cycle began due to the “numbers” (high TFR) and “strength” (intelligence) of the Hebrews.
    The ecologist Paul Colinvaux wrote:
    “I suggest it is axiomatic of human history that social upheavals, even revolution, do not emerge from the ranks of the poor, for all the claims of Marxists that they do. They come from disaffected individuals of the middle classes, the people who experience real ecological crowding and who must compete for the right to live better than the mass.”

    Non Orthodox Jews become revolutionaries simply because they have ALL been bred for intelligence by the prolific and monolithic orthodox communities. There aren’t enough niches for them in their host nations.

    Colinvaux continues:
    …Niche theory predicts: That middle and upper classes will be the first to feel the pressures of crowding… Niche theory predicts… that a limit will be reached to the number of broader niches that can be found by ingenuity, trade and theft… [niche] theory also predicts that the numbers desiring broad niches will continue to increase… it is this phenomenon which is likely to be the cause of decay. Social unrest is now inevitable.”

    Rich

  11. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    One of the most irksome criticisms of Dr. MacDonald’s works is that he has not proved what he claims; he merely quotes Jews who, after all, are not scientific experts on the own behavior, and builds a merely hypothetical construct for macro Jewish behavior. Yet the given the standards they require for a scientific demonstration would place them in the same company of those who think ordinary evolutionary biology is bunk because of the lack of transitional fossils and the inability to produce speciation in laboratory experiments; not to mention the a dearth of theories for how the first self-replicating entities (RNA) originated.

    His theory holds up because (like evolutionary biology) of the overwhelming mass of evidence – the form of which could be described as average Jewish behavior over time – in political, economic and artistic spheres. Those who claim his theory is not “falsifiable” are wrong: it could be falsified, if it could be demonstrated that average Jewish behavior over time was consistently at odds with Jewish interests, or at least random – sometimes benefiting it, sometimes not. However that is not what we see, and they are still around after 5000 ? years. They may disagree at times over the best way to secure their interests; they may miscalculate, but on balance what we see is very consistent. They may be found on each side of conflicting public policy positions at different times, but their lodestone remains constant: their interests.

  12. Hipster Racist
    Hipster Racist says:

    The comment section at Unz.com is well worth reading. MacDonald’s detractors have virtually no substantive arguments and have resorted to simple ad hominem and very blatant misrepresentation of his case.

    You’ll also notice a number of commenters relying on the typical strategy of pathologizing “anti-semitism” – while of course defending anti-gentilism as “necessary.”

    • Bennis Mardens
      Bennis Mardens says:

      The very same pattern at Amazon.
      The positive reviews of the CofC are quite brilliant, but the few negative reviews just sling mud and have no substance whatsoever.

Comments are closed.