Reply to Nathan Cofnas’s Comments on Edward Dutton

I have decided to upload my latest reply to Nathan Cofnas to Research Gate as a preprint so that it might reach a broader audience with only very minor changes from the version that appeared here. Comments can still be made here.

24 replies
  1. Nathan Cofnas
    Nathan Cofnas says:

    MacDonald: “Cofnas states, ‘the theory of CofC…requires only that Jews are high on ethnocentrism’. False. It does not stand or fall on the issue of whether Jews in general are high on ethnocentrism.”

    I’ve already noted on Twitter that this statement is incorrect. My paper was a response to Dutton, so I was responding to Dutton’s argument. Here’s what I wrote: “Since, at least on Dutton’s interpretation, the theory of CofC does not stand or fall with group selection, but requires only that Jews are high on ethnocentrism, I will not address the question of whether Jews were subject to more group selection.” I never said CofC “stand[s] or fall[s] on the issue of whether Jews in general are high on ethnocentrism,” which implies that if Jewish were high on ethnocentrism then CofC would be correct.

    That being said, the idea that high Jewish ethnocentrism is not a central part of the theory of CofC—and of the theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy—contradicts MacDonald’s own words. Consider the following passage from the 2002 Preface of CofC: “The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive, cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy on Judaism” (p. xxiii). In other words, high Jewish ethnocentrism is part of the “basic idea” of and is a recurrent “theme” in CofC.

    MacDonald insists that his interpretation of the Reform Jewish conversion guidelines was accurate: “My interpretation of the statement is accurate. The new guidelines were intended to minimize converts and proselytism was rejected….However, as Cofnas points out, at the same time, converts were welcomed (while he ignores the parts of the article that emphasized minimizing converts and rejecting proselytism).”

    Did I really “ignore[] the parts of the article that emphasized minimizing converts and rejecting proselytism”? If I did, why doesn’t MacDonald simply quote the part of the article that emphasized minimizing converts? Answer: it doesn’t exist. The chairman of the committee on conversion even said that the guidelines were “important for ending the traditional requirement that a rabbi discourage a potential convert.” And, if anything, they made conversion easier. As to the claim that I ignored the part of the article that rejected proselytism, this is false. I literally quoted the one sentence in the article that mentioned proselytism: “Still, conference officials said the guidelines were meant to emphasize the movement’s receptivity to converts, not an interest in proselytizing” (NY Times, quoted on p. 4 of my paper; link: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/reform-judaism-nears-a-guide-to-conversion.html).

    MacDonald: “Finally, Cofnas brings up an issue from my first reply—how to interpret the Jewish victims of the Polish security forces during the post-World War II period. Again, he completely ignores my comments in my reply.”

    This isn’t accurate. My paper was a response to Dutton, so I was responding to Dutton’s argument. *Dutton* wrote: “Cofnas has suggested that many of the ‘Jewish’ ideologies highlighted by MacDonald are not in fact ‘good for the Jews’. For example, Cofnas notes (of Communism) that Jews in Poland were more likely than whites to be killed by the Communist secret police. This, he argues, is consistent with Jews being over-represented among the Communist elite solely because of their high intelligence in comparison to the Polish. But it can be countered that the key point is whether it can be argued, in theory, that an ideology such as Marxism would seem to undermine the traditions (such as religion) which have held Western countries together and promoted the qualities of positive and negative ethnocentrism, which it has been shown ultimately lead to groups triumphing in the battle of group selection….It is quite possible for a way of thinking to involve killing a large number of your group members yet that way of thinking ultimately being positive, in some sense, for group interests.”

    So I was commenting on Dutton’s theory, not MacDonald’s.

    It’s odd that MacDonald would mock me for responding to criticism of my work, considering that he responds to all criticism of his work.

    “Is Kevin MacDonald’s Theory of Judaism ‘Plausible’? A Response to Dutton (2018)” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-018-0162-8

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      Cofnas writes: “the idea that high Jewish ethnocentrism is not a central part of the theory of CofC—and of the theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy—contradicts MacDonald’s own words. Consider the following passage from the 2002 Preface of CofC: “The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive, cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy on Judaism” (p. xxiii). In other words, high Jewish ethnocentrism is part of the “basic idea” of and is a recurrent “theme” in CofC.”
      I am simply claiming that the movements that I discuss in CofC operated as collectivist, ethnocentric groups. I am not claiming anything in general about Jews. As I have repeatedly emphasized, my project was to show that these people identified strongly as Jews and that there was a lot of ethnic networking–that they operated as a collectivist group.
      Re the treatment of Jews by Polish security forces, you are clearly criticizing CofC: “As I (Cofnas 2018b) pointed out: “MacDonald leaves out a key fact noted by Schatz (1991, p. 225), which is that 40% of the victims of the secret police were Jewish” despite Jews being less than half of 1% of the population of Poland at the time in question (p. 150). I suggested: “These data are more consistent with the thesis that Jews were simply more likely to be in positions of power—more likely to be in the position to persecute others, and more likely to be perceived as rivals by those in power, so more likely to be persecuted” (p. 150).”
      Therefore it was entirely appropriate that I rebut this. You could have at least said something like “but see MacDonald’s reply” so that the reader would realize I had rebutted your claim.
      Re Niebuhr’s article: It states: “Still, conference officials said the guidelines were meant to emphasize the movement’s receptivity to converts, not an interest in proselytizing. Indeed, a separate document, prepared in question-and-answer form about the guidelines, states no fewer than three times that the Reform rabbinate ”is not targeting anyone” for conversion.

      Five years in the making, the guidelines reflect a continuing shift within Reform Judaism away from what some rabbis refer to as a ”minimalist” approach to the faith and toward a greater embrace of traditional practices, which were discarded by the movement’s founders in the 19th century.” In other words, they are tightening things up to get away from a minimalist approach and a greater emphasis on tradition and clearly oppose proselytism. In any case, however on interprets this, it is not relevant to a critique of CofC.

      • Kevin MacDonald
        Kevin MacDonald says:

        Further, note that Cofnas again ignores my reasons for supposing that Horkheimer and Adorno had strong Jewish identifications and desired Jewish group continuity. This is important because a reader would get the impression that this was Exhibit A of my scholarly malfeasance.

        • Thoth Seyah
          Thoth Seyah says:

          “The more disputes I had with them, the better acquainted I became with their arguing techniques. First, they would count on the stupidity of their adversaries, and then, if there was no way out, they pretended to be stupid themselives. If all else failed, they claimed they did not understand, or, being challenged, they would instantly jump to another subject and talk about obvious truths. If these were agreed on, they immediately applied them to entirely different matters. When they were caught off guard, they would avoid the conversation and claim they had no knowledge or understanding of the issue. No matter where you seized one of these apostles, your hand grasped slimy ooze, which spurted through your fingers, only to unite again the next moment. If your argument really gave a man a shattering defeat in front of others, he could do nothing but agree. You might suppose that this was one step forward, but how surprised you would be the following day! The next morning you will find that Jew has not even the slightest memory of yesterday and continues to repeat his old mischievous nonsense as if nothing at all had happened. When pressed about the previous conversation, he would pretend astonishment and could remember nothing at all except the truth of his statements, which he felt had been proven the day before.”

          • Luke
            Luke says:

            This quote from Uncle Adolf is a perfect description of an online interaction that I carried on with a jewish guy who had retired from the same organization where I worked. I finally got so exasperated with the endless, infuriating, circular verbal gymnastics of this jewish guy that I abruptly threw up my hands and stopped communicating with him.

            I see the very same pattern with Cofnas attempting to ensnare Professor MacDonald inside one of these jewish verbalistic Rubik’s cubes.

            The bottom line is simple. Jews are the #1 enemy of White European people and there will never be any common ground between us and them. And, as far as this battle is concerned – there will be only one survivor, and I would prefer it to be White Europeans.

  2. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    It can take a strong mind and stomach to try and unsnarl Cofnas’s pilpul. But at this point, if it was me, I’d just make the sign of the cross over the whole thing both metaphorically speaking and for real.

    This works even if you are not in the least religious, Christian, or even if you are an atheist. It (the physical making of the cross) has some kind of power when done with intent. In any event, it sure worked in the olden days when dealing with vampires, from what I hear. 🙂

    The reference to “cottage industry” is funny.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      My reaction precisely, dear B. I laughed out loud.

      The “cottage industry” remark is emblematic of larger things, too. Here again, in yet another reply to yet another dishonest critic, anyone with eyes to see can observe how remarkably thick our admired friend’s skin is. The only other person I know of who has had this highly desirable trait to such a remarkable degree is Pat Buchanan. I have lost count of the situations where I have seen Kevin and Pat repeatedly and patiently correct mistakes, address failures to comprehend, and even turn the cheek to malicious errors where I, for example, having long since screamed myself hoarse with rage, would have placed myself at the “mercy” of the (((law))) by going at my antagonists with whatever blunt instruments I could lay my hands on.

      Is it any wonder that the Masters of the Narrative wish to keep KM as bottled up as is possible?

  3. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    Over fifty years ago, the perspicacious Revilo Oliver had the squirrely Cofnas types figured out, and MacDonald courageously provided the substantial evidence for his own iteration of the topic.
    http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1966/07/conspiracy-or-degeneracy/

    I thought about this wonderful man when the Occidental Observer ran the recent article about suicide. August 20th is the twenty-fourth anniversary of Dr. Oliver’s understandable suicide.

    It is also the date (636 AD) of the Battle of Yarmouk when the Byzantines were defeated in Palestine, signaling the first incursion of the murderous Semitic trash into areas outside the Arab peninsula…leaving millions dead and tortured for the great glory of the demented Mohammed and the equally demented Allah and his their demented followers.

  4. Hans Frank
    Hans Frank says:

    If whites had their own internet these type of futile “discussions” would be irrelevant. We would have colonies on Mars in one generation.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      We need to learn to live properly over here first. I say, leave Mars alone.

      Seems to be a human flaw: you can’t make a go of it in your homeland, so run away.

  5. Johnny Rottenborough
    Johnny Rottenborough says:

    I imagine most would agree that religious Jews ‘“strongly identify” as Jews’, and have done throughout the centuries.

    The Unz Review has recently published two long articles on Judaism, the first in the form of an interview with Michael A Hoffman II, author of ‘Judaism Discovered’, and the second, ‘Oddities of the Jewish Religion’, by Ron Unz.

    Judaism’s hatred of Christianity comes across very strongly in both articles, with Mr Unz writing that ‘…while religious Judaism has a decidedly negative view towards all non-Jews, Christianity in particular is regarded as a total abomination, which must be wiped from the face of the earth.’

    Can it be a coincidence that the ethnic group beside itself with rage at Christianity is also responsible the intellectual and political movements which have done so much damage to the once-Christian West? Unlikely.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      Mr. MacDonald might keep in mind when referring to Cofnas the proverb, “The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”

  6. John King
    John King says:

    I think you should end the discussion, Kevin. This guy has ZERO interest in a genuine intellectual discussion. He is only trying to pin you down by Talmudic responses, the aim of which is to uncover some piece of logic that he thinks you have overlooked. He can then march triumphantly away, claiming victory.

    He doesn’t care about intellectual history. I am sure he knows the Frankfurt School were strongly identified Jews. He only cares that YOU have noticed it and have told other people in a critical, rather than an entirely adulatory, way.

  7. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Re: conversion, there are now reams of articles readily available online written by crestfallen would-be converts (and even half-Jews!) relating the discrimination they faced when marrying an Orthodox partner. Here’s one by a half-Jewish woman marrying an Orthodox man titled, “My husband’s Orthodox Jewish family pressured us to call off our wedding” (https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/12/27/16811056/orthodox-jewish-wedding).

    Cofnas says, “The chairman of the committee on conversion even said that the guidelines were “important for ending the traditional requirement that a rabbi discourage a potential convert.” And, if anything, they made conversion easier.”

    If conversion is being made easier, why is this article from June entitled, “Israel’s conversion laws are about to get stricter” (https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/israels-conversion-laws-are-about-to-get-stricter/)?

    Cofnas is no different than a creationist arguing that dinosaur bones are a hoax.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I’ve known a few creationists in my time, and none of them ever contended that dinosaur bones were a hoax. What they did contend—presumably still do—was that dinosaur bones said a great deal about extinct reptilian life-forms but bugger-all about what the creationists considered the ill-founded claims of macroevolution and its proponents.

      Recall, too, that the fossil experts of Darwin’s day were among the most outspoken opponents of his theories. I know that it’s still considered cool, however, to write all those experts off as jealous old stick-in-the-muds. Surely that explains everything.

  8. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    In times Past, I had the idea – Why don’t we all become Jewish?- Then an idealist, now a realist. Any Pro-Semitic action on my part led to Severe Chastisement on the Part of The Hebrew Community, not even a wish to convert(which I found to be a huge undertaking) even a friendly ”I like Kosher milk” approach meets with the very rude ”why don’t you fuck off out the shop” type vibe.
    So one may as well be Anti-Semitic as pro-Semetic (an unusual word ”not recognized”) as far as the rabbinate are concerned. I had an Interest in Religious studies.
    To approach as a friend and be treated as a foe, I could not understand, I was forced to learn.
    I live near Stamford Hill-The Largest Jewish community in the UK, Europe actually.
    Known as Little Jerusalem and the Gaza strip amongst Londoners (urban Folklore can be very accurate).

  9. Chris M
    Chris M says:

    Jewish Thought* is a combination of magical thinking and psychosis.

    The magical thinking is found in their sincere belief that they and they alone determine meaning. Let’s call them The Determinators.
    They determine the meaning of anything and that’s that.

    To the extent they believe they and they alone determine the meaning of a word, or the stimulus of a response, to that extent they are operating out of magical theory of meaning.

    Over and over again they show themselves to be constitutionally incapable of accepting the fact that there is always a range of response to any word or any stimulus. And now we get to the psychotic part of their thinking.

    The individual, or group, who responds in the same way, no matter what the situation, we call an extreme psychotic of a particular type. Whatever happens it means the same thing to them. They have only one mode of responsive behavior, no matter what happens. They have an absolutely fixed orientation. They’re psychotic.

    Individual psychotics are mostly a danger to themselves. But when such individuals emerge from a group which is itself psychotic and arrive at positions of power and great responsibility all hell breaks loose. They become a danger to the world. And that is the position we are in today. They are a danger to the world. Perhaps that’s where we ought to place our focus, thereby taking the heat of of ourselves, at long last, and putting exactly where it belongs.

    It’s obvious that this particular group qualifies as the real “cancer of human history” and that Ms. Sontag’s quote was an example of psychotic projection.

    *Schopenhauer referred to it as “that Jewish Stench” adding that it could in no way be confused with “Reason.” Who could possibly deny that he was right?

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      Chris M,

      “Jewish Thought* is a combination of magical thinking and psychosis.”

      If that is the case, as European men and women our objective should be to keep any member of the Jewish community out of our genetic makeup.

  10. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    Btw, asking the question was metaphoric (even finding language lessons prior internet was non existent), but it was something I looked into and the Milk story was real-I went into a kosher shop to buy milk on the way to work (In a very good mood) and had been polite on three occasions and being ignored to the point past ignorance to the point of -why come in here? why not F**k **f out of here. This was Stamford Hill London. I felt like a foreigner in my own country, I was so angry (And I knew I had not brought that into the shop-but came out with it)
    The whole vibe on even trying to Talk to a Jew was shocking.
    So for me, Anti or Pro, the door was closed. That was my point.

  11. Bennis Mardens
    Bennis Mardens says:

    I followed the back and forth for quite a while, but now I’m bored with it.
    KMAC has a solid case and Cofnas has said nothing to change my mind.
    And once you SEE Jewish influence, it can’t be unseen. You start to notice things……
    the way they push open borders…..the way they push race mixing, even in commercials…..the way they push
    for constant wars in the ME……the insane raging hatred toward white people all over social media…..
    all of these things are OBVIOUS.

    • Chris M
      Chris M says:

      Bennis Mardens: Absolutely. Once it’s explained to you and you in turn explain it to someone else no one’s ever the same. Those numbers are fast growing.

  12. Rabbi High Comma
    Rabbi High Comma says:

    “The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.” – AH

    Cofnas – have you seen the deals on El Al? Amazing.

  13. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    Of Interest.
    ”Miriam Kliers alleged in court that a house she and her husband Schlomo had bought had been put in the name of her younger brother Mordecai… to claim Housing benefit… she also claimed some of the money used to buy the £418,000 house had been charitable donations but was, in fact, her wages…Disguised to avoid Tax.
    Queens Counsel Murray Rosen said ”This was an influence within this particular sect. It was influence which purported to have the backing of religious leadership, incredible as that may sound, and it was influence exerted by dominant males within this family and this society.
    ”To be confronted by a plan of this nature which, on the evidence, is common practice amongst esteemed and religious leaders… is one which must cause great concern…in this country if not elsewhere”
    Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations demands an apology. Hackney Gazette 9th Aug 2018.
    —For individuals to commit fraud is not uncommon, but when Religious leaders from the Jewish Community condone and organise such acts, well, what to say, other than up to the old tricks–
    Sorry for off subject, I was at pains to find somewhere to post–If it is Inappropriate then suggestions will be accepted.

Comments are closed.