The Cofnas Problem, Part 3 of 3

Go to Part 1 of 3.
Go to Part 2 of 3.

Jewish Ethnocentrism

Cofnas rests his argument against MacDonald on three grounds: (a) the evidence suggests Jews are not particularly ethnocentric, (b) liberal Jews typically advocate similar policies for Jews/Israel and gentiles/gentile countries, and (c) the West was on a liberal trajectory with or without Jews, and Jews were not responsible for mass immigration to the US. All three arguments are fundamentally flawed, and are characterized in Cofnas’s presentation by the very features he claims to have found in MacDonald’s work, especially omission of contradictory evidence.

In regards to Jewish ethnocentrism, Cofnas is almost exclusively concerned with the subject of intermarriage. This is an important but not exclusive aspect of ethnocentrism, and Cofnas demonstrates no awareness of either the history of Jewish intermarriage and its impact on Jewish ethnocentrism (for example, by referencing a text like Todd Endelman’s Princeton-published Leaving the Jewish Fold, which I’ve reviewed here), or any of the major sociological studies of contemporary Jewish demography (for example, Oxford’s very comprehensive 2014 The Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates, or even Keren McGinty’s 2009 NYU-published Still Jewish: A History of Women and Intermarriage in America). In fact, Cofnas does not appear to have undertaken a serious survey of any of the relevant available scholarly literature, the most important of which is surely Bruce Phillips’s 2013 article in Contemporary Jewry “New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States.”[1] Phillips examined intermarriage data like that cited by Cofnas and found that

The study of Jewish intermarriage has largely ignored the measurement conventions prevalent in the field of demography such as using first marriages (as opposed to current marriages) and not controlling for mixed parentage. I re-analyze the NJPS 2000–2001 using first marriages and controlling for parentage and find evidence that intermarriage has leveled off among single ancestry Jews [as opposed to mixed-ancestry Jews]. Jewish intermarriage is placed in an American context by (1) putting in Kalmijn’s conceptual schema and (2) using the odds-ratio to compare intermarriage in controlling for group size. Single ancestry Jews are surprisingly endogamous compared with other groups in America. [emphasis added]

Nor is Cofnas concerned with the actual lived experience of intermarriage and its relationship to ethnocentrism, since he focuses only on a limited set of raw numbers and ignores a number of pieces of research on intermarried Jews that essentially contradict his argument by insisting that Jewish continuity is certainly not in danger.[2] Cofnas, for example, argues that

The anti-Jewish narrative says that liberal Jews are highly ethnocentric compared to other groups, particularly white gentiles. This claim is not supported by Jews having an intermarriage rate that, combined with low fertility, will lead the liberal Jewish population to nearly disappear in another generation or two.

Essentially, the argument made by Cofnas is that (American, liberal) Jews cannot be ethnocentric to a stronger than average degree because they are manifestly breeding themselves out of existence. The first issue here is that MacDonald’s thesis of the transformative effects of Jewish influence documented in CofC depends on showing that particular intellectual or political movements were dominated by individuals who identified as Jews and saw their activities as advancing Jewish interests; he notes that ethnic networking (a proxy for ethnocentrism) was highly characteristic of these movements. The percentage of intermarrying Jews in 2021 or any other period is completely irrelevant to his thesis.  Nor is it relevant to understanding ethnic commitments, including intermarriage, of the activist Jewish community at different historical periods which is what a serious account of Jewish influence would focus on. As Endelman has pointed out, in many contexts and periods, Jews have often witnessed “drift and defection” from Judaism and the Jewish community by sections of the community. Over historical time, however, it’s clear that this has not harmed Jewish continuity and may actually, by shedding less committed elements, have strengthened the ethnocentric core of the group.

Complaints about intermarriage aside, the overall demographic picture of the Jewish Diaspora is one of growth. With Israel acting as a magnet for the most ethnocentric Jews, it should come as no surprise that Pew estimate that “over the next few decades, Israel [where intermarriage is essentially outlawed] is projected to pass the United States and become, by a sizable margin, the country with the largest Jewish population.” Attempting to discuss Jewish intermarriage in the context of ethnocentrism without taking into consideration the Jews as a whole, or the role of Israel, is simply disingenuous. As MacDonald noted in his first reply to Cofnas, a major goal of Zionism during the early decades of the twentieth century was to prevent intermarriage and assimilation (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 5), a program which has indeed been successful in Israel (e.g., Pew Research, 2016). Shulamit Reinharz, for example, in Jewish Intermarriage around the World, has stressed that, in the context of Jewish intermarriage, “the growth of Israeli society constitutes a significant factor in recreating a Jewish ‘ethnic core’ characterised by very low frequencies of intermarriage.”[3] And whatever American Reform Jews think about marriage, they constitute only around three percent of Israeli Jews.

Crucially, however, Pew insist that at least 37% of the world’s Jews will continue to live in North America — hardly the near disappearance suggested by Cofnas. In fact, Pew predict only a modest decline for Jews in America: “both in total number (from 6 million in 2010 to 5.9 million in 2050) and as a share of the region’s population (from 1.8% in 2010 to 1.4% in 2050).” For the sake of comparison, the White share of the youth population in America has declined 70% since 1990. Although not quite at replacement level, the fertility level of Jewish women in America (1.9), remains higher than that of White women (1.6). Pew note that even in Europe, “Jews have a slightly higher fertility rate than Europeans overall.” The correct way of looking at the bigger picture of Jewish intermarriage may be that while ethnic drift and miscegenation are becoming increasingly common for all ethnic groups under the weight of globalism, Jews have been remarkably insulated from its most damaging effects through cultural cohesion, the nature of Jewish identity, and their possession of an ethnically defined nation-state.

It should be added that intermarriage eludes simple or generalized interpretations, such as that offered by Cofnas. At the risk of falling into Cofnas’s habit of using anecdotes, one need only look at the intermarriage of Sacha Baron-Cohen and Isla Fisher on the one hand, and that of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan on the other. In the first instance, Baron-Cohen is a strongly identified Orthodox and Zionist Jew, who married an ethnically European woman. Fisher, however, was made to undergo the full conversion process, with the understanding that any children in the marriage would be raised as strongly identified Jews. Baron-Cohen continues to maintain an active role with the ADL, and to lobby for speech laws and the censorship of technology. One of the ADL and Baron-Cohen’s frequent targets is Mark Zuckerberg, who is presumably viewed as a weakly identified Jew because of his Reform upbringing and his marriage to an Asian Buddhist who did not undergo a conversion process, as well as Zuckerberg’s perceived laxity in suppressing pro-White content on Facebook and associated platforms. The point here is that intermarriage can have very different real-life expressions, ranging from a relaxing of Jewish identification to the continuity of very intensive Jewish identity. It is also worth pointing out that in both cases, Jewish males have taken non-Jewish wives, a direction that dominates the overall picture of intermarriage in North America.[4] Since Jewish identity is traditionally perceived as following the maternal line, it should be clear that this tendency is yet another factor mitigating intermarriage somewhat from the perspective of Jewish ethnocentrism.

It goes without saying that Cofnas omits almost every other aspect of ethnocentrism, perhaps most important of which is a sense of ethnic pride. Pew, for example, found that “94% of U.S. Jews (including 97% of Jews by religion and 83% of Jews of no religion) say they are proud to be Jewish. Three-quarters of U.S. Jews (including 85% of Jews by religion and 42% of Jews of no religion) also say they have “a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people.””

To conclude this section, we can only disagree with Cofnas’s assertion that “the evidence suggests Jews are not particularly ethnocentric,” because his evidence is either thin or non-existent. Rather, we must agree with Phillips, and MacDonald for that matter, that “single ancestry Jews are surprisingly endogamous compared with other groups in America,” and, furthermore, that Jews are surprisingly endogamous and ethnocentric compared with other groups globally.


Cofnas’s rhetorical footing on the issue of liberal Jewish hypocrisy seems equally unsteady. It’s worth reflecting first on the fact that Gallup have identified American Jews as “the most liberal of any major religious group we identify.” As discussed above, American Jews have been dominant in leading the cause of multiculturalism and immigration, abortion, and gay marriage. By contrast, however, these same Jews have overwhelmingly supported Israel, despite its oppressive actions against minorities, and also despite immigration policies that uniquely favor the migration of those with Jewish ancestry. Gallup point out that

The available data shows that about nine in 10 American Jews are more sympathetic to Israel than to the Palestinians. (That compares to about six in 10 of all Americans.) Additionally, 95% of Jews have favorable views of Israel, while 10% have favorable views of the Palestinian Authority — significantly more pro-Israel than the overall national averages of 71% favorable views of Israel and 21% favorable views of the Palestinian Authority. Research conducted in 2013 by Pew showed that 76% of Jews (identified by religion) said they were at least somewhat emotionally attached to Israel. In addition, almost half said that caring about Israel is an essential part of being Jewish (with most of the rest saying it is important although not essential) and nearly half reported that they had personally traveled to Israel.

Cofnas makes much of literature produced by the Union for Reform Judaism, and claims that it is working to “diversify” the Jewish community. As one example he quotes the following:

We’re a global, multiracial people that’s growing more racially and ethnically diverse through interfaith and interracial marriage, conversion, and adoption. In the United States, February is Black History Month. It is one among many opportunities for us to acknowledge and reflect upon our collective racial and ethnic diversity, and learn more about the experiences of Jews of African-American descent in particular.

The problem, of course, is that this is simply rhetoric, and Jews of all denominations have for centuries tried to present themselves as a religious rather than an ethnic group. The simple fact of the matter is that Jews promoting diversity in the United States, or Europe, will first and foremost have their greatest impact in that locality. Quite frankly, what they have to say about Israel, whether sincere or not, is of little consequence to Israel, and is unlikely to have serious effects there. This is especially the case when their financial, political, and moral support for Israel remains, for all intents and purposes, unconditional. To put it another way, Jews universally promoting diversity, so long as they are in a society they want to see ethically diluted and not Israel itself; this will produce more gains than losses.

Cofnas disputing the issue of hypocrisy, highlights some American Jewish support the case of the Ethiopian Jews in Israel, and refuses MacDonald’s contention that since the Ethiopians “constitute only a little over 2% of the population … [they] may not be seen as a serious threat to the demographic status quo.” Cofnas insists that this would be like “a Jewish organization want[ing] to bring seven million Ethiopians to the US. … Seven million constitute only a little over 2% of the US population, and thus may not be seen as a serious threat to the demographic status quo.” Certainly, if looked at purely in terms of percentages, one could make some kind of argument of equivalence, though it’s clear that in any context an influx of seven million and an influx of around 125,000 are still significantly different in short-term and long-term consequences. Even aside from that, however, Cofnas ignores certain crucial aspects of the issue under discussion. First, American Jews have not been as supportive of Ethiopian Jews as Cofnas suggests [it’s also worth remarking he produces no numerical or polling data at all on this subject]. The Jerusulem Post, for example, has pointed out that “the 14,000 Beta Israel remaining in Ethiopia … have not received one penny from Jewish Federations to help them resist the onslaught of the coronavirus. Not one penny. And it is impossible to ignore race as a factor.” The piece continues,

The Jewish Federations has not had a serious discussion of the community at its general assembly for the past 10 years. The Conference of Presidents travels all over the world on its yearly jaunts; it has yet to visit Ethiopia. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, American Jewry’s institutional relief organization, says it runs programs for Jews in 70 countries. But there is not a single dollar, not a single program for the Beta Israel, even though JDC provides assistance in Ethiopia to non-Jews. (By way of contrast, the Jewish Agency recently donated funds to for anti-coronavirus activities in Ethiopia). No official representative of the major Orthodox, Conservative or Reform communal or rabbinic organization organizations visit Ethiopia over the past two decades, a stunning contrast to the many rabbinic figures who visited Soviet Jews in the 70s and 80s.

Again, the point here is that, rhetoric aside, in terms of tangible action American Jews are intensely involved in lobbying for migration and liberalism within the United States (“a nation of immigrants!”) where Jewish activism has played a major role in around 65 million immigrants having arrived since the 1965 immigration law— while being completely unconcerned with ensuring the same “values” are embraced in Israel (“the Jewish nation!”). American Jews overwhelmingly support Israel even when it embodies those things most hated when expressed among Whites (ethnocentrism, patriotism, militarism, protectionism, and pride of history and identity). American Jews are not dominating migration bodies dedicated to opening Israel’s borders to refugees. American Jews are not creating organizations everywhere with the goal of disarming Israel’s citizens. American Jews are not pressuring tech giants to restrict the ability of Israelis to speak their minds freely. All of these actions are taking place in America, and as long as this disparity in action remains in place, not even the most flowing rhetoric will disguise the hypocrisy of America’s ‘liberal’ Jews.


We come finally to the issue of multiculturalism and liberalism. Cofnas insists that “the West was on a liberal trajectory with or without Jews, and Jews were not responsible for mass immigration to the US.” He denies that “Jews were a “necessary condition” (to use MacDonald’s phrase) for the triumph of liberal multiculturalism.” Rather, Cofnas insists that “many of the ideas [MacDonald] attributes to Jews were given their modern formulation by Rousseau and other gentile intellectuals in the eighteenth century, and first implemented in the (gentile-led) French Revolution. The origins of race denial, blank slatism, Noble Savage envy, and socialism go back centuries or even millennia.”

This represents a general confusion of concepts and a kind of counter-factual history. A “liberal trajectory” need not have resulted in mass immigration or mass demographic decline on one’s own nation, for example. The Enlightenment may have given rise to hostility towards monarchy, but it also gave rise to race science. The modern multicultural state that we see today cannot be neatly traced to the ideas of Rousseau, or to socialism; indeed, any serious analysis of the trajectory of American liberalism must deal with the period of ethnic defense from around 1890 through the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws (the latter law passed over President Truman’s veto by well over two-thirds of Congress) (pp. 291–304 of MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition). And it must evaluate the effectiveness of the intense Jewish opposition to those laws and the role of Jewish activism in enacting the 1965 law.

Rather, there have been successive legal as well as philosophical changes across the West over a number of centuries which have cumulatively resulted in the widening of the concept of citizenship, the end point of which has been the emergence of the bureaucratic state in which belonging is dictated solely by a passport. The historical record is fairly clear that in terms of these legal changes, Jews have very often been the cause or instigators of legal changes designed to introduce “tolerance” into the law. Following the French Revolution, for example, the most radical change in the make-up of French society was the admission of the Jews to French citizenship. This admission followed a period of assessment during which a ‘Grand Sanhedrin’ of Jewish notables gave dishonest answers to Napoleon’s chief advisor.[5] Overnight, what constituted a “Frenchman” suddenly changed, with repercussions first throughout the French Empire and, later, through Europe and America.

Similarly, in relation to nineteenth-century Britain, Dennis Grube remarks on “how strongly the conservative British establishment clung on to what it considered to be the Protestant national character. To make British laws, one had to be British in more than citizenship.”[6] This changed fundamentally with Lionel de Rothschild’s attempt to enter Parliament in 1847. When the attempt created a national debate about the desirability of Jews having full legal rights on a par with Englishmen, the Anglo-Jewish elite threw its weight and influence behind “Dissenter” groups and lobbied for “Catholic Emancipation” in an effort to broaden the concept of citizenship enough that “Jewish Emancipation” would be brought a step closer. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), often held up as the first “assimilated” European Jew, was one of the first true open borders advocates when he asked, “For how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?”[7] But it was the method of the Anglo-Jewish elite in the middle of the nineteenth century that began in earnest a pattern of Jewish support for what would become known as “multiculturalism” in order to smooth their own access to influence and to improve their feeling of security. Nowhere is this more starkly apparent than in the case of the British-Jewish politician Barbara Roche, “a descendant of East End Jews,” described by Douglas Murray in The Strange Death of Europe as a chief architect of multicultural Britain under Tony Blair. Roche dismissed all her critics as “racists,” “criticised colleagues for being too white,” and “believed that immigration was only ever a good thing.” After ten years of her highly influential immigration reforms, Roche beamed to an interviewer: “I love the diversity of London. I just feel comfortable.”

Kevin MacDonald’s work has clearly demonstrated that Jewish groups organized, funded and performed most of the work aimed at combating America’s 1924 and 1952 immigration laws, toppling them finally in 1965. Brenton Sanderson has shown that Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism were pivotal in ending the White Australia policy — a policy change opposed by the vast majority of the Australian population. Jews were conspicuous in the dramatic changes in Britain’s citizenship, race, and speech laws from the 1950s to the 1980s. A Jewish Minister for Justice transformed Ireland’s citizenship process, opening the country up to Africans and Pakistanis. Today, Jews dominate the mass migration NGO scene, demonstrably holding executive roles at the International Rescue Committee, International Refugee Assistance Project, the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Immigration Justice Center, Equal Justice Works, The Immigrant Defense Project, National Immigration Law Center, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, the Asylum Advocacy Project, Refugee Council USA, the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, The Immigrant Learning Center, the Open Avenues Foundation, the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project, Central American Legal Assistance, Halifax Refugee Clinic, and the UK Refugee Law Initiative. The migration policy advisor for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (Sara Feldman) is not a Catholic, but a Jewish woman.

The modern Open Borders movement is demonstrably Jewish in leadership and origins, beginning in the early 2000s with the publication of British-Jewish intellectual Steve Cohen’s No One Is Illegal: Asylum and Immigration Control, Past and Present (2003). Cohen, who died in 2009, had by then worked for three decades as an immigration lawyer in Manchester, where he set up the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, and participated in Anti-Deportation Campaigns. He was a member of the International Marxist Group (IMG) from 1968 until the end of 1974, though he appears to have been very publicly engaged in Far Left politics until he was beaten unconscious by British Nationalists who broke up one of his meetings in 1976. Thereafter his public involvement appears to have lessened and took on a more reclusive aspect. Cohen was a member of the Jewish Socialist Group for most of his life, and he was a quintessential Jewish intellectual in that he was both prolific and intense, writing books, manifestos, and pamphlets about anti-Semitism, socialism, immigration, borders and the welfare state. In his 2003 No One Is Illegal manifesto Cohen asserted that immigration controls “are inherently racist in that they are based on the crudest of all nationalisms — namely the assertion that the British have a franchise on Britain.” Far from declining with the death of Steve Cohen, the Jewish prominence in the Open Borders movement has perhaps become even more acute in recent years. The range of theory underpinning the effort has also slightly diversified. George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan is the founder of and is the most visible North American figure calling for an end to immigration control. Caplan even wrote an article for TIME in which he argued that “instead of redoubling our efforts to curtail immigration, we should return to the historic American policy of open borders—admitting everyone eager to come build a better life for themselves.”

Did Cohen or Caplan ever advise the same things for Israel that they recommended for Britain and America? Not once.


Much more can be said about Nathan Cofnas’s errors, omissions, and distortions, but they all more or less follow the patterns outlined above. We should remember, of course, that Cofnas is an ethnocentric Jew engaged in the denial of ethnocentrism in an effort to defend his people. He claims, in his own way, to represent a kind of authentic ‘race realism.’ Like so many antecedents, however, he’s just a familiar fly in the ointment whose defense of his group ultimately boils down to blaming White oppression for the political peculiarities of his co-ethnics. As far as Jewish apologetics go, his work is far from the best I’ve encountered, and its repetitiveness is probably due more to an attempt to improve his publication count in the hopes of securing academic employment rather than genuine conviction. And what easier way to get published than bashing “anti-Jewish narratives” in an Israeli journal? I suppose we should congratulate him, though, on finally getting his doctorate. A newly minted Jewish PhD making his mark by condemning anti-Semitism — just what the world needs.

[1] Phillips, B.A. New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States. Cont Jewry 33, 103–119 (2013).

[2] See, for example, Sasson, T., Aronson, J.K., Chertok, F. et al. Millennial Children of Intermarriage: Religious Upbringing, Identification, and Behavior Among Children of Jewish and Non-Jewish Parents. Cont Jewry 37, 99–123 (2017).

[3] Sergio DellaPergola (ed), Jewish Intermarriage Around the World (Routledge, 2017).

[4] See, for example, Brym, R., & Lenton, R. (2020). Jewish Religious Intermarriage in Canada. Canadian Jewish Studies / Études Juives Canadiennes, 30, 67–82. See also, Sergio DellaPergola (ed), Jewish Intermarriage Around the World (Routledge, 2017).

[5] E. Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton University Press, 2001), p.89

[6] Grube, D. (2007), Religion, Power and Parliament: Rothschild and Bradlaugh Revisited. History, 92: 21-38. On this topic see also, Jarin, Alexander W. “Granting of Political and Human Rights: A Comparison of Jewish and Catholic Emancipation in the United Kingdom.” (2015); Wendehorst, Stephan, ed. The emancipation of Catholics, Jews and Protestants: minorities and the nation state in nineteenth-century Europe. Manchester University Press, 1999.

[7] M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367.

27 replies
    • Kris
      Kris says:

      As beautiful as it is savage. Maybe I do not do enough self-study regarding the influence and effects of Jews, but this series was eye-opening for me personally. Best described, I think, as a persuasive writing equivalent of the military strategy “defeat in detail” (with Dr. Joyce as clearly the prevailing general).

  1. Arthur
    Arthur says:

    I have not yet read through this article series but from the first glance it seems that this Cofnas character is a nutcase. While I think it is a good practice to defend one’s position from review of peers as you do in scientific articles. I think responding to such people draws your attention from things that matter and makes you spend intellectual energy on things that don’t.

    Perhaps this is the scheme of these people. Perhaps they are trolling to keep you away from serious subjects. There are a lot of things going on in the world and in the governance thereof right now. Things that cannot bear scrutiny of the kind that is presented in literature such as the Culture of Critique.

    • Theodore Huxtable
      Theodore Huxtable says:

      This is an epic takedown and it serves many purposes. First of all, it gives one of our best minds the opportunity
      to defend the work of another of our brightest minds.
      Also….as a corollary….we see clear evidence of the weakness of the jewish mind trying to defend the indefensible.
      AND….a great work (The CofC) gets attention….an added bonus.
      Big win for team white.

  2. Brenda Benthal-Levin
    Brenda Benthal-Levin says:

    It’s common knowledge that the Orthodox are the breeding arm of Jewry and they do NOT marry out.

    The very existence of Israel, as a country set apart for Jews, would seem to indicate that the small hat tribe has a very high level of ethnocentrism. And a cursory look at who runs the media, who’s at the top, who gets promoted, who actually RUNS the media conglomerates, is another obvious tell for Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism. What are the ADL, the SPLC, and AIPAC but organizations dedicated to the ethnic interests of Jews (and there are many THOUSANDS of similar well funded Jewish groups)

    But Chapter 7 of the CofC is the crowning glory, where KMAC dissected in tiny detail the massive and decades long effort by organized Jewry to open the borders of America to disenfranchise the white Christian people whose ancestors founded and built the country.
    KMAC starts at the turn of the century and tracks the Jewish lobby decade by decade, names the names, pores over the Congressional Record, to reveal the FACT that there were literally no other groups demanding third world immigration. Only well funded Jewish groups screeching that the white racists needed diversity and multiculturalism!
    The discovery of the facts regarding Jewish involvement in opening our borders brought about a change of attitude for Professor Macdonald….from having admiration of the Jews as a people… finally recognizing the unassailable fact that Jewish interests are in direct opposition to gentile interests.

    • JimB
      JimB says:

      “Frequently I was simply paralyzed. It was hard to know what to admire the most: their fluency or their artistry in lying. Gradually, I began to hate them.”

      *(Do I even need to name the author and the book?)

  3. Kevin Taylor
    Kevin Taylor says:

    How can you take Cofnas seriously when he makes the ridiculous claim that Jews are not ethnocentric?
    By every standard known to man, Jews are the single most ethnocentric group on earth. Koreans are ethnocentric
    but they exhibit nowhere near the Jews’ level of ingroup preference.
    Rather than make such silly arguments, Cofnas could claim that Jews are trying to make the world a better place
    and they see their work as a directive from God. Not that this argument is convincing either, but it would be a better argument because
    it’s not something that can be quantified. It’s entirely possible that some Jews fancy themselves as defenders of the weak and downtrodden or at least that’s a role they like to play. I think social justice is nonsense but it has a nice ring to it and many people,
    both Jew and gentile, buy into it.
    Of course, in the end, even if organized Jewry means well (and I don’t think they do) the result of their efforts is the total destruction
    of white Christian people.
    So, Cofnas has an impossible task because there really is no defense of the anti-white agenda orchestrated by organized Jewry.

  4. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Is Cofnas Jewish? Greg Johnson claimed on a recent podcast that Nathan Cofnas is not Jewish but ethnically Irish.

  5. bruno
    bruno says:

    The bottom info describes the meat and potatoes of EuroMan’s poison meal. It also sums up the enchilada side dish. I’ve heard it by American, Canadian, German, Magyar, Slavic and others for over half a century. Scholars who didn’t know one another sang the same song. Thus, to even suggest that it’s not true would be an absurdity.

    So, what to do? Scholarship is important. However, what is required is action. Becuz of monopoly media, corporatists and self-serving politicos, one thing is certain; mainly, without activists, front line and supporting troops, little potential can be achieved. For years I’ve xeroxed part of KMac’s work and sent such to several of Mother Europe’s neighborhoods. I’ve given his books to Soviet, Lithuanian and Polish political elite. Had I not had cardo problems (Bypass X6), Guilliam Barre Syndrom and other heath issues that include carcinoma, more would have been done. Those out there that believe in EuroMan need to reduce KMac’s labour into booklets and xerox his findings. Most or the work has to be reduced to simple terms and brief (due to the short cognitive reading ability of millenniums). People need to walk the walk.

    The problem, of course, is that this is simply rhetoric, and Jews of all denominations have for centuries tried to present themselves as a religious rather than an ethnic group. The simple fact of the matter is that Jews promoting diversity in the United States, or Europe, will first and foremost have their greatest impact in that locality. Quite frankly, what they have to say about Israel, whether sincere or not, is of little consequence to Israel, and is unlikely to have serious effects there. This is especially the case when their financial, political, and moral support for Israel remains, for all intents and purposes, unconditional. To put it another way, Jews universally promoting diversity, so long as they are in a society they want to see ethically diluted and not Israel itself; this will produce more gains than losses.

  6. Ricardo Duchesne
    Ricardo Duchesne says:

    Looks like Cofnas has no replies to Joyce’s devastating argument other than to tweet about “KMac’s dim-witted intellectual heir Andrew Joyce” and that Joyce has a “fake” PhD.

    The tone of Cofnas’s reaction to Joyce’s article bespeaks of someone who thinks the higher average IQ of his people permits him to imply that, since Joyce is White and he is a Jew, he has no reason to explain his claims. This arrogant attitude is particularly noticeable among Jews dealing with the irrefutable arguments of White identitarians. Meanwhile, Jews crave living in White created nations, studying in White created universities, and learning from all the disciplines originated by Whites. It is important to understand that Nations (and the greatest empires) were not created by academic nerds but heroic men like Napoleon, Garibaldi, Caesar, Francis Drake, Columbus and countless others without parallel in history. The greatest nationalities in history are almost 100% European: Germans, French, Greeks, Romans/Italians, Russians, British, Scandinavians…Can you find a more impressive list of leaders within a nationality (in continuous succession) than Cato the Elder, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, the Grachus brothers, Crassus, Caesar, Marc Anthony?

  7. John
    John says:

    Every ethnicity, every race has a right to their own homeland. Israel is the homeland of Jewish People. France is the homeland of French People. USA is the homeland of European Peoples. See America’s first Naturalization Act of 1790. With open borders from Europe to Australia, we European Peoples no longer have our own homelands as we r increasingly becoming a minority in each of our homeland. This is ethnic cleansing. We need to change policy in restoring our homelands once again. Becoming a minority is NOT inevitable, it is a government policy & we need to change that policy.

    • Brett Winslow
      Brett Winslow says:

      Whites are set to become minorities on every white nation on earth, and this is the direct result of jewish influence on immigration policies.
      Yes, it IS ethnic cleansing… is the socially engineered GENOCIDE of white Christian people worldwide.
      As you said, every people have a right to their own homeland. It is outrageous (and criminal) that jews have forced
      massive third world immigration in an effort to destroy all of Christendom.
      Besides horrible open borders and refugee policies, whites face discrimination in both work and school due to affirmative action promoted by jews. Our babies are aborted by the millions……jews push for abortion in every white nation. Our young men are addicted to porn and oxycontin…..guess who is behind this?
      Feminism ruined our women… wasn’t the Amish promoting it.
      Look seriously at any of our problems in the west, and if you dig just a little, you will surely find jewish influence in some form, monetary, intellectual, or otherwise.
      The most galling thing is jewish hypocrisy, the fact they push devastating policies on white nations while avoiding those same policies in Israel.

  8. Andrew Joyce
    Andrew Joyce says:

    A commenter earlier stated that Cofnas seemed like a “nutcase,” which is something I’m slowly coming to agree with. He seems emotionally uncontrolled.

    It does appear that I linked to the wrong site. I intended to link to the 2020 results, and had discounted Rathner due to lack of clear biographical information. There are no other Jews among elected NRA board members.

    Of course I’m fine with there being a handful of Jews on the NRA board because such numbers aren’t enough to rescue his default hypothesis. The disparity is too great, and Cofnas knows this which is why he’s stopped linking to my article and is instead playing to a small group of fans with screenshots from the comment section.

    It’s worth recapping Cofnas’s major errors, which he’s avoided mentioning to his own audience.

    He’s claimed MacDonald has omitted data, when the data is clearly in MacDonald’s text.

    He’s failed to test his own default hypothesis.

    His default hypothesis fails every test it’s subjected to.

    He relies exclusively on anecdotes, using a single 1994 conference to make the argument that Jews throughout “recent history” have been over-represented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.

    He’s claimed American Jews are interbreeding themselves out of existence, when professional demographers insist the Jews in America are marrying among their own at “surprising” levels compared to other groups.

    He says American Jews are approaching near disappearance when demographers show American Jews will experience only minimal decline in the context of global growth.

    He says American Jews aren’t hypocrites on race when their major organisations haven’t bothered with the Ethiopian Jews in decades.

    He claims Jews have no relationship with multiculturalism when Jews are clearly linked to the historical evolution of multicultural concepts of citizenship, and continue to be massively over-represented in Western refugee and migrant lobbies.

    Cofnas is an excellent example of his ethnic group, and a quintessential pseudo-scholar.

    Ah yes, but I attached an incorrect link. I guess that makes me dim-witted with a fake PhD. Whatever helps him sleep at night I suppose.

    • Captain John Charity Spring MA
      Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

      Check into the armed response units that colleges in Oxford maintain. Also query the fcat that almost every Jewish organization in the UK has armed guards at the lobby. Howard, Rifkin, Lawson, Brittan, Curry all squeezed public ownership of guns in the UK and privately made sure it was legally permissable for Jews to buy and use fully automatic firearms for personal and institutional protection. I mention the Old Estonians as they were the driving forces behind the late 80s and early 90s firearms restrictions on Britons.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        That would be Old Etonians. Estonians have problems of their own—not the least of them being finding fellow speakers of their Finno-Ugric native tongue—all of which tend to limit their interest in British restrictions on private ownership of firearms by the goyim.

        • Captain John Charity Spring MA
          Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

          It’s definitely the Old Estonians no mistake. You don’t know Harold Macmillan’s famous jab at Thatcher do you?

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Famous? With regard to anything having to do with Macmillan, a man for whom getting along with worthless socialists was paramount? Please check the size of your pond before continuing to croak of fame.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Sad and time-consuming to feel obliged to respond to their personal, untreated-sewage-based, so-called ” reasoning “. But also vital, in the old diplomatic sense, lest they believe we swallow their genetically engendered, superior ” intelligent ” crap.

      I have never encountered a Jew who could lay claim to the simple concept, and mathematical basis of Logic. Of course a gentile author here accused me of ” bad ” logic. Logic doesn’t come in ” bad “, good, size ten, striped or microwaveable.

  9. Barbara Thomas
    Barbara Thomas says:

    Jews have a direct link to multiculturalism via Horace Kallen, the father of cultural pluralism.
    If it’s bad for whites the Jews are for it.

  10. toop
    toop says:

    Another thing Cofnas says about multi-culturalism is “The origins of race denial,
    blank slatism, Noble Savage envy, and socialism go back centuries or even
    millennia (cf. Pinker 2002). But movements like the French Revolution, Christian
    abolitionism, the Social Gospel Movement, anarchism, early behaviorism, and
    French existentialism play no role in anti-Jewish pseudohistory.”

    As we know Pinker is not good at history. I researched the claim and I couldn’t
    find anything resembling modern blank slatism in any of these schools, other
    then French existentialism (Sartre psychologically identified as Jewish) and
    some strands of christian abolitionism, some of these like early behaviorism has
    strong hereditarian views (see psychologist like Ed Thorndike among many others), Anarchism gained race denialist beliefs due Jewish influence from
    people like rudolf rocker, which itself
    is a questionably Jewish movement. All the major figures in the Social gospel
    movement could be argued to be race realist or had stereotypical beliefs about
    black people and their are scholars who have noted their “racism” / race

    None of these schools were required readings in colleges across the countries
    for topics relating to racial differences. Boasians were.

    It is so obvious that Boasians were the ones who mainstreamed blank slatism A lot of the early scholary work defending race realism from the 60s
    noted this, highlighing how they were required reading in numerous colleges and
    took over anthropology as did the liberal pulitizer prize winning stanford historian Carl
    Degler who is cited in CofC and wrote a massive book on it (“in search of human nature”).

  11. Vagrant Rightist
    Vagrant Rightist says:

    I’ve followed this on and off since it began with Cofnas vs McDonald, but not in microscopic detail as I was satisfied early on Cofnas was not arguing in good faith.

    Dr Joyce has described Cofnas’s ‘default hypothesis’ – that Jews were involved in these intellectual movements merely because of their above-average IQ and urban environment.

    But an obvious point that has always struck me is that absent Jews and left to their own devices, would whites have been creating highly anti-white, highly deconstructive movements like the Frankfurt School and Psychoanalysis ?

    I don’t believe they would have.

    I also agree with some of the comments on these three excellent articles, that perhaps we’re offering facts and rebuttals to someone who just isn’t listening or even capable of hearing. Ricardo Duchense is correct when he says that for Cofnas simply being a Jew is enough to be right, everyone else is wrong.

  12. Aristo Boho
    Aristo Boho says:

    Dear Doctor Joyce,

    What more can I say but your three part essay is excellent! You annihilate Mister Nathan Cofnas’s null hypothesis, beyond an alternative one or a theory, but with a fact. Yet it leaves me with justified anger, and if I was a weak person, a state of depression. Especially today. The non-Jew is primarily at fault. They do nothing collectively to halt the destruction of their respective European cultures and buy into all of the pseudo-humanitarian crap that is spoon fed to them.Why? Apathy, ignorance, a lack of cultural-racial coherence, and most of all cowardice. God Bless, Aristo Boho

  13. Ludwig
    Ludwig says:

    Good work on all three parts.
    After reading Cofnas’ initial piece and K Mac’s reply I came to the conclusion that Cofnas was offering the sort of apologia that Wikipedia and the other usual internet “fact checkers” make.

    It’s a simple matter of making their weak arguments as if those arguments were overwhelmingly powerful. Then relying on the internet network of jewish apologists repeating them as if they are self-evidently right. Cofnas is now promoted as the one who debunked KMac – the anti-semite and its back business as usual.

    This is the reason such work by Andrew Joyce is so necessary.

Comments are closed.