Featured Articles

“White Identity Politics” by Greg Johnson, Part 2 of 2

Go to Part 1.

Johnson’s Suggestions

Johnson has been very involved with the European scene, making many trips there to address conferences (two of the essays in this compilation are from lectures he made in Sweden and Lithuania and another is one he was prevented from delivering in Norway) and meet with European identitarian activists, perhaps more than any other prominent figure in the American White identitarian movement. It would not surprise me if he has more contacts in Europe than in the U.S. This provides an international perspective on our racial situation that is of critical importance for our movement but is too often ignored.

In the essay “Uppity White Folks & How to Reach Them,” originally a lecture delivered in Sweden, Johnson makes the important observation about democracy that “[t]he far-sighted few are outvoted by the short-sighted many. … So one of the problems for us is how to explain White Nationalism to short-sighted people. People who only think a year of two ahead.” (p. 104)

The project that I want to work on now is how to connect present-day political concerns with radical, fundamental, and long-term thinking about white extinction, white genocide, and how to create white homelands. The problems that we fear and the solutions we propose will happen in the far future. How do we relate to people as they are right now, especially short-sighted people who only think a couple of years down the road? (p. 106)

The most revolutionary thing that Donald Trump did in 2015 … is that he broke … [the] gentlemen’s agreement not to compete on immigration and globalization. … He chose to compete on those issues, and therefore he had to fight a two-front war against the Democratic Party and his own party, to get the presidency. That was revolutionary, because it showed that there are large numbers of people—sixty-plus million people in the United States—who really would vote for a nationalist candidate, a candidate who had an America-first foreign policy, was anti-globalization, and was anti-immigration. That was terrifying to the establishment. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement. He broke the political cartel that’s been in place since the Second World War. (pp. 111–112)

I would add that the 2015 revelation of broad White support for implicitly pro-White positions, especially on immigration, was as pleasant a surprise for me as it was a terrifying surprise for the establishment. This was not only revealed by the response of the Republican party’s base to the Trump candidacy, but also by a study released that year showing 55 percent of White survey respondents (38.2 percent of the total sample) supported stopping illegal immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, and greatly reducing or halting legal immigration.[1] Such a response is as radically pro-White as the questions on any survey ever allow, and only a very few allow this much. These were among a number of indicators of a wave of White popular sentiment that the Trump campaign rode to victory but did not create.

Johnson defines his “uppity white folks” as

a large and growing category in the middle. This is the category of people that the Republican Party doesn’t want to touch explicitly. But again, between 84% and 77% of white Americans believe that it would be okay for whites to organize to protect their group interests. They’re not necessarily envisioning White Nationalism, a white ethnostate, or an end to multiculturalism. But as long as there is multiculturalism, they’re damn certain that whites have to take their own side in the ethnic conflicts that exist in multicultural societies. A very large number of people believe that. But the Republican Party will not appeal to them. They simply will not appeal explicitly to white interests, but very large numbers of whites believe that it would be perfectly legitimate if they did so. … They’re not ready to be White Nationalists, and yet they are ready for white identity politics within the context of a multiracial, multicultural society. That’s a huge number of people. That is where our movement can expect its growth. Thus the great task that faces us is to get inside the heads of those people. (pp. 116–117)

I agree that this is the constituency where our movement can expect the greatest numerical growth, but we should not surrender the primary purpose of our movement to do so by abandoning its raison d’être to accommodate the presently ill-informed ideas, beliefs and preferences of the majority of our people. Our primary task, as Johnson says, is to “get inside the heads” of these people, to educate and inform them and thus move them over to our position—the position of their racial interests, the position advocating the continued existence of their race and its control of its own existence, and not for us to win them by moving over to or compromising with their racially incoherent, insufficient, and ultimately even harmful positions. That would be a possibly fatal defeat for our race, not a victory.


In a subsequent essay, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” the only one written specifically for this volume, Johnson again steps forward on the path to victory, but then he again takes some steps backward.

White people are ready for white identity politics. This is clear from the rise of populist and nationalist politicians and parties around the white world. … [S]ignificant numbers of white Americans have positive racial identities, believe the current system is anti-white, reject white guilt, and think it is appropriate for whites to politically organize to protect their collective interests.

This … means that the metapolitical conditions for white identity politics are crystallizing. Center-Right parties, however, refuse to cross the line into explicit white identity politics because they are part of a globalist elite that regards white nationalism and populism as the top threats to their hegemony. But that is also encouraging news, for it is an opportunity for genuine white identitarians to establish themselves as a political force. … But the vast majority of people who are ready for white identity politics are not ready for full-on White Nationalism. … I use the phrase “uppity white folks” for the people who are ready for white identity politics but not (yet) ready for White Nationalism. … If you don’t aim at a white ethnostate, then you are committed to some form of multiculturalism. So you need to make it work for you. (pp. 137–138)

This backstepping to accommodate what he perceives as the limit to which Whites are now willing to go was heralded in this passage in the Introduction

“The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” … outlines a policy agenda to appeal to the vast constituency of what I call “uppity white folks” who think that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral, but who are not quite ready for full white ethnonationalism. (p. 5)

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

He describes his “uppity white folks,” as “not quite ready” or “not yet ready for White Nationalism.” (p. 5 and p. 138 quotes above) The “yet” and “not quite” are important. They imply Johnson believes that in time, when they are better educated and informed on the racial situation and alternatives, they would be ready for 100% White Nationalism, as they appear to already be at least borderline ready for the 90% variety. In other words, their preferences are a moving target, based on levels of consciousness and situational awareness that are subject to modification and change with additional education and information. Providing that education and information, based on facts, a powerful sense of morality, and ideas, is our basic task—the winning of the hearts and minds of our people that is the essence of metapolitics. Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism. He does not consider that a little more information and education on the vitally important differences between these two options might move most, or enough, of these folks over to the preservationally-sufficient position. Sometimes holding out a little longer for a little more makes a huge difference.

To make multiculturalism work for the founding population, they need to assert their special privileges as the founding stock and resist the demographic and cultural erosion of their status. … An American identitarian movement should make three basic demands.

First, the American state must halt and reverse the demographic decline of Americans in America. And by “Americans” we all understand white Americans, the founding stock of the country. In 1965, when America opened its doors to non-white immigration, it was 90% white. Today, the white population is barely over 60%. Because of non-white immigration, low white American fertility, and high non-white fertility, with each passing year, those numbers get worse for white Americans.

American identitarians should demand that, each year, the white American percentage of the American population be a bit larger than the year before. This would entail social and political programs directed specifically to the demographic benefit of white Americans and not other groups.

For instance, the American state would reduce the immigration of non-whites and increase their emigration (for instance by repatriating refugees and reunifying immigrant families in their homelands). It would also reduce incentives for white Americans to emigrate. If white American birthrates are below those of non-white populations, the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates.

Once such policies are in place, the creeping decline of America will be replaced with a creeping renewal. It took half a century to make America into a multicultural dystopia. It might take half a century to fix it. In the meantime, Americans can go about their business as usual, but with the optimism that comes from knowing that their progeny have a bright future ahead, not decline and extinction. (pp. 140–141)

How credible is this half-century program of “creeping renewal?” Can we have enough confidence in it to stake the future survival of our race on it? It raises many questions that need credible answers. First, how will the demographic decline of Whites be halted and reversed? As the plan outlined here involves the gradual demographic replacement of non-Whites by Whites rather than some form of separation or “divorce,” as Johnson has advocated elsewhere, halting and reversing this decline is obviously required for the plan to work. It’s one thing to say “the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates” but in actual practice birthrates have proved to be remarkably unresponsive to government action, even when the means used involved a degree of regimentation and compulsion far beyond what White Americans would tolerate. Second, how will the demographic increase of non-Whites be halted and reversed? It would not be enough to “reduce the immigration of non-whites,” nor even to totally halt their immigration, as projections consistently show very substantial non-white increases even with zero immigration. There is no mention of programs to specifically decrease non-white birthrates, which, to be effective, would have to be truly draconian. Third, how will racial intermixture, which decreases the number of whites while increasing the number of non-whites, be prevented. There is no mention of a program to do this, which, to be effective, would have to involve a degree of racial segregation far stricter than that of the “Jim Crow” era, or the apartheid system in South Africa, again requiring severe social regimentation. Even then, it would seem any measures short of mass non-White sterilization could not accomplish a restoration of the 1965 racial status quo ante in “half a century.”

Such measures, of course, would qualify as genocidal under the United Nations’ definition. Also, in order for such measures to be implemented, explicitly pro-White forces would first have to be in total, even totalitarian, control, as their effectiveness would require near zero noncompliance. And if pro-Whites were in such total control, they could implement any solution they wished, including a total racial separation by partition of the national territory into separate White and non-White nations that could be completed in less than a decade without genocidal measures (e.g., restricting non-White reproduction). It would not require programs to decrease the numbers of non-Whites, just their movement or relocation to the territory allotted to their new country by the partition.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?

Leaving room for non-White “mail-order” brides in the supposedly 90% White nation would logically also include all non-White spouses or partners of Whites, and all of their half-White children, which could number as many as 15 million born in the last fifty years, unless there is some persuasive reason for including foreign non-White spouses and their children but not American ones. Including “the descendants of slaves” would add over 40 million Blacks. “Hard-luck groups like refugees” would also number many millions of  non-Whites. Sounds like the goal of even 90% White Nationalism has already been abandoned with just the turn of a page as the circa 200 million Whites are now still tied to somewhere over 60 million non-Whites. Just like with Tar-Baby, it’s hard to break free.

Second, leaving some space for all existing outsider groups would reduce resistance among such populations.

Intelligent non-whites … would resist white identity politics if no provision were made for their kind in the future. (p. 142)

Johnson seems to be trying to attract non-White support at the expense of alienating White support, by accommodating less-than-vital non-White interests at the cost of vital White interests. Wasn’t that one of Trump’s bad moves with his “platinum plan?” To achieve pro-White ends, it would seem advisable to focus on maximizing White support—the only support we can rely on when there is a conflict of racial interests, which there will be in abundance, as Johnson has amply shown. Pandering to non-Whites for their support is self-defeating for it will come at too high a price, sacrificing White interests, and even endangering our racial existence, in an attempt to accommodate and curry favor with non-Whites to reduce their opposition. To paraphrase Johnson’s own words from page 67 quoted above, “There is no moral imperative to destroy our race to accommodate other races.” It should be accepted as a given that non-Whites of all types will totally oppose a partition of the country into a White nation and one or more non-White nations as they want all of the homelands that were once ours, not just a part of them. To hope non-Whites might be allies in a partition is to chase a mirage. We cannot serve two masters. We cannot save the White race and restore its possession of its homelands and also give non-Whites what they want—possession and control of those same homelands. Our one and only natural constituency is Whites. Winning their support is the decisive battle, starting with those who already possess a fair degree of situational awareness and want their race to be saved. The others will need varying degrees of “consciousness raising,” and that is our task. The non-Whites will not help us. They are and will remain our most determined opponents for the simple reason that our goals of racial preservation and independence are contrary to their racial group interests of subjugating us and dispossessing us of our country and our existence.

Multiculturalism is just the white majority being gaslighted into a long, drawn-out suicide. (p. 143)

Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?

This kind of policy seems fair to all parties. Majorities get their homelands back … and historically established minority groups have a place as well.  (p. 143)

Would somehow reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population, or in the U.S. from 130 million to circa 20 million, really give us back our homelands? Did the English still have their homeland in 1968 when non-Whites were still less than 5% of the population and Enoch Powell gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech to warn their presence was fraught with danger? Did White Americans have a racial homeland when Wilmot Robertson was writing The Dispossessed Majority in Johnson’s supposed racial halcyon age of the 1960s? If not, as my own teenage-self believed at the time, then reducing the non-White presence to 1960s U.S. levels, or even to the less than 5% of 1968 Britain, would not constitute getting our homelands back.

Johnson does not define who the “historically established minority groups” are, and does not say what their “place” would be, but even if they only include “the descendants of slaves” referred to above, then 90% or even 80% White Nationalism would already be a lost goal.

I admit to some confusion about how Johnson proposes to reach his goal of a 90% White country. The quotes from pages 140–141 propose reversing demographic trends to gradually increase the White population and decrease the non-White population over fifty years or more. Is this his method to achieve 90% White Nationalism, to reduce the current non-White population of 130 million plus to circa 20 million? The only credible way to do this in anything close to fifty years would require the draconian and even genocidal measure of mass non-White sterilization. But in the quotes from pages 142–144 he seems to indicate his 90% White goal would be achieved by a territorial racial separation or partition of the nation’s territory, which would involve the removal, presumably into the territory allotted to their own non-White country or countries, of ~110 million of the 130 million non-Whites.

Ninety-percent White Nationalism can even deliver a reasonable facsimile of 100% White Nationalism. The ethnostate is the idea of a racially and culturally homogeneous homeland for a particular people. But how homogeneous is homogeneity? … I distinguish three senses of the term: 

Strict homogeneity—meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all

De facto homogeneity—meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society

Normative homogeneity—meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the dominant group. (p. 144)

Wilmot Robertson, who coined the term ethnostate, stated that “The basic sine qua non of an ethnostate, the prop on which it succeeds or fails, is racial and cultural homogeneity.”[2] He did not divide homogeneity into different senses, but clearly meant it in the standard sense of “having a uniform structure or composition throughout,” corresponding to Johnson’s “strict” sense, as did Rudyard Kipling’s references to being of “one sheaf” and “one vine” in his poem “The Stranger.” Johnson seems to be stretching, and so diluting, the standard definition and concept of homogeneity to include two additional “senses” or types that allow him to claim his suggestion is a form of homogeneity. But in the biological and genetic terms of racial preservationism racial homogeneity is synonymous with monoracialism, and any degree of multiracialism recognizable as such would not qualify.

Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. (p. 144)

This last assertion turns the assumption already made on page 5 and pages 137–138 (quoted above), that his targeted “uppity white folks” constituency is “not yet ready” or “not quite ready” for full White ethnonationalism, or a totally White country, into an absolute and permanent rejection of it. This is important because Johnson bases his proposed solution of 90% White Nationalism on this assumption, which I have not previously encountered, causing me to wonder what its source might be, or if it is original to him. But is this assumption correct? Is there a vast constituency of the White electorate, whose will we cannot alter and thus must be accommodated as determinative, who would support reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population but not less than that, and if so, why? Is it because they have been so indoctrinated with anti-White ideology, values and morality that they believe an all-White society is immoral and evil? That the racially creative and preserving condition our ancestors evolved in and lived in for uncounted millennia until modern times and in their European homelands until the last century is immoral and evil? Must we accept that a society has to be at least 10% non-White as the minimal standard for the threshold of multiracialism in order to be morally acceptable? To acquiesce to this is to recognize this level of multiracialism as morally acceptable when our most important metapolitical task is to instill in Whites the conviction that any kind or degree of multiracialism is contrary to the fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, therefore anti-White, and thus immoral and evil. Those Whites who support multiracialism in any degree that qualifies as such are denying the independence of their race and endangering its continued existence. It is our job to make them see this.

Actually, we do not really know what the great majority of populist or Trump-supporting Whites think on this subject, and therefore whether Johnson’s assumption is anywhere near correct. Polls and surveys do not ask anything like the questions that would provide an answer. This is probably just as well because the general public, and even many White Identitarians, are very poorly informed about both the realities of the racial problem and the possible alternatives or solutions to it, with the most common solutions advanced by pro-Whites advocating giving up on America, surrendering the greater part of it and its White population to the non-Whites, and putting their White ethnostate and its residents in very desperate circumstances. This is like the English giving up on England and surrendering it to the non-Whites, or the French, Germans and Swedes giving up on France, Germany and Sweden and surrendering them to the non-Whites. Fortunately, European Identitarians are not yet ready to surrender their countries. I wish the same could be said for the White identitarians in America.

I think this all comes down to a matter of moral and intellectual leadership. The primary task of racial metapolitics should be to provide that leadership, not abdicate it. Our people have been misled and taught wrong. They have essentially followed the path of error since 1619. Our task is to teach them right and lead them on the correct path. It would be a failure of leadership to accept and accommodate their erroneous beliefs rather than correct them.

Some of the most vocal opponents of 90% White Nationalism will be advocates of the 100% variety. The poison pill for them is the Jewish question, for Jews are long- established minorities in practically every white society. Jews are the leading proponents of multiculturalism and race-replacement immigration. If these policies are rejected, most Jews will feel uncomfortable. Many might even emigrate. But some might remain among the 10%. That possibility might reduce Jewish opposition to 90% White Nationalism, but it will guarantee the opposition of hard-core anti-Semites. Such opposition might, however, improve the overall political prospects of 90% White Nationalism. (p. 145)

The rather offhand remarks in this paragraph are the only mention of Jews and anti-Semitism in the book, and as an “advocate of the 100% variety” of White preservation, separation and independence, or the 100% White solution to our racial problem, which I would regard as essential to qualify as “hard-core” pro-White, I think they should be examined. First, is anti-Semitism, as defined and used in the mainstream culture, a valid concept, or is it merely a ploy to advantage Jews and shield them from criticism? Johnson doesn’t define what he means by “hard-core anti-Semites,” but the context indicates he means those who want to be totally separate and free from Jewish control and power, which as a practical matter requires effective separation from Jews themselves. Second, Jews have been the primary causative agents of multiracialism, non-White immigration, and our ongoing subjugation, dispossession, and replacement. All the evidence of history, and especially of the last century as Jews have ascended to hegemony and played the leading role in promoting, guiding and enforcing the causes of our racial destruction, as Johnson himself admits in this paragraph, proves that White independence, or control of its own existence, requires that Jews be removed beyond the reach of power or influence, just as racial preservation requires that Blacks and other non-Whites, to quote Thomas Jefferson, “be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” Simply put, Jews and other non-Whites (i.e., non-Europeans) are in an adversarial relationship with the White “Founding Stock” population. So why advocate a solution that would keep millions of such racial adversaries in our country?

If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it. To assume the proportion of non-Whites could be kept at 10% and intermixture prevented is to assume the racial situation could be held in a stable and permanent state of stasis, which many thought was the racial situation in the U.S. through the 1950s. But the racial revolution of the 1960s made it clear that the true racial situation was an unstable state of suspension, a temporary prevention or delay of a major change in the situation that can never be permanent. A similar transformation occurred in South Africa after the assassination of Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd in 1966, when his “purist” vision of “Grand Apartheid,” in which “vertical” or total racial separation would be accomplished by the division of South Africa into multiple ethnostates, was effectively scuttled by the delaying and temporizing tactics of the usual anti-White elements, whose supposedly permanent policies of “petty apartheid” stasis proved to be only a temporary suspension when they were undone by the revolutionary election of 1994.

Our proposed solutions are a very important matter which should be given careful consideration for at least three reasons. First, our solution, the alternative we offer, along with our goal and our motive, is what defines us. If we do not define it ourselves then we fail to define ourselves, and by our default we allow our opponents to define us without challenge—most probably to our detriment. Second, our solution, if successfully presented as necessary, effective and moral, and certainly much preferable to our present situation, should help attract support which would be lost if potential supporters were only offered a leap into the unseen and unknown. Third, if we do succeed in gaining control and implementing our solution, it will have a major effect on our racial situation for many, perhaps all, the generations to come. So we should be careful what we wish for, and be sure to get it right, for it could be permanent, meaning we should only advocate solutions that we want to be permanent, which would exclude solutions that create a racial situation that is in a state of suspension.

In my view a well-considered solution should be sufficient, credible and acceptable. The first condition means sufficient to achieve its purpose and motive. My purpose and motive is White racial preservation, independence and security, and I judge or measure the effectiveness of solution proposals by this triple standard. Preservation means the continued existence of the whole of our race, complete in all of its diverse parts, types and nations, and not only a small fraction of it. Independence means control of its own existence and freedom to serve its own interests, not subjugated to the will or subservient to the interests of another race. Security means the credible ability to defend the existence, independence and interests of our race against any threat or danger, whether near or far, in all of its homelands in every part of the globe. As in every age, this requires resources, population size, and military and economic power on a scale able to withstand and overcome the most powerful potential adversary.

In the final subsection titled “Medicare for All Plus Slurs” Johnson considers how to “put together a winning political coalition” to achieve the goals he has set out. (p. 145) For this he suggests that the White identitarian movement align itself with the populist agenda as a way to gain political support by “giving the people what they already want.” (p. 145) It also helps that the constituency that supports populist issues largely coincides with the constituency that is more supportive of implicitly white policies, such as opposition to non-white immigration. (p. 148) I believe that Johnson himself favors these policies, as do I, except I don’t share his enthusiasm for a welfare state so massive that it would consume all resources and incapacitate the military, and I have reservations about Medicare for all, as I have doubts about socialized medicine’s efficiency and its ability to sustain medical progress. I would, however, strongly advise against making any prior commitments for our future ethnostate to any ideological or political agendas or movements other than the racial agenda of preservation and independence, which we should focus on as its primary and singularly essential purpose—in short, an ideologically minimalist approach, to go in clean with as little baggage as possible. This would limit our pre-ethnostate determinations to the bare necessities, including the demarcation of the ethnostate’s racial and territorial boundaries, and guidelines for the methods and means of conducting the separation, but not much else. Once the ethnostate is achieved the newly all-White citizenry should not be bound by prior commitments that would limit their sovereign prerogative to choose their own social, economic and political policies. Whether they choose a largely populist agenda, or something else, the essential point is the choice should be theirs to make.

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

[1] Richard McCulloch, “White Racial Interests and the Trump Candidacy,” The Occidental Quarterly 16, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 21–54, 41.

[2] Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1992), 16.


“White Identity Politics” by Greg Johnson, Part 1 of 2

Since he founded the Counter-Currents website over ten years ago Greg Johnson has been one of the most prolific writers in what I would call the “pro-White” movement, and since his active involvement began some ten years before that it is probably safe to regard him as one of the “Old Hands.” Most of his output has appeared originally in the form of essays and lectures, many of which have been compiled into a series of books. The first seven chapters of his latest work, White Identity Politics, are a compilation of lectures from 2018–2020. The eighth and last, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” was written especially for this volume. Johnson is a master at describing the many facets of our problem and their effects both proximate and ultimate, and this mastery is on full display here. He is also a fertile source of ideas on the important subject of solutions, which he appropriately saves for the end.

One of the continuing problems within the pro-White movement is the term or label we choose for ourselves and our ideas. There has been a series of labels that have come and gone, with “Alt-Right” being the best known recent example. Our antagonists, of course, have many labels for us, usually employed as ill-defined epithets, with “racist,” “white supremacist,” “neo-Nazi,” “anti-Semite” and “hater” being among the most common. Whatever we choose to call ourselves is also adopted by our antagonists, who redefine it into yet another term of opprobrium. That is why I try to limit my self-labeling to mutually consistent phrases that are self-defining, and thus much more resistant to misunderstanding or misrepresentation, such as pro-White, White Preservationist, or White Separatist, but these phrases lack the emotive resonance or “catchy zing” we would like to have in the name of our movement.

Greg Johnson has for some years labeled his position as “White Nationalism,” a label also adopted by many other movement writers. Unfortunately, White Nationalism has become another term of invective and condemnation, and even of accusation as it is added to law enforcement’s list of supposed terrorist threats. More recently, as shown in these essays, Johnson has labeled his message as “white identitarianism.” This label is associated with the leading pro-White movement in Europe, where it has recently begun to suffer from a campaign of delegitimization, demonization and suppression, but in America it is still new enough to be relatively free of preconceptions. Johnson seeks to link White identitarianism with the populist movement that has surged with the Trump phenomenon and Brexit into the primary opposition to the establishment and its globalist agenda, with many aspects that are consistent with White interests, and so at least implicitly pro-White. The main threat to this goal is what Johnson discerns as establishment conservative efforts “to coopt national populism and channel its energies into establishment conservatism. This is what befell the Trump administration and the MAGA movement.” (p. 2)

At the beginning of the first chapter, Johnson notes that White identity politics is subjected to condemnation and censure.

The biggest political taboo today is against white identity politics. … If you organize as a white person for white people, if you speak as a white person for the interests of white people, and especially if you’re willing to act in the political realm for the interests of white people, that is crossing the line into thoughtcrime. (p. 8)

The main threat to White identity politics, as to the populism Johnson seeks to link it with, is from establishment conservatism and its long but unproductive history of implicit White identity politics.

Implicit white identity politics, as practiced by conservative parties, is basically a swindle. They will “dog whistle” to us, meaning that they will signal in an oblique way that they understand our racial anxieties. They will propose universalistic legislation that “just so happens” to coincide with our interests as white people. But they’ll never explicitly court us. Indeed, if you accuse them of being interested in preserving the white race, they will angrily denounce you. They will do anything to avoid the stigma of standing up for their own people. (p. 10)

Considering the scale of our problem is one of continued existence, implicit is just not up to the job. “[I]n terms of long-term survival, we have to go explicit.” (p. 15)

This is how Johnson summarizes his own position and how it relates to the populist constituency he terms “uppity white folks,” who in many respects seem to overlap with those Sam Francis called “Middle American Radicals.”

I am a white separatist, meaning that I want to live in a racially homogeneous society rather than a multiracial society. I want racially homogeneous homelands for all peoples, to the extent that is possible … . Uppity white folks are white people who are content— for now—to live in a multiracial, multicultural society but who are going to take their own side in ethnic conflicts. Uppity white folks are the largest group practicing white identity politics. They tend toward the implicit rather than the explicit end of the spectrum. They tend to be politically moderate. They aren’t willing to entertain radical new policies just yet. … [T]hey are increasingly open to explicit talk of white identity and interests, as long as it is reasonable, moderate, fair to all parties, and not freighted with foreign symbols and ideologies. Uppity white folks are where white identity politics is growing. They are the people we can agitate and radicalize. The Left thinks that the tens of millions of white people who voted for Donald Trump are uppity white folks. That’s an exaggeration, of course. But the Trump electorate is definitely our target audience. (pp. 11–12)

In a sub-section titled “White Identity Politics is Moral,” Johnson gives a discourse on the importance of morality in political matters that is unique to whites.

The biggest question that we must deal with before people are going to accept white identity politics is not whether it is inevitable or whether it is necessary but whether it is right. People will refuse to bow to the inevitable if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. They will refuse to do what is necessary if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. White people are highly conscientious. That’s one of our strengths. … But that is also a great weakness if people can hack our conscientiousness and turn our moral fervor and moral idealism against our interests. That is basically what is driving white dispossession today. So we have to know that white identity politics is moral. (pp. 16–17)

I myself have stressed the importance of morality since I began writing, both the morality of our goal and the morality of our actions, or methods and means. I addressed the former in my essay “The Moral Battle”  and the latter in a much earlier essay in the August 1989 issue of Instauration titled “Creating a Moral Image.”  Johnson has repeatedly addressed the latter in a standard essay condemning counterproductive acts of violence which he posts whenever one of these acts occurs, merely changing the names, locations and other details of the particular event. Kevin MacDonald has repeatedly analyzed and addressed the evolutionary origins of our unique morality, most comprehensively in his recent book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.[1] In brief, our unique sense of morality, as well as individualism and objectivity, is a product of our remote ancestors’ evolutionary adaptation (both cultural and genetic) to the particular conditions of their existence in northern Europe. We now live in very different conditions, but our tendencies toward establishing moral communities, and toward individualism and objectivity are still in us, part of us, as selected over many millennia by the pressures of survival. In multiracial conditions we coexist with races who evolved in very different environments, where groups were selected to have a very different sense of morality—morality as beneficial to the ingroup—as well as collectivist social structures and subjectivity. In such multiracial conditions our sense of morality, individualism and objectivity place us at a disadvantage. But we cannot change them, nor should we want to, for we would no longer be us, no longer the creators of the unique civilization those traits enabled us to create. We must accept it as it is and work with it, to turn it to our advantage and make it a source of strength rather than vulnerability.

In his critique of multiculturalism—the euphemism for multiracialism he employs in this collection, he emphasizes the importance of “collective self-actualization,” which is best realized in homogeneous rather than diverse societies.

When a people is free to express its collective identity, it stamps its identity on the public realm….it creates a homeland. A homeland is … a realm of shared meaning, in which people understand one another, feel comfortable with one another. … This is why multiculturalism cannot really work. Cultures with opposed conventions cannot exist comfortably in the same system. … Multicultural societies basically force you to either fight constantly with other groups about conflicting values and customs, or stop caring about them, so you don’t fight. … Multiculturalism creates a society in which everyone feels alien. That’s no way to live. … We have a right to a land where we feel at home, where we are comfortable … where we can understand and trust strangers because, in the end, they’re not all that strange. So, from the point of view of collective self-actualization, we need to own up to our ethnic identities and ethnocentric preferences. Then we need to create ethnically homogeneous homelands where we are free to be ourselves. In short, white self-actualization requires white identity politics. (pp. 23–25)

One wonders why Johnson, who is talking about race, as made clear by the reference to “white” in the last sentence, uses the euphemism multiculturalism instead of multiracialism. This is not typical of his work. As these essays came from lectures, I suspect he considered the term more appropriate for his Norwegian, Swedish and Lithuanian audiences, where the racial threat is largely from non-European Caucasian (NEC) Islamic invaders whose cultural differences pose a very serious additional problem to their racial problem, but a footnote explaining this would have been helpful, as the difference between the two terms is important. Multiculturalism is the term used by those who refuse to recognize the existence of different or multiple races and claim that we are all one single race. If race does not exist then the problem is merely cultural—not racial, not physical, not biological, and not genetic, and therefore not existential in importance and scale, and thus totally different and far less serious.

But the problem is a racial one, and therefore biological, genetic and existential, and much more serious. If we had just one culture, as we effectively had before 1965, we would still have essentially the same racial problem. In Gunnar Myrdal’s very influential book An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944) he clearly and correctly defined the problem as racial. The term multiculturalism came into vogue with the postwar rise of the Boasian school of cultural anthropology which denies the importance or even the existence of race and minimizes or trivializes the problem to one that is not racial or existential. I took upper division courses in both physical and cultural anthropology and they are very different things. The latter is ideologically loaded with the dogma and agenda of cultural relativism and egalitarianism that devalues Western civilization, while the former, at least in 1970, focused on the physical facts of racial, biological, genetic and evolutionary reality.

Ultimately, the problem is based on the threat and reality of racial intermixture and its destructive effects on the White race, with the result of changing or shifting its genotype and phenotype in the direction of the races with which it mixes. Thus, ultimately, the problem is a matter of White racial preservation. This was Jefferson’s concern when he asserted that the non-White population “must be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” It was the concern Lincoln addressed when he asserted his support for racial separation as “the only perfect preventative of amalgamation,” which he later made clear—as he explained in a meeting with Black leaders—meant living in separate countries. It was the concern of Southern Whites when they instituted the “Jim Crow” system of racial segregation and White control called White Supremacism. It was the concern of Lothrop Stoddard, Theodore Bilbo and countless other Whites who care or have cared for the preservation or continued existence of their race in its existing form. In every intuitive, rational, logical, subjective and objective sense they have understood that different races inhabiting the same territory eventually intermix into a single blended race. And all the historical and genetic evidence indicates they were right—that populations sharing the same territory will blend together into a racially mixed or hybridized population, as has been recently reaffirmed by Harvard geneticist David Reich (2019, 43), who states

[W]hen one population moves into a region occupied by another population with which it can interbreed, even a small rate of interbreeding is enough to produce high proportions of mixture in the descendants.[2]

Therefore, to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them. Such a genetic shift is racially destructive and hence anti-White. The European-American population’s current genetic average is 98.6% European, or 1.4% non-European, with 94% of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. (3)

After a 5% mixture with non-Caucasians, we would not really have a White race in the European sense of the term. So if we don’t want our race to become 5%, 10% or more non-European then we must not allow our country to be 5%, 10%, or more non-European. That is why Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, made when Britain was still less than 5% non-White, had such an emotional impact.

Returning to the subject of morality, Johnson focuses on the concept of universality, which holds that true standards of morality should apply equally to everyone.

[T]he idea that true moral principles are universal has a great deal of intuitive appeal. If something is true, that means it is true for everyone. If something is right, that means it is right for everyone. Immanuel Kant argued that a principle is not moral unless you can will it to be a universal law. … But there is nothing un-universalizable about the principle that you take care of your own first, and you let other people take care of their own first. There is nothing un-universalizable about the principle of individuals and groups actualizing their unique potentials for excellence and letting other individuals and groups do the same. (p. 26)

Western political morality and ideology has elevated the most fundamental interests of the individual to the status of rights, with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or well-being even being regarded as “unalienable” and God-given. A race has interests that are similar to those of an individual, most importantly including life, liberty and well-being—or continued existence, control of its own existence, and what Johnson terms “flourishing.” The essence of pro-racial morality and ideology is the recognition and extension of these same interests and rights of individuals to races. So long as this is applied equally to all races, with all races allowed the same rights to continued existence and control of their own existence in their own separate homelands or countries, this pro-racial morality, that is pro-racial preservation and independence, is fully consistent with the principle of moral universality. This kind of universal morality, that recognizes the interests of races and nations as well as individuals, would recognize as universal the right of every race and nation to existence and control of its own existence.

But the world really works more on the basis of competing interests, at the level of both the individual and the group, than on the principles of morality and rights. And the group interests of non-Whites within White countries are diametrically opposed to the group interests of the White population, to the extent of dispossessing, subjugating, replacing and inevitably destroying them and their existence, without respect for the universality of equal interests, but denying or condemning White interests that stand in their way.

Johnson discusses the universalist moral concepts of fairness and the golden rule, and their relation to Identitarian principles. (pp. 28–30) Again, in actual practice these are moral concepts and values followed by Whites acting against their interests but not reciprocated by non-Whites. And what happens when these concepts conflict with vital or even existential racial interests, such as independence or even continued existence? That is where a line should be clearly drawn. But short of that line, the rules of fairness should be our guide, provided the same rules apply equally to everyone, reciprocated rather than taken advantage of and exploited to our disadvantage.

The basic Identitarian principle is to plant one’s flag and say, “This country is ours; this is our homeland; invaders and colonists must leave.” There is nothing unfair about that, because the invaders and colonists have homelands of their own.

But the current situation, in which whites—and only whites—are being asked to accept replacement levels of immigration from the Third World, while Third Worlders keep their homelands, is totally unfair. What’s theirs, they keep. What’s ours is negotiable. That’s a morally outrageous proposition. Repatriating invaders and colonists is not, however, unfair, because at the end of the process, everyone has a homeland.

There are good and bad kinds of nationalism. Bad nationalists seek to secure the sovereignty of their own people, but they are willing to deny the sovereignty of other peoples. They refuse to treat others the same way they wish to be treated. They defend their own but do not allow others to do the same. They create a world of oppressors and the oppressed. … Good nationalists believe in nationalism for all nations. They treat other peoples as they would like to be treated themselves. (p. 29–30)

Johnson turns to the ethical theory of Consequentialism to further buttress his case for identitarianism, asserting “We should justify moral principles by their consequences.” The consequences of the moral principles of multiracialism are anti-White, ultimately to the point of White racial extinction.

Under the present … order, all white nations are in demographic decline. If this decline is not reversed, whites will cease to exist as a distinct race. What would reverse these alarming demographic trends? … Suffice it to say that governments would have to make white preservation and flourishing the overriding goal of public policy. (p. 30)

Johnson even appeals to the longer-term and larger-scale best interests of non-Whites by arguing that the continued existence of Whites is in the best interests of the non-Whites themselves, because of Whites’ civilizational and scientific capabilities—capabilities that all races benefit from. “If we want to save the world we have to save the whites.” (p. 31) But in their focus on their own group interests, non-Whites tend to be far too subjective, and thus far too lacking in the objectivity required to grasp this concept.

Regarding the significance of race, Johnson states that “we’re part of one great genetic continuum going all the way back to the Ice Age and before,” an observation that provides the context to appreciate the enormity of the historically very sudden White racial dispossession, replacement and destruction that is now occurring. (p.10)

[T]he distances between the great continental races and subraces—whites, blacks, Asians, Amerindians, non-European Caucasians, Australoids, and Capoids—are significant enough that radically different forms of societies suit them, which means that societies with multiple races suffer from conflicts that do not afflict racially homogeneous societies. … This is why some globalists declare that we will have a stable global society only when all racial and cultural differences have been erased. … Thus to construct a single world state, they wish to construct a single, mongrelized humanity. So much for diversity. … [I]nstead of destroying all existing peoples to create a world state, we wish to preserve all of them by giving them their own sovereign ethnostates. (pp. 38–39)

In reply to those like David Reich who claim that historical racial intermixture, even if it occurred many thousands of years ago, justifies current and future intermixture and delegitimizes preservationist opposition to it, Johnson states that “Race-mixing in the past is never an argument for increasing diversity in the present. In fact, one reason race-mixing took place in the past is to overcome the problems of diversity, i.e., of multiple races living in the same society.” (p. 39)

The idea that a nation is a pure social construct means that kinship is not an essential characteristic of nationhood. In concrete terms, that implies that the French people are no longer essential to the enterprise known as France. The French people are replaceable by foreigners, as long as their replacements pay lip-service to the designs of the ruling elite. Cultural and credal forms of nationalism are organically connected to race replacement. … When elites define you as replaceable, that’s because they intend to replace you. (p. 43)

In a subsection by that title, Johnson introduces “Love of One’s Own” (p. 46) as the force that makes identity politically potent, making a people “willing to assert itself, to take its own side in a fight.” Willingness to fight is the third pillar of white identity politics that gives it “its fighting spirit.” This is similar to what I call “wanting my race to live.”

Johnson describes his concept of racial love:

We don’t love our race because it is the best but because it is ours. And unlike chauvinists and supremacists, we can love our own without denigrating others who love their own as well. Indeed, we can understand why they do so, and neither party need feel threatened by the other. (p. 53)

None of this is visible to the modern liberal. … From that point of view, there are no nations. …  They have no homelands … and human borders are illegitimate.

In practice, this means that all men are interchangeable, which means that you are replaceable with foreigners. The Great Replacement is merely the political expression of a world-destroying blindness … : the decision to see the world—and ourselves—as merely a stockpile of interchangeable resources.

The globalists have not refuted nationalism. They are simply blind to us and our concerns. When confronted with human differences, they airily declare that they do not matter. Identitarians beg to differ. In fact, we insist on it. In fact, we’ll fight to preserve our differences.

The answer to the Great Replacement is simply to say “No.” We will not jump into the melting pot. We veto the globalist dream. (p. 53–54)

I would develop the concept of racial love a bit further. Emotions and values can supersede socially and politically constructed moral codes and ideologies. Loving, valuing and caring for our race, and so wanting it to live and be free, can be used to supersede constructed anti-race and anti-White moralities that conflict with these emotions and construct a new pro-race and pro-White morality consistent with them, which could be applied universally to and by all races. Constructing such a morality, and instilling it in as many Whites as possible, could arguably be regarded as our most important task, the foremost mission of what Johnson, following Houston Stewart Chamberlain, terms metapolitics (p. 131), but could also be described as the “winning of White hearts and minds.” A pro-race morality would extend the same interests and rights to life, liberty and well-being to races as it does to individuals. It would recognize the right of every race to its own homelands and self-rule, and regard any kind or degree of multiracialism as immoral and evil.

Why is multiracialism immoral and evil under a pro-race morality? Because it is an engine of racial destruction, the destroyer of races. More specifically, from our perspective as a race suffering multiracialist destruction, because it is contrary to the most fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, meaning our continued existence and control of our own existence. The pro-race and pro-White morality and ideology we need to instill in our people is simply that pro-White is moral and good and anti-White is immoral and evil. Multiracialism is diametrically opposed to and destructive of the most vital or life-essential White interests. It is therefore anti-White in the ultimate degree, and therefore it is immoral and evil. An effectively monoracial or all-White society protects and preserves the existence of the White race and is therefore pro-White, and therefore moral and good. The essence of this morality and ideology, and its attitude toward our race, could be summarized in the four words “love, value, preserve and protect.” We preserve and protect that which we love and value, so the love and value come first and the preserve and protect naturally follow.

In an essay titled “The Very Idea of White Privilege” (p. 55ff) Johnson addresses the false concepts of “white privilege,” “white fragility,” and “systemic white racism.” He deconstructs so-called “white privilege” as just more racial gaslighting, as is the concept of “white fragility” to describe those who deny it. He shows how fifteen of the fifty examples of “white privilege” listed in Peggy McIntosh’s 1989 essay which began it all “are simply aspects of having a homogeneous homeland.” Another fourteen examples can be “described as the absence of the disadvantages of being black.” He describes black social delinquency, criminality, and racial IQ differences in sufficient detail to refute the claims that systemic racism is the cause of Black problems.

Having brought up the concept of having a homogeneous homeland, perhaps the object of desire Johnson has referred to elsewhere as “a nice white country,” he warms to the subject:

Every human being deserves a home, where he can be himself free of the interference of others. But we should feel at home outside our front doors as well. We should be able to live among people who share our language and values, our history and destiny, the whole litany of “white privileges.” We don’t just need homes. We need homelands. Not alienating, bewildering, multicultural bazaars. … There is no moral imperative to destroy our homelands to accommodate strangers….This planet is big enough for all races and nations to have places they can call their own. This is the ethnonationalist version of utopia. (p. 67-68)

The goal of linking populism and White racial identitarianism appears to be the main focus of this compilation, with the earlier essays laying the groundwork and the essay “In Defense of Populism” beginning our journey into the matter itself with a description of the anti-White establishment’s reaction to it.

The populist uprisings of 2016—Brexit and the election of Donald Trump—aren’t epochal events like the revolutions of 1789 and 1848. Not yet anyway. But you wouldn’t know that judging from the panic that swept through Western political elites. … Populism seeks to rescue popular government from corrupt elites. (pp. 69–70)

Johnson notes that populism is distinct from White identity politics, although both are opposed to the existing liberal elites and their globalist order. But the two do sometimes overlap, and they do “complement one another, so that the strongest form of white identity politics is populist, and the strongest form of populism is identitarian.” (p. 70) Identitarianism has an ethnic conception of peoplehood that is based on “blood,” i.e., race. A civic conception is a pure social construct “that seeks to impose unity on a society composed of different ethnic groups. … Ethnic nationalism draws strength from unity and homogeneity.” (p. 72)

Civic nationalism, on the other hand, draws its strength from an imposed civic ideology which could be based on multiracialism, diversity and inclusion.

Why do populists need to appeal to white identity? It all comes down to what counts as the people. Is the people at its core an ethnic group, or is it defined in purely civic terms? Populists of the Right appeal explicitly or implicitly to identitarian issues. Populists of the Left prefer to define the people in civic or class terms and focus on economic issues. Since … both identitarian and economic issues are driving the rise of populism, populists of the Right will have a broader appeal because they appeal to both identity and economic issues. The great task of white identitarians today is to destroy the legitimacy of civic nationalism and push the populism of the Right toward explicit white Identitarianism. … Liberalism triumphed not by rejecting popular sovereignty but by subverting it. This is one reason the elites are so hysterical about the rise of populism. It puts them on the spot. If they affirm popular sovereignty, then populism is the only logical outcome. (pp. 81–82)

In the next essay, “National Populism is Here to Stay” (p. 83ff) Johnson claims that National Populism, which combines populism with implicit White identitarianism, is the wave of the future. What matters to the ultimate fate of the White race is that this “National Populism” moves in the direction of explicit White Racial Populism and becomes a vehicle for White racial interests.

Johnson next discusses “the Four D’s”—the four trends that contribute to the rise of national populism: distrust, destruction, deprivation and dealignment. Ethnonationalists “must exploit and intensify the existing tendency towards distrust of the establishment.” (p. 87) And Johnson lists ways this can be done.

I think our most important role is less in raising consciousness than in deepening consciousness. We have explanations of why multiculturalism creates alienation and conflict. We can explain who is behind globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism and why. We defend the moral legitimacy of white identity politics against the widespread notion that white identity politics, and only white identity politics, is immoral per se. That moral taboo is the great dam holding back the tide of national populism. If we can breach that dam, it will unleash the flood-waters of white identity. Finally, we can offer workable and humane alternatives, not just Right-wing civic nationalism, which basically is just lying about diversity in a different way. (pp. 91–92)

Regarding deprivation, “to reverse globalization, national populists need to overthrow the existing elites and institute protectionist economic policies. We need to reindustrialize the First World.” (p. 92)

Destruction refers to the destruction of identity through multicultural (i.e., multiracial) and immigration policies imposed by elites on the population. “National populists, however, promise to restrict immigration and preserve distinct national identities from multicultural erosion.” (p. 89) It’s therefore noteworthy that all of the destructive changes we see have been enacted by elites, often in the teeth of popular opposition. As MacDonald noted in The Culture of Critique,  “the sea change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred at approximately the same time (1962–1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. … A consistent theme has been that immigration policy has been formulated by elites with control of the media and that efforts have been made by political leaders of all major parties to keep fear of immigration off the political agenda.” Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates, 2004: 88) corroborates this for the U.S. in the context of debate over the 1965 immigration law: “There was emerging on the immigration question a pattern in public debate that could be found on many issues: elite opinion makers selected a problem and a liberal policy solution, while grassroots opinion, unfocused and marginalized, ran strongly the other way.” The anti-populism of top-down elite control championed by Jewish intellectuals in earlier decades (Ch. 5 of CofC) had come to fruition.

Dealignment refers to the polarization of the electorate as voters abandon centrist politics in favor of more radical politics of both the left and the right largely in response to the divisiveness, alienation and cultural changes caused by multiracialism and White replacement.

Dealignment is basically the breakdown of the post-World War II political system in which power was traded between center-Left and center-Right parties, while Western societies drifted steadily toward cultural Leftism, bigger and more intrusive government, and the loss of sovereignty to globalization….The main factor behind dealignment is the increasing realization on the part of voters that there aren’t really any fundamental differences between the parties. There is no real competition. Instead, there is a political cartel. … The different branches of the establishment agree on all important matters. … A lot of people naïvely think that political power primarily means beating the other team in political contests, like elections. But there’s a deeper form of political power that determines all the things that the parties don’t fight about and that are never put to the choice of the voters. That’s real power. … Election after election, the people send their tribunes to the capitals, only to see them absorbed by the establishment. Thus when there is a conflict between the public interest and elite interests, it is impossible to believe that our representatives will side with the public. … [W]e are never allowed to simply vote for what we really want. (pp. 93–95)

Go to Part 2 of 2.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).

[2] David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Vintage Books, 2019), 43.

The not-so-friendly folks at the World Economic Forum

Here I examine the ethnic composition of quite possibly the most influential global organization transforming our world today and its plan to restructure the planet: The World Economic Forum. The WEF and its Executive Director Klaus Schwab are openly pursuing nothing less than the fundamental transformation of the global system, human life and the entire planet, acting as the central hub for that process. The WEF includes in its agenda resetting humanity into a “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” This was openly declared by Schwab in a speech in November last year, referring to his vision for a cybernetic transhumanism.

The Great Reset Scam

At the core of this process is The Great Reset, a WEF program that is elaborately detailed on how it will change every aspect of our lives and the world itself into something unrecognizable but unimaginably better. It is worth examining two key statements from the WEF about this extraordinary program. First, the context:

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

Fear not, because the WEF knows how to lead the leaders in health, finance, energy, education and all the rest out of this dilemma. They do it because they are deeply concerned for our “lives, livelihoods and the planet.”

Next, The Opportunity:

As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.

In other words, the oligarch overlords of our world who engineered this crisis will now provide the solution, a “new social contract” that we dignified human beings had nothing to do with crafting, but will have to sign in blood. This is top-down, elite control with a vengeance.

The main page on this world-transforming program is titled “Now is the time for a ‘great reset.’” Some notable quotes:

“… a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible.”

“There is good reason to worry…”

“the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies…”

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”

“the pandemic represents one of the worst public-health crises in recent history.”

“We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.”

“the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need.”

“the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.”

The WEF has a program it calls 2030Vision, which concerns itself with 17 Sustainable Development Goals, taken from the United Nations. Basically, all these goals can be met with new technology, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). That is why “2030Vision is co-owned and developed with founding partners and co-chaired by Simon Segars, CEO of ARM, and Achim Steiner, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme.” ARM is a high tech company that develops “a complete 5G ecosystem” and other super tech necessary for the Great Reset. Neither of these men appears to be Jewish.

The WEF partners with governments, global corporations, academia, media conglomerates, non-governmental organizations, including immense global “philanthropy” and development operations—any and every sector of power, wealth and influence. It shows fifty-eight partners under the letter A alone. Examples include the African Development Bank, Airport Authority Hong Kong, Amazon Web Services, American Heart Association, Anheuser-Busch, Apple and AstraZeneca. “Access to Forum networks and experts provides Partners with visibility and time-sensitive insight into strategic decision-making on the issues most important to them.” This sounds like WEF connections and “experts” aid partners in how to participate in the Great Reset to make money and exert power while advancing the global transformation.

It sounds utopian. We’ve heard it all before; it’s the old Problem/Reaction/Solution scam. The WEF and its partners create perception of the problem, a fraudulent pandemic that is really the standard flu season, and now is providing the solution—their Great Reset to restructure the foundations of life on Earth. We’re all going to benefit with health, equity and prosperity. This sounds too similar to the false promises of the Bolshevik Revolution—a harmonious, classless society with citizens shaped by the government, but which in fact saw mostly peasants and workers being murdered by the millions. Only the new elite oligarchy benefited; their power to make a world-wide revolution is now concentrated in the World Economic Forum.

We now examine the Jewish role in the World Economic Forum and its Great Reset.

Who’s Who at the WEF

In examining the Leadership and Governance page, we find the WEF is led by a Board of Trustees, “exceptional individuals who act as guardians of its mission and values, and oversee the Forum’s work in promoting true global citizenship.” Thirty-one “exceptional individuals” are on this board. Let’s see how many are Jews, and in what ways they are exceptional. We will reserve Klaus Schwab himself for last.

Leo Rafael Reif

WEF Board of Trustee member Leo Rafael Reif is the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His biography says he is an electrical engineer and is a “Venezuelan-American.” Among other initiatives at MIT, Reif established a Clinic for Machine Learning in Health, the MIT Plan for Action on Climate Change and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. This lab works on “techniques for making large-scale AI systems more efficient and robust.” This should not concern us, even though AI and machine learning are at the core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution the WEF promotes to drive the Great Reset, because  “the Lab is committed to building trustworthy and socially responsible AI systems.”

Reif as President of MIT had to respond to accusations that the MIT Media Lab took substantial grants from the Jewish pedophile blackmail ringleader Jeffrey Epstein, most of whose money came from the Jewish billionaire oligarch Leslie Wexner. The actual “head of the snake” according to Epstein victim Maria Farmer, was Wexner. Epstein invested large sums of Wexner money in new technologies throughout industry and academia focused on mass surveillance, robotics and cyborg development, machine intelligence/AI, and disturbing aspects of transhumanism, including at MIT. Reif said the accusations were “deeply disturbing.”

Reif is also a Board member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which another essay exposes as a major power center dominated at the leadership level by Jews.

This profile report lists Reif’s religion as Jewish. His Infogalactic entry states under Background:

Leo Rafael Reif was born in Maracaibo, Venezuela, to Eastern European Jewish parents, who immigrated to Venezuela in the 1930s through Ecuador and Colombia. His father was a photographer, and the family spoke Yiddish and Spanish at home.

David M. Rubenstein

Rubenstein’s bio at WEF declares he is a Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It is an immense global investment bank with 100s of billions of dollars under management. Rubenstein was profiled in the essay Jews of the CFR:

He is a co-founder of one of the world’s largest investment firms, Carlyle Group. He served a long career advising Presidents and Congressional committees, serving as a board member or Trustee of various organizations including Johns Hopkins Medicine (to which he donated $20 million), Duke University (his alma matter), Tsinghau University in China, the Brookings Institute and the World Economic Forum, all known outlets for the current COVID agenda. Rubenstein’s racial and religious affiliation is obvious.

The Carlyle Group was involved in a number of major scandals, including bribery to receive pension fund investments, taking investments from a tax-dodging company set up by the corrupt Jewish hedge fund manager and funder of destabilizing revolutions George Soros. Carlyle also has major ownership of Booz Allen Hamilton the defense contractor where Edward Snowden worked when he leaked knowledge of government-industry mass surveillance on American citizens; Carlyle is thus involved as owners and investors in the war industry. This included employing former President George Bush Sr. and former Secretary of State James Baker to lobby for defense contracts and increased military defense budgets, eliciting investments from Saudi princes and the Bin Laden family, and promoting the Iraq war and profiteering in the rebuilding aftermath. All this is well presented in a full length documentary focused on the Carlyle Group’s corrupt war profiteering.

On Rubenstein’s Wikipedia entry, the only “Controversy” attributed to him and Carlyle was raising the rents in mobile home parks Carlyle owned, evicting poor people.

To be clear: “Rubenstein grew up an only child in a Jewish family in Baltimore.”

Marc Benioff

WEF Board member Marc Benioff is the CEO of Salesforce, a Fortune 500 company with 50,000 employees, and another multi-billionaire. Salesforce is a cloud computing company with a mission of “the end of software,” presumably as we know it. Wikipedia openly admits: “He hired and planted fake protestors and a fake news team, Channel 22, at Siebel’s (his competitor’s) conference in 1999.” Siebel’s founder, however, was a colleague of Benioff’s at Oracle, where they both previously worked. Incredibly, this story of deception is presented in an article titled “Marc Benioff’s Marketing Genius.” More of Benioff’s genius included renting all the taxis at the Cannes France airport to shuttle participants to Siebel’s conference and selling them on Salesforce. In 2018 Benioff bought Time Magazine to distribute more fake news world-wide.

The company that Benioff formerly helped develop, Larry Ellison’s Oracle, had close working ties with the National Security Agency which is engaged in mass surveillance of Americans, and with the CIA. Today Oracle is partnered with the government’s covid vaccine program to track and trace vaccine recipients for two years under a “pharmacovigilance” program to monitor side effects and other medical data.

Benioff’s ruthless marketing “genius,” his development of cloud computing platforms and services, his former work at a digital mass surveillance contractor, and his billionaire status make him a strong contributor to the Great Reset and the glories of the WEF’s transhumanist near future.

Under Early Life: “Benioff was raised in a Jewish family long established in the San Francisco Bay area.”

Laurence D. Fink

Larry Fink is the founder and CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest investment firm, with over $7 Trillion in managed assets. Fink himself is yet another billionaire on the WEF Board. Like Carlyle’s Rubenstein, Fink’s Blackrock is heavily invested in the war industry, issuing its own mutual funds such as US Aerospace and Defense.

In his annual letter to corporate CEOs, Fink suggested that “As governments fail to offer solutions to pressing social problems, people are looking to public and private companies to step in and offer fixes.” That seems to have been the opportunity Fink and Blackrock needed to become the broker for the fusion of the most powerful financial institutions in the US: the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and Blackrock.

We know that the world’s most powerful financier is on the Board of the global organization conducting the total transformation of society, civilization and humanity. Fink’s letter is littered with utopian promises for “racial justice,” “prosperity,” “more inclusivity,” and saving the world from “climate change.” We see under Early Life, “He grew up in a Jewish family.”

Orit Gadiesh

Chairman of Bain & Company is Orit Gadiesh, whose many positions and accomplishments include being a  graduate of Hebrew University, Governor of Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University Leadership Award, and Forbes Magazine’s 100 Most Powerful Women in the World. She too is on the Council on Foreign Relations as a Committee Member. Gadiesh is on the International Business Leaders Advisory Council to the Mayor of Shanghai, China.

Bain is a business consultancy company based in Boston but now with offices around the world; it was once headed by Mitt Romney. Gadiesh became chairman (their word) in 1993 and helped the company recover to become one of the world’s “big three” consultancy firms. It provides many kinds of advice and guidance to many different kinds of businesses, NGOs and governments, including in the areas of defense, chemicals, healthcare, education, oil & gas, technology and finance among many others.

Gadiesh’s father was an Israeli Defense Forces colonel, and she served in the IDF herself, a compulsory  service for Israeli-born Jews. In an interview with the UK Telegraph, Gadiesh revealed how her IDF military experience helps her lead Bain.  Perhaps her familiarity with IDF’s brutal subjugation of helpless Palestinians will serve her well in helping advise the WEF in its Great Reset plan to subjugate the rest of humanity.

Her Wikipedia entry shows she has dual US-Israeli citizenship.

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

Known more simply as Peter Brabeck, his WEF profile declares him the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Brabeck was the CEO of Nestle Corporation for over ten years, and Chairman of the Board for part of that time. He is a former Board member of Credit Suisse, Exxon-Mobile and L’Oreal, among many others. He was also Former Chairman, 2030 Water Resources Group, a public-private partnership  operating as part of the World Bank.

Brabeck provoked outrage and condemnation when in a 2005 documentary titled We Feed the World, he shared some of his own views. Only slightly distorted, this is a fairly good summary of Brabeck’s statements: “Brabeck believes that nature is not ‘good,’ that there is nothing to worry about with GMO foods, that profits matter above all else, that people should work more, and that human beings do not have a right to water.” He made others. Nestle has been involved in ongoing scandals in California for its low-cost access to major water sources for its high-priced bottled water sales, during extended drought when other Californians suffered rationing.

In 1998, for Israel’s fiftieth independence celebration, Israeli PM Netanyahu bestowed “the highest tribute ever awarded by the State of Israel, the Jubilee Award,” recognizing those individuals and organizations that have done the most to strengthen Israel’s economy. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe of Nestle was one of three recipients in the Food category.

This source is also highly suggestive:

Nestle owns 50.1% of Osem Investments, an Israel-based company engaged directly in the production and distribution of food products in Israel and abroad. The Nestle Purina Israel, Director and Corporate Executive at Osem Investment Ltd and CEO of Osem International Ltd., Gad Propper, is the Chairman of the Israel-European Union Chamber of Commerce. He is also Chairman of L’Oreal Israel, 30% owned by L’Oreal, another prominent supporter of Israel.

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, CEO of Nestle, is also on the Board of Directors of L’Oreal, that has a history of breaking laws to support Israel. He is also a director of Credit Suisse, which is a board member of the Swiss-Israeli Chamber of Commerce. Brabeck-Letmathe is also on the foundation board of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which in 2006 removed from its Global Agenda Magazine an article that called for a peaceful boycott of Israel until it complied to international law and human rights. In contrast to the WEF’s promotion of peaceful free speech, the article was said to be “totally in contradiction to … the Forum’s mission and values.”

Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, set up their R&D Center in Israel (greatly enhancing Israel through their technical know-how, expertise and distribution channels). This R&D center was built on Sderot – stolen and illegally occupied Palestinian land that was once a town called Najd. The presence of Nestle’s plant effectively sabotages the Palestinians’ right to return as stated by UN Resolution 194 and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, Section 2.

Nestle and Osem own over half of the goodwill and assets of Israel’s largest infant formula producer, Materna. Through Osem, Nestle invests heavily in Israel’s development, such as $80m in new salad plants, logistics centers for distribution, development labs, and so on.

Nestle also partners with JNF (Jewish National Fund) through Osem. JNF is one of the foremost Zionist organizations that for decades has persistently uprooted Palestinians and destroyed their villages and towns to make way for Israel’s illegal expansion and occupation.

Peter Maurer – Philo-Semite

WEF Board member Peter Maurer is the current President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. His biography entry indicates his ethnicity is Swiss, and nothing else indicates otherwise.

Two significant news events indicate Maurer is an avid philo-Semite. In a rapid series of articles in the Times of Israel in September 2017, headlines focus on ICRC director Maurer’s meetings with what the articles consistently call the “terror group” Hamas. Two of the four headlines focus on Maurer’s inquiries into “missing Israelis,” with no mention of the many missing Palestinians, including children. A third depicts Israel PM Netanyahu explaining to Maurer “unbelievable Hamas ‘cruelty’.” Unbelievable is the word, but Maurer appears to have taken it to heart in his talks with Hamas. Only the fourth and most recent headline mentions that Maurer noted illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as a “key humanitarian challenge”—but then reverts to a focus on missing Israelis.

I doubt Netanyahu was concerned that the Maurer would focus on Israeli atrocities and injustices committed on Palestinians, because he reassured them at a World Jewish Congress meeting a little more than a week before that his talks with Hamas would focus on missing Israelis. After all, the WJC had submitted a petition to Maurer with 11,000 signatures, pressuring Maurer and the ICRC to appeal to Hamas to return the bodies of two missing Israeli soldiers. Hamas could have submitted a petition for the return of the bodies of thousands of Palestinian children, but it does not have the money and power of the WJC and its billionaire oligarch leaders Ronald Lauder and Paul Singer. As a Board member of the WEF, Maurer aligns the ICRC with Jewish power, not justice or humanitarian aid.

The other significant event of course involves the holocaust. According to a Jewish Journal article, Maurer’s ICRC and the World Jewish Congress teamed up in 2015 to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the “liberation of Nazi death camps.” Maurer gave the keynote address and said the ICRC “had failed as a humanitarian organization because it lost its moral compass.” The article states, “the ICRC did not publicly denounce the deportation of Jews to concentration camps.” The ICRC also helped other POWs in German camps, but not Jews, because the “Nazis” wouldn’t let it. “’We have chosen to confront our past and to embrace transparency,’ Maurer said. ‘Our public archives are proof of our acknowledgment of the past and our continued effort to confront uncomfortable truths.’”

WJC President and billionaire Jewish oligarch Ronald Lauder praised Maurer’s and the ICRC’s groveling contrition for abandoning innocent Jews during the holocaust. “’You have already proven your moral authority because you have opened up your historical records,’ Lauder said. ‘You have admitted that you could have and should have done more.’”

While Peter Maurer is most likely Swiss, his service to Jewish interests at the expense of the Palestinians, however immoral, grants him the revered status as honored philo-Semite. And it bestows a false front of compassionate humanitarianism on both the ICRC and the WEF.

Mark Carney – Philo-Semite

This WEF Board member is a mega global bankster. He is the Governor of the Bank of England and on the board of one of the most powerful banking institutions in the world, the Bank of International Settlements. Carney worked at Goldman Sachs for thirteen years, in multiple offices around the world. He is one Goldman Sachs alumni “notable for his public repudiation of capitalism in arguing for green socialism.” Green socialism is only another euphemism for the totalitarian seizure of world control through the Great Reset, what the WEF calls “stakeholder capitalism.” As a WEF Board member Carney is in the right place.

Chrystia Freeland – Dishonorable mention

Chrystia Freeland is one WEF Board member who is definitely not Jewish. In fact we are led to believe she even had “Nazi” associations in her past, but has reformed. She is currently the deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Canada, and major media outlets such as Politico and The Atlantic have declared her “Minister of Everything.” However, in 2017 allegations arose that Freeland’s maternal grandfather had been an editor for a Ukrainian newspaper that published “anti-semitic” content, a “school of hate,” and was supported by the National Socialists. Grandpa did not have the moral integrity to work elsewhere (possibly because Ukrainians hated life under Stalin and saw the Germans as liberators), and so while maybe not an “intellectual collaborator” because Freeland maintained he did not write copy, he was still a “situational collaborator.”

Freeland overcame the scandal and retained her positions in the Canadian government. She was instrumental in arranging major global oligarchic control “free trade” agreements such as the   Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. In a major move of what would be, Freeland wrote a book titled Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. “It… won the 2013 National Business Book Award for the most outstanding Canadian business-related book.” It was one reason PM Trudeau brought her into his cabinet. A review says “The book divides the very wealthy into three main groups—Russian oligarchs, Wall Street financial professionals, and American business executives”— but the book does not concern itself with the ethnic composition of these three groups. For someone so influential in the Canadian cabinet as to arrange the global “free trade” agreements that are impoverishing working Canadians and driving their wages and standard of living down, to publish a book focused on the “new global super rich” and how they are impoverishing everyone else, while serving the global totalitarian plutocratic take-over at the WEF is grotesque.

Klaus Schwab – Philo-Semite or Crypto-Jew

Finally, we must examine the ethnic nature of the Executive Director and Founder of the World Economic Forum himself, Klaus Schwab. Another essay discussed Schwab’s many Jewish and Israeli connections.

Recently I came across a “deep dive” on Schwab just as I was preparing to submit this essay. This source, Forbidden Knowledge TV, comes in the form of an interview or discussion between the host and Michael McKibben of Leader Technologies, who claim a team of “miners” have been digging into Schwab’s family past for three months. They have yet to post this information in written form, so we will have to assess the interview podcast for now: “Klaus Schwab and the Fourth Reich.” The written introduction states: “Klaus Schwab was born in Nazi Germany in 1938. His Jewish mother fled the country, forced to abandon her year-old son with Klaus’ father….” In the podcast itself, at timestamp 12:52, McKibben says: “Through several two or three weeks of digging, discovered it through the back door. His mother was Jewish.” And at 24:40, the host says “here we have the Schwab family, or at least Klaus, hiding the fact that he (Klaus’ father Eugene) was married to a Jewess.”

We must eagerly await the written report on this interview to verify these claims and find out what the “back door” is. But if the “miners” at Leader Technologies have worked on this case for months to discover the ethnic background of Klaus Schwab, seeking primary sources and documentation, and state their findings with such confidence, then we must conclude: Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Director of the World Economic Forum, epicenter of evil in our world today, driving humanity into the Great Reset technocratic tyranny using the powerful new technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to force the survivors of his engineered destruction of all we have known of life into his transhumanist cybernetic nightmare, is Jewish.


In the comment section of a previous essay, someone said: “Haven’t we passed the point of naming the Jews already?” He called for solutions. But the first step is inevitably to realize the scope of the problem. Quite clearly Jews and philo-Semites are ensconced in the most powerful organizations and institutions in the world, and these organizations are aimed at a complete restricting of the entire planet.

Sir Richard Francis Burton:  Explorer, Linguist, Race Realist

Sir Richard Francis Burton, in 1864

Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821–1890) was a nineteenth-century British explorer made famous by being one of the first White men to venture into the forbidden city of Mecca, plumb the depths of Africa with Sir Jonathan Speke in search of the source of the Nile, and to complete a translation of the Arabian Nights.

Most descriptions of him tick off his long list of accomplishments:  world-class fencer, army officer, linguist reputed to have mastered dozens of languages, author of countless articles and books.

Burton, though born in England a thoroughly identified as an Englishman, was at the same time a Continentalist, preferring the cuisine and climate of France and Italy (where he had spent much of his childhood) to the deprivations of British boarding school.

He cultivated a reputation for bucking authority.  He was expelled from Oxford for leading a group of students on a day trip to a steeplechase, and refusing to apologize for it.

With the British army in the Sind, he was assigned to investigate a “boy brothel” in Karachi that command feared was frequented by some soldiers.  His report was so thorough, it generated whispers, though scholars do not think Burton was a participant—merely unafraid to roll up his sleeves and get the bottom of anything anthropological, no matter how taboo.

On religion, he was probably an atheist, and only played along with being a Catholic to satisfy his wife, Isabel.  He thought Christian missionary efforts were foolish.  At parties, he delighted in shocking his listeners with his exploits.  It was rumored that during his exploration of Mecca, he’d killed an Arab who’d discovered him to be merely posing as a faithful Muslim.  Whether this happened or not, he never denied it.

He is sometimes pictured in uniform;  other times, disguised as an Arab.  The National Portrait Gallery in London shows him with a massive scar on his cheek, the result of a Somali spear that pierced his entire face and smashed out two molars[1].

The spear-piercing was re-enacted in Mountains of the Moon, a 1990 movie starring Patrick Bergin as the rakish and mustachioed Burton.[2]   The same movie shows him ducking in and out of huts with African women, a nod to suspicions that when exploring a foreign land, he left nothing unexplored.

An interest in Burton is easy to indulge.  In addition to his own writings, which include some 43 volumes on his own explorations, there are countless biographies of him and his wife (including one by his wife), scholarly articles, and even societies dedicated to Burton’s life and works.

In many ways, Richard Burton might be described as one of the West’s first ethnologists.  What fascinated Burton more than the geography of the lands he explored was the people.  But one must dive deep to discover that Burton was a race realist of the first order.

He was emphatically not a racial egalitarian, but escapes the tag of crude “racist” by virtue of being an erudite and worldly Briton.  Whatever the scientific explanation for racial difference, Burton believed in it unreservedly.  What is more, he mocked those who held fast to visions of equality for putting sentiment over fact.

As much as he loved to explore, he did not think highly of colonial attempts to control foreign peoples.  To him, it was a deck of cards waiting for a stiff wind.  Miscegenation as a colonial strategy was a complete failure.

Jews, meanwhile, were seen as a sharply distinct people who, despite a long history in England, had the capacity to exercise outsized control of White societies.  The “Aryan”, Burton said, has a poor understanding of Jews.

Black Africans

Burton had extensive travels into the heart of Africa.  Perhaps most famous was his journey south with Sir Jonathan Speke in search of the source of the Nile, which brought him into contact with several different types of Africans and the Arab slave traders who bought and sold them.

He was unsparing in his descriptions.  In the biography The Devil Drives, author Fawn Brodie[3] wrote that while Burton had some respect for the Arabs he encountered in travels, Black Africans “fascinated but mostly repelled him.”[4]

Coastal Black tribes Burton called “supersubtle and systematic liars” who “deceive when duller men would tell the truth.”  The Wanyika of east Africa he called a “futile race of barbarians, drunken and immoral; cowardly and destructive; boisterous and loquacious; indolent, greedy and thriftless.”[5]

The Wagago men he described as “idle and debauched, spending their days in unbroken crapulence and drunkenness,” “celebrated as thieves” who would “rather die under the stick than level themselves with women by using a hoe.”[6]

Brodie notes that “this sounds like rabid racial hatred, but Burton was first of all an exact observer.  There was filth, mutilation, ignorance, indolence, drunkenness and violence.  The natives did live in huts populated with ‘a menagerie of hens, pigeons and rates of peculiar impudence’, just like the poor in Ireland, as Burton was careful to add.

Another famous explorer, David Livingstone, is described by Brodie as loving the African natives.  “Unlike Burton, he had faith in the Negro’s educability, industry, and capacity for moral improvement through Christianity.”[7]

Burton was a contemporary of Francis Galton,[8] and, along with James Hunt and Monckton Milnes, founded the Anthropological Society of London.  Burton hoped the society would publish ethnological studies and operate as “a refuge for Destitute Truth,” permitting a “liberty of thought and a freedom of speech unknown to any other society in Great Britain.”[9]

More specifically, Burton was likely imagining frank talk about racial differences, sexual practices, and other forbidden topics.

In one early article for the society, Hunt wrote that “Negro cranial sutures closed earlier than those of the White man, therefore his brain was smaller.”  Brodie writes that Burton, “long puzzled by his own observation that the Negro child, though as quick if not quicker in learning than the White child, seemed to stop developing in adolescence, accepted this.”[10]

Burton, in a letter to Hunt in response to his paper “The Negro’s Place in Nature”, wrote:  “Like other students of anthropology, I am truly grateful to you for having so graphically shown the great gulf, moral and physical, separating the Black from the White races of men, and for having placed in so striking a light the physiological cause of the difference—namely, the arrested physical development of the negro.”[11]

Burton ascribes this, like Hunt, to an insight that the sutures of the cranium of “lower breeds of mankind” close at an earlier age, such that his “physical and mental powers become stationary at an age when, in nobler races, the perceptive and reflective principles begin to claim ascendency.”[12]

This letter is reprinted in one of Burton’s books, A Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome, which describes Burton’s experiences in what is now modern-day Benin.  He had been sent there by the British government to persuade the king to stop participating in the slave trade.

In the letter, Burton indicates that as early as the 1800’s, “wishy-washy sentimentality” was affecting the Western mind on race.  He suspects that “my statements will be far from popular” and writes that “the pure negro ranks in the human family below the two great Arab and Aryan races. … The propensities and passions are tolerably well grown, the perceptives and reflectives are of inferior power, and the sentimental or moral regions remain almost undeveloped.”[13]

The chapter containing the letter to Hunt begins with a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica’s 1797 entry on Blacks:  “Vice the most notorious seem to be the portion of this unhappy race—idleness, treachery, revenge, cruelty, impudence, stealing, lying, profanity, debauchery and intemperance, are said to have extinguished the principles of natural law and to have silenced the reproofs of conscience.  They are strangers to every sentiment of compassion, and are an awful of example of the corruption of man when left to himself.”[14]

Africans freely adopt foreign customs, manners and costumes, “however incongruous,” Burton observes, and they despise agriculture.  In descriptions that echo modern-day Black behavior, he says that “the cruelty of the negro is, like that of a schoolboy, the blind impulse of rage combined with want of sympathy.  Thus he thoughtlessly tortures and slays his prisoners, as the youth of England torment and kill cats.”[15]

Burton predicted that the “negro, in mass, will not improve beyond a certain point” and remains, mentally, a child.  He seems to suggest climate influence here, where the tropics “engender but few wants” and do not compel its inhabitants to hard work and foresight.

Blacks are terrible with animals, Burton observes.  They never invented an alphabet, a musical scale, or “any other element of knowledge.”[16]  “The negro, in his wild state, makes his wives work; he will not, or rather he cannot, labour, except by individual compulsion, as in the Confederate States; or by necessity, as in Barbadoes.”[17]

Burton visited Sierra Leone, a British colony of free Blacks, and came away horrified by the spectacle of Whites living under Black rule.  The juries were “a machinery for tyranny” where “the worst of the Aku criminals were invariably found innocent and most of the innocent Whites guilty.”[18]   The best approach, thought Burton, was White juries for Whites and Black juries for Blacks.

Racial dislike in Africa seemed to run both ways.  Burton could not help but note that African demons were depicted as White and ugly, while European demons were depicted as Black and ugly.[19]  “The Africans will say that the White man is an old ape, and doubt that he is human.   Thus we observe, that whilst the Caucasian doubts the humanity of the Hamite, the latter repays the compliment in kind.”

Burton mocked the efforts of the Christian missionaries to Africa.  What must have been going through the Africans’ minds, he laughed, when the missionaries commanded them to replace their magic teeth, bones and wizard’s mats with consecrated palm leaves?

Burton observed the strong tendency of Black Africans toward unnecessary torture, something we see played out in news articles of today.[20]  Wrote Burton, “Cruelty seems to be with him a necessary way of life, and all his highest enjoyments are connected with causing pain and inflicting death.  His religious rites—a strong contrast with those of the modern Hindoo—are ever causelessly bloody.[21]

Some European explorers, like race-deniers of today, wanted to attribute the Africans’ lack of progress to a simple lack of civilizational infrastructure.  Burton dabbled with this thinking, but ultimately concluded that the problem was in their very bodies and brains.

Of their cruelty, he wrote, “I can hardly believe … this abnormal cruelty to be the mere result of unciviliation; it appears to me the effect of an arrested development, which leaves to man all the ferocity of the carnivore, the unreflecting cruelty of the child.”[22]

Some Burton biographers attribute his views on Black Africans to the “prejudices of the time” or a colonialism-inspired sense of superiority.  The problem with this dismissal is that Burton was very much the iconoclast:  he was often cross-wise with the mores of Victorian England, and willing—even at the expense of his career and reputation—to openly challenge them.

He was a sexual liberationist who thought British women were entitled to more than just lying back and thinking of England.  He was a religious skeptic who thought Christian missionary efforts did not actually convert foreign peoples to Christianity.  He predicted that Britain would be unable to maintain its empire in the face of constantly rebelling natives, as with India.

Later, as we will see, he was even willing to challenge Jews—which seems to have been as suicidal a mission to take in the 1800’s as today.  So to say that he was simply echoing the small-minded racial bigotry of the time is incorrect.  Burton was beholden to no man.  He did and said as he pleased.

Nor can it be said that Burton lacked first-hand experience.  He was in Africa.  He interacted directly with Black Africans, observed their ceremonies, lived in their camps.  He may well have spoken some of their languages.  Add to all this the fact that Burton styled himself a professional observer, as a member of the military and later, the Royal Geographical Society.

Finally, the truth of Burton’s observations are backed up by more modern research.  On the issue of rapid development of Black children followed by an abrupt leveling-off, J. Phillippe Rushton has written extensively.[23]

Whatever can observed of Africa and Africans, for Burton, it was no place for White Western man.  “There is a time to leave the Dark Continent. … Madness comes from Africa.”[24]

Native Americans

A visit to the United States took Burton to Utah, where he intended to observe the Mormons.  Along the way he observed American Indians, who were not “red” but reminded him of “a Tartar or an Afghan after a summer march” or the Mongolians he had seen in northern India.[25]

The Indian rode his horse “like the Abyssinian eunuch, as if born upon and bred to become part of the animal.”  He saw their proximity to Whites as corrupting to them:  the Indians closest to emigrant routes had become “beggars, liars, horse-stealers and prostitutes.”  He doubted that Indians ever truly became Christians.[26]

Yet another journey—this one, through a diplomatic post to Brazil, brought him into contact with South American natives.  Paraguayans, he said, were “a palaeozoic humanity,” but he took a dim view, as well, of the Jesuits trying to turn them into Whites.[27]

Burton, more eager than perhaps any man alive to explore foreign cultures, detested unnatural culture-mixing.  Writes Brodie, “Though he himself delighted in burying his identity in an alien culture, the spectacle of others crossing over into a different society always troubled him, whether it was the Hindu in Goa who had become Christian, the African who wore the White man’s clothes, or the mountain man in the Rockies who, Burton wrote, ‘Betrays a remarkable aptitude for facile descent into savagery.’”[28]


The small province of Goa is a territory on the western edge of India.  After travels there, it became the subject of Burton’s first book, Goa and the Blue Mountains.  Published in 1851, it describes the racial decline of a colony owing to interbreeding with the locals.

Recounting the glory of old Goa under Portuguese viceroys, Burton wrote:  “The introduction of the Jesuits, the Holy Tribunal, and its fatal offspring, religious persecution; pestilence, and wars with European and native powers, disturbances arising from an unsettled home government, and, above all things, the slow but sure workings of the short-sighted policy of the Portuguese in intermarrying and identifying themselves with the Hindoos of the lowest castes, made her fall as rapid as her rise was sudden and prodigious.”[29]

Intermarriage and interbreeding, while perhaps considered strategic by some European colonizers, plunged Goa into a morass.  “The reader may remember that it was Albuquerque who advocated marriages between the European settlers and the natives of India.  However reasonable it might have been to expect the amalgamation of the races in the persons of their descendants, experience and stern facts condemn the measure as a most delusive and treacherous daydream. … It has lost the Portuguese almost everything in Africa as well as Asia.  May Heaven preserve our rulers from following their example!”[30]

Burton found the offspring ugly. “The Mestici, or mixed breed, composes the great mass of society at Goa. … It would be, we believe, difficult to find in Asia an uglier or more degraded looking race than that which we are now describing.”[31]

Rather than creating “hybrid vigor,” Burton saw the offspring as worse than either parent.  “Their characters may be briefly described as passionate and cowardly, jealous and revengeful, with more of the vices than the virtues belonging to the two races from which they are descended.”[32]

The starting material was not great, Burton wrote of native Goans.  “This race is decidedly the lowest in the scale of civilized humanity we have yet seen.  In appearance they are short, heavy, meagre, and very dark;  their features are uncomely in the extreme;  they are dirtier than Pariahs, and abound in cutaneous diseases.”[33]

Burton took the view that long exposure to cold climates helped to forge White men into what they are today, and that some degeneration can be caused by climate alone, “All who have sojourned long in the southern parts of Europe, such as Italy or Spain, must have remarked the deleterious effects of a hot and dry climate upon a race that thrives only in a cold and damp one.  An English child brought up in Italy is, generally speaking, more sickly, more liable to nervous and hepatic complaints, and, consequently, more weakened in mind as well as body, than even the natives of the country.”[34]

Goa and the Blue Mountains caught the attention of a professor at the University of Delhi, who described the book as pure racism, a mindset meant to justify British colonialism.[35]  The professor describes Burton as a dedicated imperialist, which is not the impression I got while researching.  Burton certainly availed himself of the exploration and employment opportunities of the British empire, but did not endorse the enterprise in its entirety.

In fact, Burton concludes, regarding European colonization of India generally, that it was an unsustainable proposition.  The Indians, whatever they said or did under colonial rule, hated the White English.  “Everyone knows that if the people of India could be unanimous for a day, they might sweep us from their country as dust before a whirlwind.”[36]

Sir Richard Burton disguised as a Muslim Arab 


Burton seemed to think that Islam was a healthy influence for Bedouin and Arab peoples, who before Mohammed were given to gambling, drinking and other vices.  Like so many other religions, Islam’s influence was ethnically bounded.

While “El Islam prospered amongst the kindred races, it fell flat elsewhere.  No power of propagandism prevailed in China.  In Southern Spain the faith maintained itself for a long time;  its letter and spirit, however, were almost lost.  The Zegris and Abencerrages were European knights, not Eastern.  And when pushed forward into a Northern people, a single destructive defeat sufficed to set for it bounds which it has never attempted to cross.”

Burton here is likely referring to Charles Martel’s 732 A.D. defeat of the Muslims led by Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi at the Battle of Tours, which effectively stopped the Umayyad invasion of Gaul (and in the view of some, secured Europe for White Christianity.


Burton once famously wrote that “Had I a choice of race, there is none to which I would more willingly belong than the Jewish.”[37]  Add to this many selected comments from Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam, his foremost work on Jews, and one might get the impression that Burton was philosemitic.

The full picture is more complex, and many of Burton’s conclusions about Jews align with standard White advocacy objections to Jews and their influence in Western societies.  He does not see them as “Whites who go to a different church,” in the popular understanding of today.  They are ethnically distinct, boldly deceptive, and unified.

Among all Jews, he wrote, one finds those who are “fierce-eyed, dark-browed, and hollow-cheeked, with piercing acuteness of glance, and an almost reckless look of purpose.”  He attributed to the Jews immense passion, pugnacity, love of mysticism, symbolism, and the occult arts, as well as “abnormal powers of lying” and “excessive optimism”.[38]

Jews are “bold and resolute, persistent and heroic but, but also subtle and unscrupulous.  They may be guilty of greed and craft, and even ferocity, but rarely weakness and never imbecility.”

A formative experience came for Burton during his consulship in Damascus.  For years, it had been the practice for Jewish moneylenders to use British officials as muscle for the collection of debts.  The moneylenders expected Burton to carry on this tradition, but Burton had other ideas.

As recounted in The Devil Drives, there were three Jewish moneylenders who were especially hated by Burton.  One, who Burton said had “sucked dry 41 villages,” approached him for assistance in collecting 60,000 pounds in debts.  Burton replied:  “I was not sent here as a bailiff, to tap the peasant on the shoulder in such cases as yours.”[39]

This then set off a round of letters to powerful Jews in London, accusing Burton and his wife of anti-Semitism.  These powerful Jews included Sir Moses Montefiore and Sir Francis Goldsmid, the chief rabbi of London.  The Jewish complaints may well have played a part in Burton’s being recalled from the consulship.

But Burton’s thinking on Jews was best set out by one of his own writings, Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam.  Burton had a few negative things to say about Gypsies[40] and Muslims, but about Jews, he had both powerful praise and deep scorn.  Most of what Burton wrote went to print, though Wilkins, his publisher, censored a part dealing the Sephardic Jewish ritual murder of one Padre Tomaso in Damascus in 1840.[41]  Brodie says that this part was “sold” to Manners Sutton, who tried to publish it, but was blocked by a lawsuit filed by Isabel Burton’s literary trustee, D.L. Alexander.[42]

Famously, Isabel Burton burned many of her husband’s papers after his death.  It can only be speculated what papers were burned.  It was the Victorian age, and there was always embarrassment about Burton’s English translation of the Kama Sutra and other erotic material.  We may never know what accounts of Jews may have been burned.

Still, Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam is a treasure trove.

Some descriptions have the Jews as racially pure and, as a result, powerful.  The “oldest family on earth, … indestructible and irrepressible life-power enables this nation without a country to maintain an undying nationality and to nourish a sentiment of caste with a strength and a pertinacity unparalleled in the annals of patriotism.”[43]

Those who drove Jews from Biblical lands are gone.  The Romans, too, are gone.  “Eighteen hundred years after the Fall of Jerusalem, the dispersed Jewish people have a distinct existence, are a power in every European capital, conduct the financial operations of nations and governments, and are to be found wherever civilization has extended and commerce has penetrated; in fact, it has made all the world its home.”[44]

Burton describes Jews as having “reporters in every chief centre of the world, … know all projects set to be undertaken, and entwine themselves in them, dictating that this man should be allowed to participate in these profits, that another should be excluded from those advantages.”[45]

“(The Jew) may confidently look forward to the time when the whole financial system, not only of Europe from one end to the other, but of the whole world, will be in the hands of a few crafty capitalists, whose immense wealth shall, with a few pulsations of the telegraphy, unthrone dynasties and determine the destinies of nations.”[46]  Here, it is almost as if Burton is predicting Jewish Internet, financial, and media control.

Jews’ isolation and separation “justified the Hebrew in treating his brother-men as heathens barely worthy of the title of human.”[47]  “The inevitable conclusion of such a policy was that eventually they came into collision with all around them.”[48]

In one amusing anecdote, Burton describes some back-and-forthing in the House of Commons, where at issue was legislation to lift civil disabilities for Jews.  One William Abbott described how Jews prefer “sordid pursuits,” and is rebuffed by Lord Macaulay, who called opposition to Jews “bigotry.”

Burton himself, however, rebuffs Macaulay, stating that “our European ancestors had other reasons for expelling the Jews than the mere ‘bigotry’ and ‘brutality’ so unphilosophically ascribed to them by Lord Macaulay”.[49]

In a chapter titled “Opinion of the Jew in England,” Burton is puzzled by the respectful treatment of Jews in England, which he regards as naïve. Its “confident ignorance in indiscriminate philanthropy are bestowed upon them equally with the African negro.”

Burton observed wild oscillations in opinion on Jews.  “The Hebrew race is so marked in its characteristics that it has ever been the theme of over-praise or undue blame.”[50]  Changes of English opinion on Jews are “comically abrupt”.

He ridiculed the “vapid utterances” of “the Liberal School,” which declared that happiness and harmony would result from “battering down the ponderous walls of prejudice.”[51]  Because, though the Christian would give up his faith and race, “the Jew … will cling to (faith and race) with greater tenacity, as it will be the very root and main foundation of his power.”

He is repeatedly critical of British writers who defend Jews. “Popular books like The British Jew (Rev. John Mills), for instance, are mostly written in the apologetic tone; they are advocates and missionaries, not describers. … Glowing descriptions of Jews were preferred, these writers would not crowd their pages with the superstitions of the ignorant.”[52]

Better, Burton says, is a quote from Saturday Review magazine, on what makes for Jewish power.  “They are: religion, the capacity for making money, and internal union. … They are like the tenants of a beleaguered fort cut off from the rest of mankind, and obliged to protect themselves and to help each other.”

Financial dealings keep Jews from physical labor, writes Burton.  “He—the ordinary Englishman—may be dimly conscious that the Jew is the one great exception to the general curse upon the sons of Adam, and that he alone eats bread, not in the sweat of his own face, but in the sweat of his neighbor’s face—like the German cuckoo, who does not colonize, but establishes himself in the colonies of other natives.”[53]

Lower-class Jews pursue enterprises “held mean or dishonorable … such as demoralizing usury, receiving stolen goods, buying up old clothes, keeping gambling houses and betting cribs, dealing in a literature calculated to pervert the mind of youth.”[54]

Burton observed a psychological strength in Jews, compared to the ease with which Whites were prone to depression:  “I incline to the opinion that Gentiles have a natural alacrity in sinking—look how heavy I can be—but that the Chosen People have a natural tendency toward buoyancy.”[55]

A few choice items from the book:

  • He says that there are “six millions of Jews scattered over the face of the earth,” a number that seems to make multiple appearances throughout history.
  • Higher-class Jewish women are “strongly and symmetrically shaped” though their features are not admired by the Christian eye.
  • Burton considered Jews, at least the Ashkenazi kind, to be physically hardy. Ancient practices of walking and fasting bred out weakness, he claimed.
  • He also thought they were resistant to disease, having avoided typhus in 1505, fevers in Rome in 1691, and cholera in London.
  • High achievers among Jews in any field often outdo the high-achieving gentiles.
  • Some old English families have Jewish blood.
  • Burton describes the two great branches of Jews as the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim. The Sephardim are identified with modern Spain and Portugal and claim descent from the tribe of Judah.  Its three sub-orders are the Cohen, the Levites and the “Ammon Israelite.”
  • Ashkenazim, meanwhile, are identified with more northern areas, and take their name from Ashkenaz, the son of Gomer. They claim descent from Benjamin.  They were present at the building of the Second Temple, described in the Book of Ezra.
  • On the restoration of a Jewish homeland in Israel, Burton says that “wealthy and prosperous Jews openly declare that they take no interest in the matter.”
  • But: those who “proved themselves hostile to Israel must be killed at all risk, either by the Jews themselves, or, better still, through the local authorities.”

Burton thought Jewish immigration to England was a terrible idea.  Ashkenazi Jews living in the holy land were ordered by the Russian Consulate-General to return home biennially in order to renew their passports or give up their nationality, he wrote.  Many landed in London, the “City of Refuge”, a step that could “hardly be looked upon with satisfaction.”[56]

The Talmud, first published in Venice in 1520, according to Burton, was given a thorough treatment in Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam.  Whatever else can be said of the Talmud, Burton said, Rabbi Ascher’s assertion that it enjoins Jews to treat Christians “as our own brethren” is grossly false.[57]

“The most important and pregnant tenet of modern Jewish belief is that the Ger, or stranger, in fact all those who do not belong to their religion, are brute beasts, having no more rights than the fauna of the field,” Burton wrote[58]

More choice examples:

  • Burton describes that in the “tract of Sanhedrin,” it states that a Gentile who strikes a Jew has committed a capital offense; “this ordinance is as old as the sojourn of Moses in Egypt.  He who strikes a Jew strikes the Deity.”
  • In tract Ohaleth it says that sitting upon the grave of a gentile does not defile, because “they are not tenanted by human beings.”[59]
  • Tract Bechoroth tells us that two things prevent the Jew from keeping the law of God—demons, and dependence on gentiles.

Burton sticks up for Whites in the “who attacked first” debate, writing that “Those who are so ready to admit and deplore the mighty provocations which roused a spirit of retaliation in the Rabbinical mind should equally make allowance for the natural feelings of the unfortunate Gentiles and heathens when the “People of the Synagogue” had their wicked will.”[60]

He lists atrocities against gentiles, such as one in the fifth century near Medina where “thousands of the Christians of the Nejeran” were burned alive in a trench filled with combustibles, or this one:  “A.D. 1135.  The Jews crucified a boy at Norwich.  According to the general report, they hired a Christian lad aged twelve as a leather-sewer, and converted him into a Paschal offering; they placed a bit in his mouth, and after a thousand outrages they crucified him, … leaving the remains hanging upon a tree.”[61]

Whether there is truth to the list, I am not sure, though scholars are naturally disinclined to believe any of it.  Burton wrote that European gentiles were close-minded to the notion that Jews would commit physical atrocities against them.

Burton to me had the right approach.  He appreciated world cultures, wanted to see and write about them, and often had positive things to say about them.  But he never confused cultural appreciation with cultural relativism.  Travel, explore and exchange, he might have advised, but for day-to-day living, keep races in their places.

*Christopher Donovan is a writer and White advocate living somewhere in America.

[1] This painting, by Sir Frederick Leighton, can be seen hanging on the wall of Professor Henry Higgins’ home in My Fair Lady.

[2] Burton should not be confused with the actor Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor’s fifth (and sixth) husband.

[3] Brodie herself was descended from the Mormon community, and married a Jewish academic.

[4] Fawn M. Brodie, The Devil Drives (W.W. Norton & Co., 1967), page 150.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 223.

[8] Galton, a eugenicist, was a half-cousin of Charles Darwin.

[9] Devil Drives at 205.

[10]  Id. at 206.

[11] Richard Burton, A Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome, Volume II (Tylston and Edwards, 1893), at 119.

[12] Id. at 119.

[13] Gelele at 132.

[14] Gelele at 118.

[15] Gelele at 134.

[16] Gelele at 134.

[17] Gelele at 136.

[18] Devil Drives at 208.

[19] Id. at 208.

[20] The South African practice of “necklacing”, whereby a burning tire is place around a victim’s neck, comes to mind.

[21] Id. at 211.

[22] Richard Burton, Two Trips to Gorilla Land and the Cataracts of the Congo, 2 vols (London, 1876), I, 217-18.

[23] William Robertson Boggs, Race and Physical Differences, American Renaissance, December 1992.

[24] Richard Burton, Camoens:  His Life and His Lusiads, 2 vols (London, 1881) II, 514-517.

[25] Devil Drives at 183.

[26] Devil Drives at 183.

[27] Devil Drives at 243.

[28] Id. at 183.

[29] Richard Burton, Goa and the Blue Mountains, Digibooks OOD/Demetra Publishing, (Bulgaria), 26.  Book originally published in 1851.

[30] Id. at 48.

[31] Id. at 53.

[32] Id. at 55.

[33] Id. at 57.

[34] Id. at 84.

[35] Khan Aateka, Burton’s Racist Critique of Portuguese Goa, Research Review Journals (March 2019).

[36] Id. at 85.

[37] Richard Burton, The Highlands of Brazil, (London, 1869), Vol. I, 403n.

[38] Devil Drives at 265.

[39] Devil Drives at 256.

[40] Alternatively known as the “Roma” people.

[41] Also, “Father Thomas”, the episode was known as the Damascus Affair.

[42] Devil Drives, footnote 7 to Chapter XXIII.  Brodie cites The Times, March 28, 1911.

[43] Richard Burton, Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam, 5 (Herbert S. Stone & Company, Chicago and New York, 1898) (republished by Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Mystical Reprints, www.kessinger.net)

[44] Id. at 6.

[45] Id. at 61.

[46] Id. at 62.

[47] Id. at 11.

[48] Id. at 12.

[49] Id. at 19.

[50] Id. at 23.

[51] Id. at 62.

[52] Id. at 37.

[53] Id. at 25.

[54] Id. at 28.

[55] Id. at 27.

[56] Id. at 50.

[57] Id. at 106.

[58] Id. at 73.

[59] Id. at 87.

[60] Id. at 115.

[61] Id. at 121.

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 openborders.info 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.

The Cofnas Problem, Part 2 of 3

Go to Part 1.

Argument by Anecdote

As one might suppose given the extensive range of data provided above, testing the Cofnas default hypothesis on contemporary involvement in immigration took a number of months to carry out, and involved a thorough survey of very many organizations and individuals. It was labor-intensive, but stands as an accurate and easily verifiable record of the role of Jews in contemporary American demographic and cultural change. It’s really quite remarkable, then, to see how lightly Cofnas appears to take his own hypothesis, since he refuses to subject it to any intensive testing at all. In fact, as with his brief and inaccurate accusation of MacDonald’s putative misrepresentations and omissions, there is a palpable air of laziness in all of Cofnas’s work in this area. Rather than conducting surveys of organizations, movements, or activities, Cofnas favors a kind of “argument by anecdote,” in which he simply tries to find one or two exceptions to a rule, amplifies their importance, and then reclines to bask in the dubious published glory afforded to him by co-ethnic journal editors.

One of Cofnas’s favorite anecdotes is the first American Renaissance conference, something Cofnas made much of in his original article, and which he has returned to in his 2021 rehash for Philosophia. He writes,

When given the opportunity, Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements, as MacDonald and Joyce inadvertently acknowledge. The one major white nationalist organization in the US that is not explicitly anti-Semitic is American Renaissance. Four-out-of-ten invited speakers at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jewish (Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, Rabbi Mayer Schiller, and Eugene Valberg) (American Renaissance 2017), and many of its most prominent supporters were Jewish.

I have to begin with Cofnas’s habit of inserting claims into the mouths of others. Nowhere have I “inadvertently acknowledged” that Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic White nationalist movements. In fact, I find the idea laughable and entirely lacking in evidence. What Cofnas is doing here is twisting MacDonald’s citing of my work, without actually consulting the original piece. Cofnas writes,

MacDonald (2016) says that “there is a historical pattern where Jews have entered putatively nationalist movements and directed them towards positions that make them ‘safe for the Jews’, at the expense of developing a true sense of ethnic interests.” He quotes his protégé, Andrew Joyce: “That Jews would try to co-opt, or attempt to derail, a potentially damaging movement does have many historical precedents.” Joyce goes on to say that “Jews attempted to take key roles” in the German nationalist movement in 1860–1880 until, under the influence of non-Jewish leaders, the “movement adopted an ‘Aryan clause.’” So if Jews want to join white nationalist movements as equals, they are accused of scheming to make the movements “safe for the Jews” and driven out. Then white nationalists ask why Jews don’t support their movements. Haven’t they answered their own question?

In a word, no. As stated above, Cofnas suffers from a serious deficit in understanding the importance of qualitative as well as quantitative data. In brief, if Cofnas can find a Jew in a nationalist movement, even if they’re proven to be subversives, half-Jews, quarter-Jews, or even anti-Semitic Jews, everything else can be discarded. The problem is that biography is absolutely crucial to testing both MacDonald’s thesis and that of Cofnas, and yet Cofnas seems entirely unconcerned with it — a good example being Cofnas’s claiming of Hans Eysenck as a Jewish hereditarian scientist, even though Eysenck was only half-Jewish in parentage, wasn’t raised within Judaism or a Jewish milieu, and made a point of explicitly denying any affinity or connection to Jewishness.[1] If Cofnas was in fact familiar with the case of Victor Adler and Heinrich Friedjung, referred to above, who competed for leadership of the German nationalist movement in Austria at the end of the nineteenth century, he would be aware that both were promoting a heavily diluted, left-leaning, and multicultural nationalism unrecognisable to those non-Jewish nationalists around them. This is not only a historical fact, but a matter of overwhelming consensus in the relevant historiography. Steven Beller, one of the foremost historians of the Jews of central Europe during this period, described Adler and Friedjung as part of a Jewish intellectual grouping that possessed its own “goals of social and cultural change.” Beller writes that Adler’s politics was inflected through a Jewish liberal lens, in which “socialism, universalist and secularist, [was viewed as a] possible answer to the antisemitism of the other parties. … Adler early on decided to stick to the rules of Austrian constitutionalist politics to bring about the revolution peacefully.”[2] Adler, who had in any case earlier described nationalism as “tactless”, “madness,” and “based chiefly on envy, misunderstanding, and irrationality,” became an out and out Marxist overnight after leaving the nationalist organization, proving in one stroke the total insincerity of his Austrian “nationalism.”[3] Friedjung, meanwhile, ostensibly a historian, was later castigated as a fraud not only for his putative political beliefs, but for producing texts based on inauthentic historical materials. Along with Adler, Friedjung was viewed as promoting a republican, anti-aristocratic, anti-clerical, and multiethnic nationalism that diverged significantly from the Austrian nationalism of non-Jews.[4] The eventual adoption of an Aryan Clause by Austrian nationalists was a response to the dilution of nationalism promoted by Adler and Friedjung and their very Jewish social circles (as well as Jewish movement predecessors like Ignaz Kuranda and Moritz Hartmann). To celebrate the removal of these influences, leading Austrian nationalist Georg von Schönerer published a new nationalist newspaper titled Undiluted German Words. The title says it all.

In short, Jews have been accused of “scheming” to subvert nationalist movements because they are very often proven to be doing just that. The problem with Cofnas is that he insists that these figures should still be considered nationalists, and that we have to ignore all evidence that they associated predominantly with Jewish milieus and often explicitly professed to seek after Jewish interests. Unfortunately, Cofnas doesn’t provide any meaningful reason for doing so, resorting repeatedly only to anecdotes like that of the first American Renaissance conference. In any case, what is the real substance of this anecdote?

Cofnas remarks that “four-out-of-ten invited speakers at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jewish (Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, Rabbi Mayer Schiller, and Eugene Valberg) (American Renaissance 2017), and many of its most prominent supporters were Jewish.” He furthermore argues that this is evidence that “Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.” But the logic here surely breaks down when given even the briefest of considerations. These speakers were not representational, but invited. Their mere presence at the conference reflects in large part the tastes, preferences, and, I would argue, anxieties of the person or persons who invited them. In this regard, I believe it’s been a longstanding position of Jared Taylor that he not be seen as anti-Semitic, and Taylor has himself on many occasions expressed hostility to anti-Semitism. In his own words, Taylor has maintained that “American Renaissance has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences.” Could his selection of these speakers have been an over-compensation to fend off accusations of American Renaissance being anti-Semitic? I believe so. Does the skewed representation of 40% at this one conference indicate that Jews are necessarily over-represented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements? Only a fool would think so. Which brings us finally to biography, that important facet so often neglected by Cofnas. Auster, of course, was an adult convert to Christianity, which doesn’t prove anything conclusively but does suggest a weakened attachment to Jewishness. Moreover, Auster, despite acknowledging the Jewish role in the transformation of America, vigorously condemned MacDonald. All four figures are primarily concerned with race and IQ, a preoccupation of the almost explicitly philo-Semitic Jared Taylor (and one I personally find both distracting and overplayed in the context of broader civilizational collapse), rather than having ties to broader White nationalist ideology. Schiller was an almost comical inclusion given his lack of academic credentials and attachment to certain crackpot fringe ideologies. As for Cofnas’s claim that “many of [AmRen’s] most prominent supporters were Jewish,” I note that he provides no names or data for the claim, or any evidence that such support would amount to an overrepresentation commensurate with his default hypothesis.

Critics might accuse me of picking at a weak spot here in Cofnas’s work, but the point I’m trying to make is that, to Cofnas, the 1994 American Renaissance is a trump card that he sees as worth repeating every time he publishes a critique of MacDonald. I’m not highlighting the conference — Cofnas is, and quite shamelessly.

It’s my belief that Cofnas makes his arguments in bad faith, and I’m led to this belief primarily due to the slowly shifting sands of Cofnas’s own position and the fact he regularly makes claims unsubstantiated by evidence. Without any kind of broad or detailed survey, for example, Cofnas claims that “Jews have also been represented in the leadership of non-anti-Semitic right-wing movements.” Which movements? Which leaders? In which countries? Relative to what? In what time period? We don’t get any such information, just the claim. And where Cofnas does attempt to bridge the gap between claim and evidence, the result is nothing short of laughable. Take the following, from his 2021 Philosophia rehash:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is leading the charge to censor politically incorrect speech, but the most prominent pro-free speech organization in the US—the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)—was founded by Jews (Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate).

It’s worth remarking first that there’s no evidence suggesting that FIRE is the “most prominent pro-free speech organization” in the US, relative to other groups like the Institute for Free Speech, which wasn’t founded by Jews, has no Jewish board members, and does not restrict itself to higher education. FIRE is also certainly not more prominent than the American Civil Liberties Union, which also advocates on free speech issues. The more obvious problem, of course, is once again qualitative in that many “pro-free speech” groups dovetail ideologically with the ADL in many areas, and a lot of these organizations are inherently left-wing dating back to periods in which they fought against the censorship of pornographic or homosexual material (e.g. the Free Speech Coalition), for drug use, or for the rights of students to protest on campus. It goes without saying that the ADL is absolutely in favor of this kind of “free speech,” and that its primary concern is with White nationalist, and similar, content — something FIRE, or any of these groups, have yet to defend. Cofnas’s use of the anecdote of FIRE is interesting because of the (by now predicable) lack of biography for Kors and Silverglate (e.g., do they see a Jewish interest in free speech?), and the total lack of nuance or context in making a comparison between the ADL and FIRE. As with other examples produced above, we simply have an “argument by anecdote” in which an organization is inflated in prominence so that its small number of Jewish founders or members can be raised to the purely rhetorical position of overrepresentation, behind which there is no meaningful substance. The biography and intentions of these Jews doesn’t matter to Cofnas, nor does the huge disparity in Jewish support, material and/or ideological, between them and the ADL. It certainly doesn’t seem to matter to Cofnas that Silverglate is a lifelong leftist married to a dedicated Jewish feminist and AIDS activist. The only significant example of Kors engaging in racial issues is when he came to the defense of a University of Pennsylvania student accused of making racist remarks to a group of Black students. That student’s name was Eden Jacobowitz. Is Kors a dedicated conservative free speech activist? Or is he an ethnocentric Jew “looking out for his own”? Ultimately, when contrasted with Jewish wealth and support behind the ADL (unlike FIRE, an explicitly Jewish organization), it doesn’t really matter, because FIRE is utterly dwarfed by the Jewish behemoth and its unrelenting campaign to smother the freedoms of White Americans.

Shifting Sands

As stated above in relation to the so-called “default hypothesis,” Cofnas argues that, predominantly due to a higher than average IQ and a tendency toward urban living, Jews will naturally be over-represented in all intellectual movements and activities that are not overtly anti-Semitic. While Jews may be overrepresented in pro-immigration, pro-pluralism organizations and movements, the default hypothesis insists that they will also be overrepresented in nationalist, anti-immigration or restrictionist movements (that are not anti-Semitic) also. There is an inherent implication that these over-representations will be, more or less, to the same degree, and Cofnas, for the most part, refuses to discuss the matter in any serious way that might allow for, or explain, why any potential divergence in over-representation might occur. In his new piece for Philosophia, however, Cofnas inserts a minor qualification: “In recent history, Jewish involvement in politics has skewed left because a higher proportion of right-wing than left-wing movements were overtly anti-Semitic.” He also adds that his overall thesis

should not be misinterpreted as a claim that Jews are exactly the same as white gentiles, or that they’re just like high-IQ, urban white gentiles. All groups differ from each other in interesting ways, reflecting their evolutionary and cultural histories. But, in general, anything unusual about Jewish political behavior is mostly a predictable reaction to their historical circumstances.

From my discussion of Jewish involvement in refugee and migrant organizations, it should be clear that Jewish involvement in U.S. politics hasn’t merely “skewed” left, but has been overwhelmingly  encamped in the left, at least since the late nineteenth century. That being said, there are clearly other questions arising even from this one sentence. What are the parameters of “recent history”? Since 1900? Since 1800? In what countries? Other questions quickly surface. Why is Jewish political involvement still “skewing” left even though we are constantly fed narratives of leftist anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism? Most important of all, the sentence marks a departure from Cofnas’s earlier statement that Jews would avoid specific movements due to anti-Semitism, and towards the implication that Jews are suspicious of right-wing movements in general over fears surrounding anti-Semitism on the Right — a concession that would all but render the “default hypothesis” redundant in any political or cultural context, and require several more layers of explanation. Any attempt to insist that Cofnas is still referring to the avoidance of specific movements would need to answer why Jews remain under-represented in non-anti-Semitic right wing movements like the NRA and the gun rights movement, as well as the pro-life movement and attempts to prevent same-sex marriage.

The tiny Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has a membership of just 7,000 with no paid staff and annual revenue of less than $130,000. Since members are not required to be Jewish, it would be reasonable to assume that the organization boasts fewer than 7,000 members in a Jewish population of 6 and 7 million. In other words, a Jewish crusade for gun freedom in America resonates with less than 0.1% of American Jews. The National Rifle Association has had only one Jewish President (Sandra Froman) since it was founded in 1871, and, as one commentator put it “the vast majority of American Jews and much of the organized Jewish community consistently support gun control measures. Hadassah, B’nai B’rith, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the American Jewish Committee and others have been essentially “blacklisted” by the National Rifle Association on its website.” There are apparently no Jews on the NRA Board of Directors. Interestingly, Froman, the NRA’s only Jewish President, could hardly be described as strongly identifying with Judaism or Jewishness. She told one interviewer that “her parents didn’t emphasize her Judaism. … She doesn’t remember the denomination of the synagogue near San Francisco where her family occasionally attended services and where she was married the first time. She speaks freely both of her respect for the Jewish spiritual tradition and of her lack of meaningful connection with it.”

By contrast, Jews are dominant in the fight to increase gun control. Jewish lawyers Robyn Thomas and Nina Vinik, executive director and senior counsel, respectively, of the Legal Community Against Violence, are quite prominent in lobbying for gun control legislation, and Thomas also acts as executive director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Within these groups there’s often a crossover between lobbying for gun legislation and lobbying for hate/speech legalization, as evidenced by Giffords Law Center’s Ari Freilich, a Jewish lawyer who acts as State Policy Director and as a specialist in “hate crimes.” The strongest supporter of gun control measures in Connecticut in recent years is Jewish Senator Richard Blumenthal. The biggest gun control group in Pennsylvania is CeaseFirePA. The board of CeaseFirePA is dominated by Jews (around 80-90%) and includes such figures as Nancy Gordon, a member of the Jewish Social Policy Action Group, and Shira Goodman, Che Saitta-Zelterman and Fred Kaplan-Mayer. In New York, Michael Bloomberg formed and financed Everytown, a new gun control organization, and pledged $50 million to the cause of making it harder for citizens to purchase arms and ammunition. The Huffington Post reports that in California Dianne Feinstein has “long been one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for gun control.” In Michigan, Jewish Senator Carl Levin has been at the forefront of gun control efforts, earning him an “F” score from Gun Owners of America.

Again, in line with his “argument by anecdote” approach, Cofnas would likely balance this with the 0.1% Jews in the JPFO (“Jews are leaders in the pro-gun movement too!”) and insist that Jews have merely “skewed” left. Since no evidence has been brought to light that the gun freedom movement has been historically anti-Semitic, the “default hypothesis” is entirely inadequate to explain the balance of Jewish representation inside and outside the gun rights movement. The only reasonable conclusion would be that Jews are overwhelmingly suspicious of this predominantly White right-wing movement with strong roots in small-town and rural America—if not openly and intensely hostile to it and its members, and are correspondingly to be found in much larger numbers in those movements that restrict the freedoms or otherwise harm the interests of the White demographic (e.g., gun control and hate speech laws), than those movements that seek to improve them.

Similarly stark disparities can be found in other contemporary right-wing political and cultural movements with no history of anti-Semitism. Studies from the Pew Research Center show that Jews overwhelmingly (83%) support abortion rights (compared with 57% of the general population). In fact, Jews support abortion at a higher rate than any other religious group in America. The National Council of Jewish Women, a 126-year-old organization that helped establish some of the first birth control and abortion clinics across the country, considers reproductive rights a cornerstone issue and has publicly condemned the strict abortion bans recently handed down in Alabama and Mississippi. Cecily Routman, the founder of the tiny Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, the only such group within the American Jewish community, has said that her position is essentially “counter-cultural” within Judaism and that, after being horrified by a radio show on the details of abortion, was prompted to examine the Jewish role in what was happening in America.

“I knew very little, she said, “but what I learned horrified me. And I realized in my heart that it was a ghastly business and I didn’t understand how Jewish people had gotten so involved in it.” Jews were not only outspoken in favor of the right to choose, she said, but were also “charitable donors for Planned Parenthood, and hosting fundraisers for Planned Parenthood. I did not understand that.”

In the area of same-sex marriage, Pew Research Center found that 77% of Jews were in favor/strongly in favor, while a further 5% were not opposed. Even accounting for the explicitly Christian nature of many, but not all, of the major bodies opposed to abortion and the marriage of gays, no Jewish leaders or board members could be found in their ranks.

The fact that Jews don’t just “skew” left on social, cultural, and political issues like this, and in fact overwhelmingly take up dominant positions within the left while being almost totally absent from meaningful positions on the right, has a direct relation to Cofnas’s argument that Jews have avoided right-wing movements because of historical anti-Semitism. As mentioned above, there is no historical anti-Semitism in the gun freedom, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage movements. What Cofnas in fact appeals to with such a claim is a kind of chicken-and-egg scenario in which anti-Semitism is always said to precede Jewish political attitudes and activity when actually, as in the case of the subversives Adler and Friedjung mentioned above, the opposite is the case. In this light, the most surprising thing about Jewish activity against gun freedom, and on behalf of abortion and gay marriage, isn’t the simple fact of Jewish overrepresentation, but that this overrepresentation hasn’t already led to an increase in anti-Semitism on the American Right.

Cofnas’s attribution to Jewish political “skewing” is also an example of a common approach in Jewish apologetics within historiography and scholarship more generally — a tactic I’ve described as the “cropped timeline explanation.” When faced with an uncomfortable and unavoidable fact involving negative Jewish behavior (Leftism, usury, financial crime, pornography, etc.) the reader of the apologetic is encouraged to begin with assumptions of anti-Jewish prejudice, and to work exclusively from there. Jews are on the Left? The only explanation offered is that they were excluded from the Right. In historiography, we are often subjected to a process of historical gerrymandering. This most often involves beginning and ending all explanations for anti-Jewish animosity with a timeline most befitting the idea of blameless Jewish victimhood and predatory Europeans. Problems begin to arise, however, when the question is asked why Jews were excluded or viewed as socially or culturally oppositional in the first place. Here, “irrational prejudice” is the last resort, but beyond it, when faced with further interrogation of that idea and the even deeper historical context, nothing is there. One is confronted with blank stares, rhetorical dead ends, and a factual wasteland. The essays of Nathan Cofnas offer nothing more than this, which sits extremely uneasily alongside his admission that groups differ in “interesting ways, reflecting their evolutionary and cultural histories.” By reducing all nuances in Jewish political activity to the aggression of non-Jews, Cofnas makes the remarkable argument that where Jews are seen to cluster in a “positive” manner it is simply because they have a IQ and high ability, but where they cluster “negatively,” it is purely due to exclusion or prejudice. In either case, the assumption seems to be that Jews ultimately have no individual political inclinations of their own. By advancing such an argument, Cofnas is firmly within a dubious, and quite shamelessly deceptive, Jewish scholarly tradition.

Go to Part 3 of 3.

[1] “Hans Eysenck’s Controversial Career,” The Lancet, Vol. 376, August 7 2010, 407.

[2] S. Beller, The Habsburg Monarchy (Cambridge University Press, 2018), 177.

[3] S. Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 162. See also A.G. Whiteside, Austrian National Socialism before 1918 (Martinus Nijhof, 1962), 67; and also J.M. Fischer, Gustav Mahler (Yale University Press, 2011), 344.

[4] R.S. Wistrich, The Jews of Vienna in the Age of Franz Joseph (Plunkett Lake Press, 2019).

The Cofnas Problem, Part 1 of 3

Shortly after Nathan Cofnas published his first article on Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique in 2018,[1] I spent a few weeks sketching out a quite extensive ‘skeleton’ for a rebuttal I intended to flesh out and publish at The Occidental Observer. The speed and extent of replies from MacDonald,[2] and, later, Ed Dutton, eventually made me think that my own effort would appear belated and redundant, and so I abandoned the idea even though I felt that some of my own criticisms hadn’t really been touched upon by either MacDonald or Dutton. Afterwards, a number of more minor exchanges and replies took place between these figures, but the repetitive and intransigent nature of Cofnas’s replies, even when faced with clear examples of the weakness of his “default hypothesis,” only increased my apathy and deterred me from getting involved.

It would appear, however, that Cofnas intends to milk as many publications as he can from a single set of poor ideas, as demonstrated by the fact he has now yet again essentially republished his original article, with some very minor tweaks, in Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel (!), a poorly ranked and little regarded journal that, unsurprisingly, appears to have accepted Cofnas’s paper without hesitation. What follows is my perspective on the work of Nathan Cofnas, stripped of the usual academic pleasantries, in the hope that it will offer readers a more clear-sighted insight into the matters under discussion.

Does Kevin MacDonald Omit Contradictory Data and Misrepresent His Sources?

The most obvious methodological problem with the articles produced by Cofnas thus far on the work of Kevin MacDonald is that they are historiographically illiterate. In neither his original 2018 article, nor the 2021 rehash, does Cofnas cite a single volume of serious thematic history on the Jews and their relations with Europeans, or demonstrate in any way that he has consulted one. In none of his essays does he explore in any fashion the second, and most historiographically intensive, of MacDonald’s three volumes, Separation and Its Discontents (SAID) (although he does claim [absurdly] that his critique of The Culture of Critique (CofC) also refutes SAID). Nor does he demonstrate anywhere in his work that he has in fact read it. The expected rejoinder would be that Cofnas is merely a philosopher concerned with biology and ethics, to which one can only respond that while Kevin MacDonald is a professor of evolutionary psychology, he still managed to consult and integrate around two hundred historical monographs when he decided to explore the historical trajectory and behavioral traits of the Jews.

Cofnas, who cites himself and webzines more than monographs, has attempted to escape from having to rely on historiography, much of which is quite frankly damning of everything he’s written, via two primary strategies. The first is that he simply rubbishes MacDonald’s use of historiography, accusing MacDonald of relying on “systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” For such a bold statement, however, Cofnas merely references his own original article as supporting evidence for it, and spends only one paragraph in that original article attempting to prove its veracity, with one of its central pillars being the claim that MacDonald omits evidence that might run counter to his theory of a group evolutionary strategy. In his 2018 article, for example, Cofnas writes of Culture of Critique,

Nowhere in the book does he acknowledge that a great deal of Jewish involvement in politics across time and place has been decidedly opposed to narrow Jewish interests, including Israel. The most influential Jewish radical in history, Karl Marx, held extremely anti-Jewish views.

The implication here, somewhat muddled, is that MacDonald is willing to refer, for example, to Karl Marx as a Jew and a radical socialist, but not as an anti-Semite. It’s an unfortunate example offered by Cofnas, however, because MacDonald does in fact do the latter right at the beginning of his chapter (3) on Jews and the Left. In MacDonald’s own words,

Marx himself, though born of two ethnically Jewish parents, has been viewed by many as an anti-Semite. His critique of Judaism (“On the Jewish Question”) conceptualized Judaism as fundamentally concerned with egoistic money seeking; it has achieved world domination by making both man and nature into saleable objects. Marx viewed Judaism as an abstract principle of human greed that would end in the communist society of the future.

And there is a long footnote to this passage discussing some of the claims made by various scholars regarding Marx’s Jewish identity, the point being that Cofnas’s bald assertion that Marx was an anti-Semite is historically illiterate. So much for “nowhere in the book.” It’s difficult to imagine a clearer and more succinct enunciation and summary of the anti-Jewish aspects of Karl Marx’s thought, which MacDonald then clearly and thoughtfully addresses. Citing Jacob Katz (and as an owner of several volumes by Katz I’ve checked for accuracy), perhaps the foremost mainstream 20th century scholar of Jewish-Christian relations between the medieval and modern periods, MacDonald astutely qualifies his summary of Marx’s anti-Semitism by stressing that “Marx argued against the idea that Jews must give up their Jewishness to be German citizens, and he envisioned that Judaism, freed from the principle of greed, would continue to exist in the transformed society after the revolution.” Cofnas not only doesn’t have a response to this fact, or the source material, his article merely dissembles that it doesn’t exist, or that MacDonald in any case doesn’t make reference to it. Again, this is in the context of Cofnas’s accusation of “misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” Who is really misrepresenting sources in this instance?

The specific accusation that MacDonald had misrepresented and cherry-picked facts had particular resonance for me because the wording was very similar to an old exchange I’d read on H-Net over a decade ago when I first encountered MacDonald’s work. Of the trilogy, I had read Separation and Its Discontents first, and found it nothing less than remarkable. I quickly ordered the other two volumes, and after that began reading ‘around’ the books, as is my inescapable habit with any text, by consulting available scholarly criticism. During this process, I came across the complaints of several Jewish scholars, most prominent among them David I. Lieberman (then, like Cofnas, a doctoral student—in musicology), who would later belatedly admit of MacDonald’s trilogy “I was able to complete a thorough reading and critique of only volume one and some skimming of the other two.” Cofnas, of course, openly admitted in his first essay to not even considering the first two volumes.

Nevertheless, despite evidence of only the most superficial reading, Lieberman and a handful of others made enough accusations (as with Cofnas, these were only rarely or pedantically substantiated) of manipulation of sources in CofC for me to engage in a few days of detective work. I was more or less encamped in my college library at the time and, while I couldn’t consult all of the works listed by MacDonald in SAID and CofC, I was able to find most of the historical works, and ended that few days of research satisfied that MacDonald’s use of the scholarly sources was both accurate and appropriate. I don’t know anything about Cofnas’s methodology in preparing his critique of MacDonald’s work, although it looks like no more than a couple of afternoons spent on the internet, but I can say that what he has written is most certainly not original, at least not to anyone remotely familiar with the extensive (and around 20-year-old) H-Net exchanges. In fact, Cofnas comes across as a very pale and embarrassing echo of Lieberman. Has Cofnas simply “borrowed” Lieberman’s accusations of source misrepresentation and cherry-picking, assuming them to have more substance than they in fact do? This is anyone’s guess, although I’m fairly certain of my own opinion on the matter.

I think it would be beneficial to closely examine at least one of the major original H-Net “manipulation/omission” accusations in order to explore more deeply the way these Jewish students have approached both MacDonald and the source material. In a 2001 post titled “MacDonald’s citations and silences,” Lieberman focuses heavily on MacDonald’s discussion of Jewish support for communism in Poland between 1939 and 1945. In fact, the vast majority of his discussion of putative source manipulation concerns this one narrow area. Lieberman writes,

Kevin MacDonald’s discussion of Jews in Communist Poland [“Jedwabne,” 16 Feb 2001] continues to exhibit the tendencies I explore in my Occasional Paper on his citations to Jaff Schatz: principally, MacDonald bases conclusions on isolated quotations drawn from his sources, ignoring contradictory data that appears in those same sources. MacDonald’s conclusion: “Jews were correctly perceived as more welcoming of the Soviets after the 1939 invasion and as more loyal to the Communist regime after 1945.” I have already noted that MacDonald’s generalizations about Jewish group loyalty to the postwar Communist regime in Poland rest heavily on his omission of large-scale Jewish emigration as a factor in assessing Jewish loyalty. Schatz reports figures that show a decline in the Jewish population of some two-thirds between 1945 and 1949, information MacDonald withholds from his readers. (Schatz, 1991, 203, 207, 208). [emphasis added]

The first problem with this critique should be obvious. Here we have Lieberman accusing MacDonald of lifting quotes out of context, who then, without the slightest hint of irony, proceeds to refer to just a single, context-less sentence from MacDonald. Cofnas performs much the same charade, and it is as tedious as it is pathetic. In CofC, MacDonald in fact spends ten pages discussing Jews and Polish communism, in which there is much nuance and several streams of argument, which Lieberman would have us dismiss because the Jewish student is unhappy with the way in which MacDonald summarizes some of it. If we read Lieberman’s critique more closely, we see that his problem is not with the first half of the sentence, since on that matter Lieberman has nothing to say. And nor should he have something to say, since it is scholarly consensus (not to mention common sense) that Polish Jews in 1939, temporarily or otherwise, found the communists the better option between the more anti-Semitic National Socialists and the equally anti-Jewish Polish Nationalists. The problem then, is with MacDonald’s assertion that Jews remaining in Poland after 1945 were correctly perceived as more loyal to the Communist regime. Here, Lieberman makes the case that this is incorrect because MacDonald hasn’t taken into account Jewish emigrants. Again, to be absolutely clear, Lieberman is unhappy that in a discussion of loyalty to the Communist regime among Jews in Poland, MacDonald is not discussing Jews who emigrated. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees no contradiction in MacDonald’s treatment of the subject here. MacDonald’s argument is primarily that Jews are highly ethnocentric and are flexible strategists in pursuing their interests. The majority of Polish Jews after 1945 saw their group and individual interests better served in emigrating, primarily to Israel. And here we have a repetition of Cofnas’s “nowhere in the book” howler, because contrary to Lieberman’s accusation of omission, MacDonald clearly refers to, and explains, the emigration of “most Polish Jews” to Israel in the course of his discussion of Polish Jews and communism, at the bottom of page 66 (paperback edition).

The accusation of omission, like that of our new Lieberman-lite in relation to Marx, is simply bogus — the result either of blatant lies or of mere “skimming” of the texts these students pretentiously attempt to critique. This just leaves us with the commonsense idea that those Jews who remained and did not emigrate would have likely possessed a particular loyalty to the Communist regime. Lieberman offers no argument to this assertion. And so we see that behind big, bold accusations of source misrepresentation and omission we find nothing but poor reading comprehension and an incomplete study of the texts on the part of the student critics.

This pattern is repeated for all of Lieberman’s accusations, as I discovered more than a decade ago, and which sparked my first correspondence with MacDonald. Where MacDonald is accused of “ignoring contradictory data” we most often find that MacDonald has in fact included the contradictory data and that it has been ignored or missed by critics. In other instances, we find that the ignored “data” is simply the subjective opinion of a historian which MacDonald is by no means obliged to agree with. Lieberman’s charade lasted around two years.  Sleepy Nathan Cofnas, with his single paragraph, seems to be attempting a similar challenge but is noticeably “low energy” when compared to his predecessor. Cofnas’s similarly sleepy attempts to challenge MacDonald on post-World War II Poland were discussed extensively in MacDonald’s first (pp. 28–30) and second reply (pp. 31–32).

The “In Default” Hypothesis

Nathan Cofnas has made much of his ‘default hypothesis,” which leaves so much unsaid that it would be more accurately described as the “in default hypothesis.” Cofnas argues that, predominantly due to a higher than average IQ and a tendency toward urban living, Jews will naturally be over-represented in all intellectual movements and activities that are not overtly anti-Semitic. As such, while Jews may be overrepresented in pro-immigration, pro-pluralism organizations and movements, the default hypothesis insists that they will also be overrepresented in nationalist, anti-immigration or restrictionist movements (that are not anti-Semitic) also. There is an inherent implication that these overrepresentations will be, more or less, to the same degree, since Cofnas refuses to discuss the matter in any serious way that might allow for, or explain, why any potential divergence in over-representation might occur.

I tested this hypothesis almost three years ago in a survey of pro-immigration and anti-immigration bodies titled “Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations.” The senior staff directories of the three most prominent anti-immigration think tanks currently in operation in United States were consulted—are the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). At FAIR, four of 52 senior staff members are Jewish, including President Dan Stein, Media Director Ira Mehlman, and Board members Sarah G. Epstein and Paul Nachman. This is a Jewish representation of approximately 7.7%. Across all three major anti-immigration organizations, Jews occupy 5.13% of senior roles. This is a modest over-representation of Jews relative to their proportion of the population compared to many other areas, but may in fact be a very generous figure to settle on as an approximate broader working figure, because Jews were totally absent from the senior levels of every smaller organization consulted. For example, no Jews were/are listed on staff at similar but smaller groups such as American Immigration Control Foundation, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, ProjectUSA, or American Patrol. There is thus a very real possibility that Jews are not over-represented at all in terms of involvement in anti-immigration politics. As well as quantitative data, qualitative data should also of course be considered, especially where it sheds light on the motivations of Jewish members/leaders and how these match, or diverge from, the motivations and goals of their non-Jewish counterparts. One FAIR insider, for example, has remarked of Dan Stein,

FAIR has been described by former board members as “Dan Stein’s 401(k) plan.” It scarfs up most of the immigration patriot money available, especially from timid Establishment foundations, does essentially nothing and spends a lot of its time undercutting and blocking potential rivals. Stein has been running FAIR since 1988, i.e., has presided over a period of continuous defeats for the immigration patriot movement. Activists seriously debate whether he is a mole.

Working within MacDonald’s theoretical framework, in which concerns about anti-Semitism will be primary among Jews of all political hues, a reasonable prediction would be that Jewish representation in anti-immigration movements would be both exceptional in the larger picture of the immigration debate, and, rather than being concerned about traditional America as a whole, will be focused almost exclusively on the exclusion of those immigrants or refugees perceived to be anti-Semitic, especially Muslims from the Middle East. In other words, such representations will be based on what might be termed renegade, minority, or abnormal perceptions of Jewish interests, rather than shared concerns or earnest sympathies with the greater mass of the native population.

In this regard, Ira Mehlman and Stephen Steinlight are especially interesting figures. In a 2012 interview with Peter Beinart, Mehlman is unambiguous in telling his interviewer: “current mass immigration policies are harming the interests of American Jews. … Mass immigration is introducing large numbers of new people to American society who hold far less favorable opinions of Jews.” Similarly, in 2001 Steinlight penned an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies bluntly titled “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography.” In the course of the essay, Steinlight condemns earlier periods of nativism and restrictionism in the United States, and strongly promotes pluralistic and multicultural ideals. In fact, Steinlight’s only apparent grievance with existing immigration structures is that they have resulted in the fact at some point in the next 20 years Muslims will outnumber Jews, and that Muslims with an “Islamic agenda” are growing active politically through a widespread network of national organizations. This is occurring at a time when the religion of Islam is being supplanted in many of the Islamic immigrant sending countries by the totalitarian ideology of Islamism of which vehement anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism form central tenets.

Such sentiments are essentially neoconservative, itself of course a largely Jewish ideological movement in conflict with native interests, and are entirely predictable within the basic theoretical framework offered by MacDonald, while doing little or nothing to corroborate the default hypothesis offered by Cofnas. Steinlight and Mehlman are primarily concerned by potential increases in anti-Semitism and a decline in Jewish political clout, and not with any broader implications of pluralism, multiculturalism, or White demographic decline which are the primary concerns of the vast majority of White anti-immigration activists. The point here is that MacDonald’s thesis does not require every Jewish academic to cynically use his or her discipline to advance Jewish interests, but that it does advance the idea that Jews will overwhelmingly see support for pluralism and mass immigration as being in their interests. This idea was then tested in relation to Jewish representation in refugee and pro-immigration organizations.

In contrast to a generously assumed overrepresentation of Jews in anti-immigration groups (around 5% at absolute maximum), Jews are nothing short of prolific in influential senior roles in contemporary refugee, asylum, and pro-migration organizations. Significantly, Jews occupy the leadership of all four of the largest and most influential (and nominally secular) organizations active in America today, the International Rescue Committee (President and CEO David Miliband), Refugees International (President Eric P. Schwartz, formerly of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society [HIAS]), International Refugee Assistance Project (Director Becca Heller), and Human Rights Watch (Executive Director Kenneth Roth, and Deputy Directors Iain Levine and Fred Abrahams). The International Rescue Committee works closely with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Division of Refugee Assistance, which was reported in August 2018 as quietly removing its staff directory page. Consultations with the Internet Wayback Machine revealed the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to be one Carl Rubenstein, an alumnus of Tel Aviv Law School. In 2017, the IRC, in conjunction with Rubenstein’s ORR, resettled more than 51,000 migrants to the United States. Jews are very prominent in the leadership of the IRC. In addition to President and CEO David Miliband, there are at least 30 Jews in senior positions within the organization including

Morton I. Abramowitz (Overseer), Madeleine Albright (Overseer), Laurent Alpert (Board Member), Clifford Asness (Board Member), Betsy Blumenthal (Overseer), Alan Batkin (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), Michael W. Blumenthal (Overseer), Susan Dentzer (Board Member), Evan G. Greenberg (Overseer), Morton I. Hamburg (Overseer), Leila Heckman (Overseer), Karen Hein (Overseer), Marvin Josephson (Overseer),Alton Kastner (Overseer and former Deputy Director), Henry Kissinger (Overseer), David A. Levine (Board Member), Reynold Levy (Overseer), Robert E. Marks (Overseer), Sara Moss (Overseer), Thomas Nides (Board Member), Susan Petricof (Overseer), Gideon Rose (Overseer), Thomas Schick (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), James Strickler (Overseer), Sally Susman (Board Member), Mona Sutphen (Board Member), Merryl Tisch (Board Member), Maureen White (Board Member), Jonathan Wiesner (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), William Winters (Overseer), and James D. Wolfensohn (Overseer).

The Board of the IRC is comprised of 30 individuals, 12 of whom are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at senior board level of 40%. The Board of Overseers consists of 78 individuals, of whom at least 25 are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at this level of just over 32%. Since Jews occupy the position of CEO at the IRC, as well as 40% of the senior board and 32% of the lower board, it would be reasonable to assert that they enjoy a dominant role within the organization. This dwarfs any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups, and creates a significant problem in attempting to apply Cofnas’s default hypothesis.

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) came to national prominence when Director Becca Heller brought a class action suit against Trump’s January 2017 travel ban on individuals from certain Muslim countries. Heller, who has described herself as an “intensely neurotic Jew,” was active from the very earliest airport detentions, and was assisted by former Yale law professor Michael Wishnie, also Jewish and a former member of Jews for Economic and Social Justice. The case was later also supported and taken up by the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) at the direction of its two Deputy Directors, Lee Gelernt and Judy Rabinowitz, both of whom are Jewish. At IRAP, there are three Jews on the board of the International Refugee Assistance Project: Jon Finer, David Nierenberg, and Carl Reisner. The board consists of 12 members, giving a Jewish representation of 25%. Aside from the board, other influential positions in the organization are held by Jews, including Deputy Legal Director (Lara Finkbeiner), and legal fellow (Julie Kornfeld). Again, this is significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.

Refugee organizations are also reliant to a great extent on legal assistance provided by “immigrant’s rights” organizations. Here too, Jews appear to be overrepresented by a large margin. For example, Jews comprise just over 14% of overall listed staff at the National Immigrant Justice Center, and dominate the most senior positions. These include Director of Policy (Heidi Altman, former legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition), Associate Director of Legal Services (Ashley Huebner), Director of Litigation (Charles Roth), and Associate Director of Litigation (Keren Zwick). Maria Blumenfeld, a former senior lawyer for NIJC departed the group for another, almost identical organization, named Equal Justice Works, the Director of which is David Stern, also Jewish. Another interesting organization is the  Immigrant Defense Project. Of the 15 listed senior staff, at least four are verifiably Jewish (Development Director Ariadna Rodenstein, Senior Staff Attorney Genia Blaser, Supervising Attorney Marie Mark, and Supervising Attorney Andrew Wachtenheim). This is a Jewish representation at senior level of over 26% — significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.

At the National Immigration Law Center, 18.5% of its staff lawyers are verifiably Jewish, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is under Jewish Presidency (Ty Frankel) and 26% of its board is Jewish (Frankel, Ira Feldman, David Androff, Nathan Fidel, and Andrew Silverman). The Immigrant Legal Resource Center was founded mostly via the efforts of Jewish lawyer Mark Silverman, described here as “one of the very first movement lawyers helping DREAMers.” Its board is under Jewish chairmanship (Lisa Spiegel), and its Executive Director is Eric Cohen, also Jewish. Another organization providing legal support for the pro-immigration lobby is the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Right’s Under the Law. Of its six most senior staff, three are Jewish (Jon M. Greenbaum, Lisa Bornstein, and Samuel Weiss). At the Asylum Advocacy Project, two of the five members of the advisory board are Jewish (Dani Isaacsohn and the above mentioned Michael Wishnie), and its list of donors appears to be at least 40% Jewish.

The Director of Refugee Council USA is Naomi Steinberg. The Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union is the Jewish feminist Donna Lieberman who includes among her ongoing activities “resisting the Trump regime’s attack on immigrant children and refugees,” while its Legal Director is Arthur Eisenberg. The American Immigration Council is under the Jewish Directorship of Beth Werlin, its Research Director is the Argentinian Jew Guillermo Cantor (see a great example of his propaganda here), and its Policy and Media Director is Royce Bernstein Murray. The area director for Refugee Services of Texas in Austin is the Jewish Erica Schmidt-Portnoy. Meanwhile, another Portnoy, Diane Portnoy, Jewish founder and CEO of The Immigrant Learning Center, has demanded that Massachusetts should welcome more Syrian refugees. A similar organization is the Open Avenues Foundation, which has the stated goal of “helping foreign nationals build their unique path to thrive in the United States.” The founder and executive director of Open Avenues is Danielle Goldman, also Jewish.

None of the above takes into account the equally prolific presence of Jews in what might be termed the “propagandistic” elements of the unfolding era of mass migration (e.g., the media), or areas of activism in which Jews act explicitly as Jews (e.g., HIAS, the ADL). There really is no comparison between Jewish involvement in anti-immigration politics, and Jewish involvement in pro-immigration politics. In fact, the only place on earth where one might find ample evidence of the former is Israel – a fact that damns the Cofnas default hypothesis rather than supporting it.

Go to Part 2.

[1] Cofnas, N. (2018). Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: A critical analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s theory. Human Nature, 29(2), 134–156.

[2] MacDonald, K. (2018a). Reply to Nathan Cofnas The Unz Review (March 20, 2018); MacDonald, K. Second Reply to Nathan Cofnas, Revision of April 19, 2018