Kevin MacDonald Vs Nathan Cofnas On Culture Of Critique

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 22 March 2018 07:10.

In his defense of group evolutionary strategy, KM has done better in articulating the biological aspect of out-marriage as part of the group systemic strategy - both in infiltrating and weakening other group’s cohesion. Jewish group evolutionary strategy uses both top down directives and (prescriptive) rule structures, and bottom up biological patterns and (descriptive) rule structures.

The Jewish group evolutionary system/strategy is characteristically that Cohen’s give Zionist and/or ultra loyalist directives and Ashkenazi (especially Ashkenazi) are more free and prone to out-breed, infiltrate, liberalize, weaken opposing groups in their evangelizing as “light unto the gentiles.”

According to Jewish convert, Luke Ford, Cofnas has presented the first serious challenge against Kevin MacDonald’s work, “so effective as to call its validity into question entirely.”

One does not have to have but a passing acquaintance with MacDonald’s work and his concern to know that to call its validity into question entirely or even in large part, simply is not possible. Nor do they have to look beyond the absurdity of Ford’s claim that Cofnas does such “irreparable damage” to MacDonald’s efforts to see immediately that Ford’s pro-Jewish bias is over-the-top; and examples cited of Nathan Cofnas’s supposedly detached analysis, indicate rather clearly a heavy pro-Jewish bias, motivated and prone to crude straw manning of MacDonald’s work.

Anyway, this is the first public defense by MacDonald of this “first serious academic critique of ‘The Culture of Critique.”

Me ne frego - episode 22, with Kevin MacDonald

Professor Kevin MacDonald joins the show to discuss Nathan Cofnas’s recent paper, ‘Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory’, which is the first ever academic attempt to refute Professor MacDonald’s theory as presented in his 1998 book, The Culture of Critique. The first 45 minutes are in English; after the music break we wrap it up in Swedish.

Age of Treason, “The Culture of Critique Cries Out in Pain as it Strikes MacDonald”, 19 March 2018:

Has anyone provided a more thorough, more reasonable critique of jewing than Kevin MacDonald? From what I’ve seen, the mild-mannered professor makes a meticulous case, constructed mainly by citing prominent jews.

Judge for yourself. MacDonald focuses on immigration in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. The specific link I most often refer to is Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review, Population and Environment, 19, 295-355, 1998. These works and more are gathered at MacDonald’s Publications on Jews and Western Culture.

In Žižek, Group Selection, and the Western Culture of Guilt MacDonald notes the “few very articulate defenders of the basic ideas expressed in Culture of Critique” commenting on a post by Steve Sailer. Among the best is Ben Tillman, who distilled MacDonald’s trilogy like so:

Book 1 & Thesis 1: A Jewish group evolutionary strategy developed.

Book 2 & Thesis 2: In some historical instances, Europeans developed group evolutionary strategies to compete with the Jewish group.

Book 3 & Thesis 3: A number of Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century were designed to prevent European-derived peoples from developing group strategies to compete with the Jewish group.

MacDonald himself summarizes the third volume this way:

A major theme of Culture of Critique is that Jewish intellectual movements developed theories which had a patina of science and according to which anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the behavior of Jews but was entirely an issue of the psychopathology of non-Jews. These theories were then promulgated by the elite media and Jewish activist organizations, and they came to pervade the academic world

Tanstaafl

20 March 2018 at 2:37 pm

KMac’s conclusion:

On the surface, Cofnas appeared to engage my work, but he didn’t really grasp the key arguments or how CofC fit into the framework of the other books in the trilogy or my other writing on evolution and culture. One suspects he had a foregone conclusion about its value—what psychologists term “motivated cognition” (which, as I attempt to demonstrate, was characteristic of the Jewish intellectuals I review in CofC). Like the hyper-purists discussed in several places in CofC, he was looking for ways to condemn research he didn’t like for deeper reasons. He understood perfectly well that a positive review would never be published. And he was deeply troubled by CofCs increasing acceptance outside academia and by the possible political ramifications of that acceptance. He was quite aware that the silent treatment that had surrounded the book for 20 years had failed.

Tanstaafl

This caps a 40-odd page response. Not to be too hard on him, but MacDonald is too charitable, too willing to play along with the jew charade. He has thoroughly documented the who, what, when, where, and how of jewing, yet I daresay he fails to fully accept the most important implications of his own work – that jews lie, that they are hyperconscious, that they hyperconsciously moralize and organize and see themselves as distinct from, superior to, and in opposition to Whites, and that Whites have as a rule failed to consciously recognize this jew hostility, much less reciprocate. If anyone is being self-deceptive about any of this it is relatively demoralized, disorganized, and self-concerned Whites.

The crux of Cofnas’ disingenuous argument is to paint jewry and their jewing as divided, even though every jew knows that their disagreements flow from and float atop a deeper consensus – whatever’s best for the jews. The watchword for this game is “monolith”, as in, “the jews are not a monolith!”. Notice the contradiction? “This CATEGORY is CATEGORICALLY not a CATEGORY!” Tellingly, the jews perceive any and all reactions to jewing as a monolithic “anti-semitism” which they monolithically characterize as a literal disease. Their game is to use this ineffably jewy never-ending screechy hair-splitting on every subject under the sun – two jews, three opinions about what’s best for the jews – as a distraction from what rightly should be the overriding concern for any non-jew vis-a-vis jews, namely jew virulence, the toxic impact jewing has on non-jews. Any interlocuter who tries to make “anti-semitism” the overriding concern is giving the game away.

Comments:

Posted by Tanstaafl talks w Luke Ford ab JQ: Cofnas, Crypsis on Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:24 | #

Age of Treason, 27 Mar 2018, Tanstaafl:

JQ Debate With Age Of Treason.

Talking with Luke Ford for a podcast: Youtube

Is Luke Ford good for the Jews?

Our main topic was Cofnas’ attack on MacDonald.

My series of podcasts on crypsis starts here: Jewish Crypsis – An Introduction.

Here I discuss jew screeching about intermarriage: Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 3.

Stephen Steinlight on Jewish Power and Interests.

The Secret Jewish History Of Peeps.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:25 | #

There are some things that I should have mentioned about the nature of systems - human group systems and the Jewish group system in particular in response to Nathan Cofnas supposedly devastating critique of MacDonald’s theory of Jews a group evolutionary strategy.

As I’ve said above, it is to be disingenuous about the Jewish system, to not acknowledge the taken for grantedness of the system, in which the Cohen types will consolidate the purer Jews/and Zionism where good for Jews and the Ashkenazi will go out to other nations and mix with the shiksa goyim to infiltrate and weaken the group system of Whites (and other goyim) - the two extremes will feed back and pseudo “correct” one another, actually being very much part of runaway system at the expense of goyim.

But what I need to mention now in regard to group systemics, is that the extremes of the system will be balancing off and correcting the other extreme of the system; and will be taking for granted, thus, not necessarily even fully aware of how the other extreme is a necessary, integral part of their system - in the case of Jews, it would seem, this lack of awareness, and fervor even, against the other extreme, would be adaptive in the sense that they can always point to “the exceptions” to the Jewish extreme and try to depict themselves as not being a systemic whole - a group evolutionary strategy; which they are.

If Nathan Cofnas points to “exceptions” to a rule that he alleges Kevin MacDonald to maintain, i.e., that all Jews abide Zionism; Cofnas will point to an example of how Freud denounced exploitation of the Palestinians; or a Gilad Atzmon ... or if you say that all Jews promote liberal immigration policies into Western countries, he will point to a Paul Gottfried and his Paleoconservatism and say that not all Jews are liberal - there are not only Orthodox and Zionists who are conservative, but Paleocons, like Gottfried.

I was going post MacDonald’s talk with John Friend as and unqualified victory over Cofnas. And MacDonald does respond in some ways well within his box and given limitations of his scientific framework. However, I am sorry to say that this discussion confirmed to me why, as a theoretician of White advocacy, MacDonald is not up to the mark - or not up to date, or not yet and maybe never.

I say this because one of the things that MacDonald gets wrong in his spoken rejoinder to Cofnas in this talk with John Friend, is that “Paleoconservatism is not Jewish.” MacDonald points to Pat Buchanan and how conservative of “Western values”, how opposed to immigration that Paul Gottried is.

It is a classic blindness for scientists, so focused on Augustinian devils (natural devils) to be susceptible to being duped by the Manicheanism (human agentive rule changers) of Jewry.

MacDonald has been duped. As Kumiko pointed-out, Paleoconservatism began with (((Frank Meyer))), the theoretical mentor of Ronald Reagan and his heirs, Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, (((Paul Gottfried))) and ultimately, its 2008 re-brand with Richard Spencer’s (((Alt-Right))). Particularly because it has a wardrobe that includes Christianity (((Noahide as it is))) and scientific “race realism”, where that’s good for Jews, right wing reactionaries can be duped into thinking that (((Paleoconservatism))) was conceived in their interests rather than the interests of one corrective side of the Jewish system - but that it is, and that is what the (((Alt-Right))) is (((Alt-Left too))).

And it goes further to show that MacDonald is mistaken when he says in that John Friend interview that we need the Alt-Right now, more than ever.

Not as a toss-off remark as he presented it, not incidental at all, was MacDonald’s comment in that same conversation that, Jewish intellectual movements, their culture of critique, is responsible for all this “Post Modern” stuff and all that “sociology nonsense.*”

And what would he, as a “philosophical theoretician,” propose? That we go back to Modernity? Seeing all cultures and peoples as basically the same, universally; and not pausing for any traditional and inherited reconstructions of differing peoples and culture before we run full speed ahead, rough shod over these “superficial differences” (like skin tone)?

It is a scientists’s inclination to do science; and the scientific proclivity broke through in the enlightenment proving its many merits through the modern era… but in addition to positive yields, it has a very destructive side, willfully blind to differences as it can be…things that a Bowery, or even a GW or a MacDonald may not have wanted to see as not merely requiring just more science and mere, rigorous application thereof - preferring to see science, scientism if need be, as the antidote to the red cape misrepresentation of Post Modernity - lets call it Jewish “Post Modernity”, and Jewish promoted post modernity as opposed to White Post Modernity.

One thing is sure - there needs to be a “post” to modernity and it is important to get it right, to not leave it in the hands of our enemies and their liberal flunkies. Rather, we need to be able to manage our systems against the ravages of Modernity, its crass, right wing proponents, lately imposed in weaponization by Jewry, as they have previously weaponized a red cape with false representation of “post modernity” - post modernity, probably the single most crucial idea for us to get right in our systemic self defense against Jewry and its compliant sell-outs.

* With that comment on “sociology” let me make a quick aside to note a remark that Tanstaafl made in the context of his rejoinder to the Cofnas critique of MacDonald’s theory: Tan was largely incisive, as usual, and also given to a few of his typical perfidies (“Hitler did nothing wrong” - enough said), but I particularly want to note that Tan said that “sociology is all bullshit.” - That’s idiotic.

It’s like saying that “a telescope is a bullshit instrument.”

Sociology is the inquiry of human groups. To say, in response to Jewish abuse of the discipline, that “it’s all bullshit” is to espouse an idiotic reaction - worse than stupid, because it motions to de-legitimize the most important unit of analysis - a race is a group - racial defense will be concerned with groups - and thus to de-legitimize one of its most important instruments - leaving it solely in the hands of our antagonists.