Print this post Print this post

On the Kevin MacDonald–Nathan Cofnas Debate
Part 3: Refuting the Default Hypothesis

3,106 words

Part 3 of 4

[Updated: Nathan Cofnas correctly points out that I included remarks by MacDonald that had later been revised. I’ve corrected the relevant portions below.]

Part 1 here, wherein I provide an introduction to this debate, a brief history, a recap of Kevin MacDonald’s counter-Semitic opus The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC), a summation of Nathan Cofnas’ major arguments against CofC, and a section which calls into question Cofnas’ objectivity in this debate.

Part 2 here, wherein I discuss Cofnas’ first major strategy, his ‘universalist’ approach to challenging MacDonald.

Part 3 will deal with Cofnas’ second major strategy, promoting his Default Hypothesis as a more elegant alternative to what MacDonald offers in CofC. Part 3 will cover some of his minor strategies as well.

Cofnas’ Second Major Strategy: The Default Hypothesis

Cofnas posits that the phenomena MacDonald describes in CofC can be more parsimoniously explained by what he calls the Default Hypothesis. The Default Hypothesis basically states that high Jewish IQ and the high concentration of Jews in urban centers will necessarily make Jews overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements that are not overtly anti-Semitic. So, it’s not about hard-to-prove things like ethnic self-identity, in-group evolutionary exigencies, crypsis, self-deception, and other fairly abstruse ideas MacDonald puts forth in CofC. Rather, it’s about easy-to-prove-things like natural intelligence and geographic consistency. (And for the record, MacDonald does not dispute either of these.)

This is an excellent tack and should be tempting for any disinterested observer of this debate. After all, why plop for a complicated solution when a simpler one will do?

Well, there are two major problems with the Default Hypothesis. First is that it assumes the existence of anti-Semitism and ignores the possibility it could be caused by Jewish behavior. This gives Cofnas a convenient way to explain why Jews almost never dominate Right-wing political movements. Such movements were anti-Semitic before the Jews came along, and thus Jews were discouraged from joining them. But isn’t it possible that people on the Right see what many influential Jews are up to and adopt anti-Semitism as a form of protection or reaction? Isn’t it also possible that people from the Left or center (or people with no political affiliation at all) see the same thing and join the Right as a result? In other words, aren’t there good reasons for Rightists (that is, race-realist, ethnocentric, traditionalist, blood and soil types) to be at least a little bit wary of Jews? All of these scenarios are of course plausible and have occurred many times throughout history. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn provides a more extreme example of this in chapter 16 of his 200 Years Together (emphasis mine):

In the beginning of 1919, the Soviets, under predominantly Jewish leadership, started revolutions in Berlin and Munich. The share of activist Jews was disproportionately high in the German Communist Party of that period, though that party’s support in the Jewish community at large was not significant. Four out of eleven members of the Central Committee were Jews with a university education. In December 1918, one of them, Rosa Luxemburg, wrote: “In the name of the greatest aspirations of humankind, our motto when we deal with our enemies is: “Finger into the eye, knee on the chest!” The rebellion in Munich was led by a theater critic, Kurt Eisner, a Jew of “bohemian appearance.” Eisner was killed by a German nobleman who infiltrated his security cordon and shot him, but the power in conservative and Catholic Bavaria was then seized by a new government made up of leftist intellectual Jews, who proclaimed the Bavarian Soviet Republic (G. Landauer, E. Toller, E. Muhsam, O. Neurath). After one week the republic was overthrown by an even more radical group which declared the Second Bavarian Soviet Republic with Eugen Levine at the helm. Let’s read an article about him in the [Jewish] Encyclopedia: “Born into a mercantile Jewish family, he used to be a socialist revolutionary; he participated in the Russian revolution of I905, later became a German national, joined the Spartacist movement of R. Luxemburg and K. Liebknecht, and now he became the head of the Communist government in Bavaria, which also included the abovementioned E. Muhsam, E. Toller and a native of Russia, M. Levin.” The uprising was defeated in May 1919 by the Freikorps of German veterans returning from the Great War, the only loyal troops available to Germany at the time. The fact that the leaders of the suppressed Communist revolts were Jews was one of the most important reasons for the resurrection of political anti-Semitism in contemporary Germany.

If true, this is problematic for the Default Hypothesis because it implies something very important about the Jewish character: that they have a weakness for radical, Left-wing ideology and that they see themselves as distinct from gentiles. It’s baked in the matzo, so to speak. According to the Default Hypothesis, Jews aren’t particularly ethnocentric and will go any which way politically as long as avenues to success are open for them. The Default Hypothesis doesn’t account for Jews feeding the Right with their characteristic behavior. And since this has played out over and over again across multiple continents and over many time periods, it becomes reasonable to assume there is more than IQ and location at work here. This then opens the door for MacDonald’s admittedly more ambitious theories in CofC.

The second problem with the Default Hypothesis is that it is easily refuted. Yes, throughout the twentieth century the majority of Jews in the United States and Western Europe lived in or near cities. And yes, Jews (or the Ashkenazim, at least) have significantly higher than average IQs. (I am aware that Vox Day and others dispute this. But since both MacDonald and Cofnas accept it as true, I will too for the sake of argument). What’s also true, however, is that the ‘not overtly anti-Semitic’ clause in the Default Hypothesis refers only to white anti-Semitism. Non-white anti-Semitism on the other hand seems to be a weaker form of kryptonite. In America and in Europe, many influential Jewish thought leaders show an odd willingness to forgive or overlook anti-Semitism from non-whites, especially blacks and Muslims. A glance at the SPLC website reveals a powerful sensitivity towards racism or prejudice against blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims despite the fact that over thirty percent of blacks and Hispanics in America have ‘entrenched anti-Semitic views.’ Powerful Jews like George Soros and Barbara Spectre are doing everything they can to import Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East into Europe and to make white Europeans more accepting of multiculturalism. The fact that many of these Muslims come from overtly anti-Semitic nations and commit acts of violence against Jews on the streets (especially in France where Jews require police protection) seems to matter little to these people.

The BDS movement, however, is the silver dagger that slays the Default Hypothesis beast. BDS, in essence, wishes to destroy Israel as a Jewish state by giving Palestinians the right to return and the same political rights that Israeli Jews now enjoy. If BDS gets its way, Jews would ultimately become a minority in their own nation. Both the ADL and the Israeli government consider BDS to be anti-Semitic, yet, contrary to Cofnas’ Default Hypothesis, large numbers of Jews either support BDS, or ally themselves with it, or even actively empower it. In his PDF comments document, Cofnas himself claims that ‘Jews are overrepresented among the leadership’ of BDS. He can claim this is true or he can claim the Default Hypothesis is true. But he cannot claim both.

The evidence here suggests that anti-Semitism alone isn’t enough to deter Jews from certain political, intellectual, or cultural movements. If this is indeed the case, then Cofnas must add layers of complication to his Default Hypothesis in order to promote it as an alternative to CofC. And wasn’t its lack of complication the reason why it seemed so persuasive to begin with?

Also, isn’t it ironic that one of the counter-examples Cofnas brings up to refute CofC also refutes his own Default Hypothesis?

Cofnas’ Minor Strategies

Here are some other strategies which do little other than reveal Cofnas’ prejudice against MacDonald and CofC.

1. Inventing a point which MacDonald never made and then refuting it.

For example, on page 8 of Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Cofnas quotes MacDonald as saying:

Among these Boasians, cultural criticism crystallized as an ideology of “romantic primitivism” in which certain non-Western cultures epitomized the approved characteristics Western societies should emulate.

Cofnas then writes (emphasis mine):

This passage and others throughout the chapter suggest that Boasians were the first to romanticize primitive cultures as “idyllic” and not subject to the ills of Western civilization. In reality, by Boas’s time this had been a major theme among many gentile intellectuals for more than 150 years. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who popularized the romantic image of “savages” in the eighteenth century, is mentioned once in The Culture of Critique—in passing, in an endnote.

See Cofnas’ trick here? He adds ‘were the first’, pretends its central to MacDonald’s point, refutes it, and ignores what MacDonald was really trying to say. It seems strange to me that Cofnas would assume that a scholar of MacDonald’s stature would be ignorant of Rousseau’s ‘noble savage’ idea. It’s also strange that he makes such ado over such a trivial point (yes, Rousseau lived prior to Boas. Class dismissed?). Further, he didn’t read MacDonald very carefully. MacDonald is clearly saying that the Boasian school used romantic primitivism to inform their cultural criticism, not that they originated romantic primitivism. Prior to Boas, Darwinism dominated anthropology and the social sciences; after Boas, not so much. MacDonald’s statement attempts to explain why. That Cofnas either didn’t realize this or didn’t care belies his needlessly argumentative attitude towards CofC.

2. Raising the bar unreasonably high

Regarding the Frankfurt School, MacDonald promotes the idea of a double standard in which influential Jews such as Adorno and Horkheimer condemned ethno-nationalism among gentiles but not among Jews. He then theorizes these scholars engaged in ‘crypsis’ in order to disguise not only their Jewish identities but also this obvious double standard. Of course, this could be wrong or right, but for Cofnas, nothing short of a smoking gun on the level of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (i.e., explicit statements from members of the Frankfurt School or candid film or audio footage of them hashing out their nefarious schemes) will do. MacDonald refers to this as ‘hyper-purism.’ Cofnas, page 13:

Leaving aside the question of the scholarly merits of the Frankfurt School or The Authoritarian Personality, there is no positive evidence that members of the Frankfurt School were hypocrites who condemned collectivism in gentiles and promoted it for Jews.

Cofnas doesn’t seem to realize that this isn’t a court of law and no one is innocent until proven guilty. It’s not like MacDonald needs unimpeachable evidence with which to form theories about his subject matter. Isn’t it true that this almost never happens in the social sciences? What MacDonald does is what all social scientists do: make reasonable inferences from spotty data. There is nothing wrong with that, but Cofnas seems to think there is. Does he not realize that if all social scientists were held to the same standards to which he holds MacDonald, there would be very little social science?

3. Impugning MacDonald’s scholarship

On page 3 of Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Cofnas writes

In numerous places in The Culture of Critique, references are given to support a claim but no support can be found in the original source, or the original source is misrepresented. Because the present paper is focused on the argument of the book, it only reports some of these misrepresentations where they significantly affect the argument. Also, for considerations of length, it only reports cases of mishandling of sources where the problems can be clearly exposed in a reasonable amount of space. Despite the fact that only some instances of mishandling of sources are reported here, these cases alone raise serious questions about MacDonald’s research practices.

This was before MacDonald had a chance to respond, of course. Once he did, many of these supposedly misrepresented sources turned out to have been not misrepresented at all. Either that, or MacDonald provides reasonable doubt. For example, Cofnas calls into question MacDonald’s quote from R. Nevitt Sanford (a gentile) who penned a chapter in The Authoritarian Personality, a famous work produced by the Frankfurt School. According to Cofnas, MacDonald cites Sanford to show how The Authoritarian Personality is ‘anti-gentile’ but fails to mention that Sanford had positive views of Christianity and felt that ‘genuine Christians’ scored low on ethnocentrism. Thus MacDonald ‘cites Sanford out of context and totally misrepresents his conclusion’ since ‘Sanford identifies the values promoted by the Frankfurt School with Christianity, not Judaism.’ Okay, fine. But in the appendix of his First Reply, MacDonald spends a great deal of effort demonstrating how Sanford may have admired the ideal of ‘Christian humanism’ but in fact thought negatively of the majority of Christians in his day for not living up to this ideal. Therefore, despite what Cofnas says, MacDonald knew what he was doing when he quoted Sanford.

As for who is ultimately right here, I don’t know. Both have made interesting points, and one day perhaps another study will suss this issue out. But what I do know, based on MacDonald’s thorough response, is that there is room here for legitimate difference of opinion. As such, Cofnas was out of line for accusing MacDonald of ‘mishandling his sources.’

Yes, Cofnas did catch MacDonald misquoting historian J. Katz. It was an honest mistake and MacDonald admitted that he had made it. On the other hand, here is an example of Cofnas ironically making a mistake himself while accusing MacDonald of mishandling a source. Pay attention. This one’s a whopper. On page 22 of his Second Reply, MacDonald quotes a complaint from Cofnas:

MacDonald neglects to mention a significant error in CofC that I pointed out in my paper. In CofC he writes that Freud’s book Moses and Monotheism “contains several assertions that anti-Semitism is fundamentally a pathological gentile reaction to Jewish ethical superiority,” citing Freud (1967, pp. 114-117). However, as I note in my paper, pages 114-117 of this edition of Moses and Monotheism do discuss anti-Semitism, but say nothing about ethics/morality at all, let alone the ethical superiority of Jews or Judaism.

Here is MacDonald’s rejoinder (emphasis, mine):

My citation is to Freud (1939, pp. 114–117) so it was very confusing to see this reference to a 1967 version which turns out to be a reprint of the version I used: Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism, trans. by K. Jones. New York: Vintage. (Reprinted in 1955.)

Relevant to Cofnas’s comment, on p. 117 Freud describes Christians as having been forced to convert from pagan attitudes that never really disappeared: “One might say that they have remained ‘Badly Christened’; under the thin veneer of Christianity they have remained what their ancestors were, barbarically polytheistic.” This is a claim to Jewish ethical superiority given that Freud attributes Jewish ethical superiority ultimately to their belief in monotheism: “In a new transport of moral asceticism the Jews imposed on themselves constantly increasing instinctual renunciation and thereby reached—at least in doctrine and precepts—ethical heights that had remained inaccessible to the other peoples of antiquity. … Our investigation is intended to show how it [i.e., ethical heights] is connected …  with the conception of the one and only God” (173). Thus, their hatred toward Judaism stems from the fact that at heart they are still barbarians who resent the ethical superiority Judaism achieved long ago by accepting monotheism. Even the phrase “barbarically polytheistic” has the connotation that these barbarians are inferior to refined Jewish monotheism….

So yes, Freud did believe in the ethical superiority of Judaism compared to the Christians whose “polytheistic barbarism” lurks beneath a thin veneer of monotheistic Christianity, making them unable to scale the ethical heights of Judaism and that this deficiency was a cause of anti-Semitism.

So it seems that Cofnas accused MacDonald of making a ‘significant error’ in CofC simply because what MacDonald had ascribed to Freud in Moses and Monotheism did not appear on pages 114-117 of the edition of the book that MacDonald did not use. So who made the mistake here? MacDonald used the 1939 edition (reprinted in 1955), as stated in the bibliography of CofC, and Cofnas criticized him using the 1967 edition. Further, Cofnas did not look past pages 114-117 of the 1967 edition as if only those four pages mattered in rebutting MacDonald. Supposing they had both used the same edition of Moses and Monotheism, and MacDonald’s money quote appeared between pages 14 and 17 instead of 114 and 117. Would such a minor error mean that MacDonald’s overall claim about Freud is wrong? Cofnas’ niggling and legalistic approach to this debate would suggest so. This, to me, indicates that Cofnas is arguing in bad faith.

Here’s another blunder from our Oxford University graduate student. On page 12 of Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, he writes:

The naive reader of The Culture of Critique would think that 11 of 15 top Jewish intellectuals were using Freudianism to attack the traditions of gentile culture while promoting separatism for Jews in the US and in Israel. MacDonald makes this conclusion fairly explicit:

Of these [15 Jewish intellectuals], only Noam Chomsky could possibly be regarded as someone whose writings were not highly influenced by his Jewish identity and specifically Jewish interests. The findings taken together indicate that the American intellectual scene has been significantly dominated by specifically Jewish interests and that psychoanalysis has been an important tool in advancing these interests (1988a:154, n. 15—partially quoted earlier).

Note that ‘[15 Jewish intellectuals]’ had been inserted into the MacDonald quote by Cofnas. However, in CofC, that particular passage reads as follows:

The four elite Jewish intellectuals in this study who were apparently not influenced by Freud were Hannah Arendt, Noam Chomsky, Richard Hofstadter, and Irving Kristol. Of these, only Noam Chomsky could possibly be regarded as someone whose writings were not highly influenced by his Jewish identity and specifically Jewish interests.

So that’s four, not fifteen. Perhaps this is not a terribly important point, but if Cofnas is going to place every one of MacDonald’s sources under a microscope and accuse him of scholarly malfeasance whenever something doesn’t seem to add up, we can certainly do the same with him.

On the other hand, how can a reasoned exchange of ideas even exist when scholars constantly nitpick each other’s work so maliciously? Sadly, this seems to be the world Nathan Cofnas wants to live in.

Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.

Related

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

10 Comments

  1. Apotheosis
    Posted May 15, 2018 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.amp.html

    One of the biggest revelations in recent Social Science is that most of its experiments and insights have an extremely dogmatic perspective: it only accounts for left-wing views. In other words, it has been barring right-wing thinkers from the discussions and realise now that it’s lack of diverse viewpoints threatens its subject matter.

    Why’s this important for this discussion. Because Cofnas explanatory framework would have said that the reason the large majority of academics in social sciences are LW is because they have a higher IQ than RW thinkers. Only this can account for the higher and massive over-representation representation.

    But in reality, certain ideological viewpoints were purposefully only allowing their adherents and fellow ideologies into the academic space. It had nothing to do with IQ or the value of the work itself. How does Cofnas account for this?

    Jews are over-represented in SS and it is extremely left-leaning. It wouldn’t be hard to believe they were protecting their interests. Moreover, funding for projects are typically reserved for LW topics and aims. Reinforcing the same academic interests and ideologies.

    A cursory google search shows that KMac has already noticed this development
    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/08/10/liberal-profs/

  2. Apotheosis
    Posted May 15, 2018 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Great series Spencer!

    Cofnas is not only arguing in bad faith, but as you point out, he’s being uncharitable which means arguing against the easiest (and usually incorrect) version of the text.

    Cofnas made a whopper statement concerning Pinker whom he stated is a Jewish hereditarian. Extremely debatable statement. Pinker at the beginning of (?) the denial of the blank slate, doesn’t even believe in biological IQ differences, preferring environment explanations. Pinker is best characterised as an anti-blank slate. Bad scholarship from Cofnas again.

    Cofnas IQ thesis of power isn’t even that strong. Ash. Jews IQ avg. between 107 – 115. Only 1% of country. Asians IQ avg. between 106 – 110 is 5.6%. Yet, Jewish representation of power is much stronger and wider. IQ is not the only factor.

    • Vehmgericht
      Posted May 15, 2018 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      Ashkenazic populations have IQs that are a full standard deviation above the European average, should one wish to fret about such matters.

      It is my opinion that, whether some here like it or no, Jews are part of the West. They are a gifted yet embattled people who have allied themselves with European and West Asian hegemonic powers through history, from Persia to the USA. We may admire them for having survived and flourished where other famous peoples have perished or declined to shadows of their former lustre.

      It is not a monolithic or even dominant opinion of Jews residing in Western Europe that the present afroislamic influx is desirable or inevitable. There are many many Jewish commentators who have spoken against it: Melanie Phillips is just one example. Their voices are drowned out by ‘our’ leftists. The demographic decline and retreat from culture and territory is not being ‘done to us by the jews’, we do it to ourselves through our own cowardice and most of all our greed.

      What is the goal of white nationalism? Is it not to arrest or reverse that demographic decline, to carry forward what is glorious and fair in our history and civilisation and to hold securely and openly the hegemony in our traditional nations of Western Europe and North America?

      If there is a place in that future for Jews, and other compatible minorities, they may aid us or at least not oppose us. If we proclaim they are tainted and plan, yet again, pogroms and expulsions, they will be implacably opposed to our programme, allying even with our foes to thwart it.

      And history suggests that in that case, is they who will prevail, and we who will go down into ruin.

    • Spencer J. Quinn
      Posted May 16, 2018 at 5:35 am | Permalink

      Thank you, Apotheosis!

      Interesting point about Pinker. I did not know that. Thanks.

  3. Posted May 14, 2018 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Poor goys still wistful for fair play…I tried to endure the Cof vs COC but found it infra dig. Would that MacDonald had invoked such and scoffed the thing into irrelevance. Yes Mr. Quinn despite the correction there is no question that Cofnas is arguing in bad faith and merely attempting to Tal-muddy the waters– ignore the spirit and seize upon any letter vulnerable to ye olde gotcha.

    Funny how Jews preach universalism and practice an aggressive particularism. Their vaunted intelligence is genetically tethered to defending their own. So in argument they are barbaric–attempting to destroy or intimidate by any means necessary. Maybe they can only countenance a dispassionate dialectic when the tribe is a remote consideration–as with outer space.

    The other 99% of the time we are left with the likes of a Cofnas thinking with the blood–just another Sein of the times.

  4. Posted May 14, 2018 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    Not going to respond in detail to this, but you should know that MacDonald himself has admitted that I did *not* refer to the wrong edition of Moses and Monotheism. In the revised version of his second reply to me, he removed that accusation. (See https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/987019127653974017)

    Please correct the following passage:

    “There’s more, but I had to exclude nearly two-thirds of MacDonald’s response for space considerations. In any event, it’s devastating. I believe the kids today would say that Nathan Cofnas had just got pwned. And unlike MacDonald, Cofnas never admitted his mistake.”

    • Spencer J. Quinn
      Posted May 14, 2018 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      Hi Nathan,

      I wish you would respond in detail. Anyway, I have made the correction and asked the editors to publish. But you realize this changes nothing about the debate, don’t you? You were still wrong for accusing MacDonald of making a ‘significant error’ since the dispute you bring up is really about page numbers and publishing dates. How does any of that prove that MacDonald’s claim regarding Freud’s anti-gentilism is wrong?

      Please also comment on how Jewish participation in the anti-Semitic BDS does not undermine your Default Hypothesis. Thank you.

      • Posted May 19, 2018 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        You still got it wrong. I used the same edition as MacDonald, and consulted the same page numbers. I dispute his interpretation of the relevant passage.

        You quote MacDonald: “My citation is to Freud (1939, pp. 114–117) so it was very confusing to see this reference to a 1967 version which turns out to be a reprint of the version I used.” But it is only “confusing” if you ignore the fact that (a) I explicitly noted in the passage that it was the same edition and (b) the bibliography indicated that it was the same edition. The fact that MacDonald accused me of making a mistake without checking the facts doesn’t reflect well on his research practices, at least in my mind.

        You write: “Further, Cofnas did not look past pages 114-117 of the 1967 edition…” How on earth do you know this? (You are in fact incorrect. And again, there is no “1967 edition.”) A large percentage of your analysis of the MacDonald-Cofnas debate consists in baseless speculations like this (almost all the rest in misrepresentations of my arguments).

        One thing that is worth clarifying, though: When I wrote that “there is no positive evidence that members of the Frankfurt School were hypocrites who condemned collectivism in gentiles and promoted it for Jews,” I didn’t mean “positive” in the sense of “unimpeachable,” but in the sense of “real” or “concrete” (see the OED).

        Why would Jewish involvement in the BDS movement undermine the default hypothesis?

        • Spencer J. Quinn
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:21 am | Permalink

          Hi Nathan,

          I assumed that you only looked on pages 114-117 of the 1967 volume (which may or may not have the same pagination as MacDonald’s 1955 printing of the 1939 edition) and did not find the passage MacDonald describes. Now, I see that you *had* found MacDonald’s passage, and you only ‘dispute his interpretation’ of it (whereas in your paper you flat out denied it was even there). I assumed you hadn’t found the passage simply because it is so difficult to interpret it other than how MacDonald did in The Culture of Critique (i.e., as an assertion of ‘Jewish ethical superiority’). Here is the quote from Freud that MacDonald quotes in his second reply to you:

          “One might say that they have remained ‘Badly Christened’; under the thin veneer of Christianity they have remained what their ancestors were, barbarically polytheistic.”

          How can you say that this quote does not indicate ‘ethical superiority’ of Jews, or at least the ethical inferiority of Christians to Jews when you knew that Freud referred to Christians as barbarians on page 117? By your language you lead us to believe that there was ‘nothing’ supporting MacDonald’s assertion on pages 114-117, but clearly there was. My mistake was to assume that you and your team of researchers would have been careful enough to have caught that.

          Then, when MacDonald brings up an even more damning quote from Freud where he stated that ancient Jews reached ‘ethical heights that had remained inaccessible to the other peoples of antiquity’, you (as far as I know) ignore it. Why?

          And how on Earth did I know that you did not look past pages 114-117? Because your wording indicated that you hadn’t. Whether you realize it or not, you implied that if the quote MacDonald referred to appeared on page 113 or 118, then by your lights he’d still be wrong. I made this clear in Part 3 above. I’m beginning to wonder if you have even read it.

          “A large percentage of your analysis of the MacDonald-Cofnas debate consists in baseless speculations like this (almost all the rest in misrepresentations of my arguments).”

          I’m sure. Blanket statements like this are just a way of avoiding debate. Look, going over my 4-part series (not to mention your 100+ page dialogue with MacDonald) point-by-point is a huge topic, so I would be happy to continue this one over email or social media if you care to.

          Then you say: ‘And again, there is no “1967 edition.”’ Niggle much? How does calling this book a version or an edition or whatever make any difference at all to the debate? But if you insist on niggling, then niggling it shall be. I seem to remember one N. Cofnas using the word ‘edition’ to describe the 1967 book in question on page 13, line 5, word 7 of his paper. Your words (triple emphasis mine):

          “However, while pages 114–17 of this ***edition*** of Moses and Monotheism do discuss anti-Semitism, there is nothing about ethics/morality at all, let alone the ethical superiority of Jews or Judaism.”

          Congratulations, Nathan. You just wasted everyone’s time. And speaking of wasting time:

          ‘I didn’t mean “positive” in the sense of “unimpeachable,” but in the sense of “real” or “concrete”.’ More niggling. This is a distinction without a difference since real or concrete evidence in this case would also be unimpeachable.

          Then you ask this: ‘Why would Jewish involvement in the BDS movement undermine the default hypothesis?’

          Nathan, did you not read the article on which you are commenting? The relevant part is under the section entitled ‘Cofnas’ Second Major Strategy: The Default Hypothesis’. Fifth paragraph down. The title is bolded. You can’t miss it. Please tell me why you would ask such a question if you had already read the article? And if you hadn’t read it (or at least not carefully) as it is now seeming, then how can you accuse me of making baseless speculations and misrepresenting your arguments?

          Anyway, here’s your answer: The Default Hypothesis as worded by you:

          ‘Because of Jewish intelligence and geography—particularly intelligence—Jews are likely to be overrepresented in any intellectual movement or activity that is not overtly anti-Semitic.’

          Although you limit this to ‘intellectual’ movements, in the next sentence you include left-wing and right-wing movements among the kinds of movements covered by the default hypothesis. You even mention American Renaissance on page 21 as an example that supports the default hypothesis. Therefore, in your mind, political movements count. Now, if I could only find a political movement that is overtly anti-Semitic and yet has Jews overrepresented among its leadership, then that would cause problems for the default hypothesis, no?

          This is such an obvious thing. I’m surprised you even had to ask. But since you did…The Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement is: A) a political movement (according to everyone), B) overtly anti-Semitic (according to the ADL and the Israeli government, and, like, they would know, right?), C) has Jews overrepresented among its leadership (according to one N. Cofnas on page 4 of his comments pdf document).

          That’s strikes 1, 2, and 3 right there, isn’t it? If the Default Hypothesis were correct, then Jews would avoid BDS like the plague. But inconveniently for you they do not. The Default Hypothesis has been beaten so badly now that all further explanation would be trivial. In order to save it, you would have to add layers of complication to it which would make it less pithy and less attractive as an alternative to what MacDonald offers.

          So let’s see if you can come up with a revised Default Hypothesis, one that dodges the BDS bullet and doesn’t get too contorted in the process. And if you ever decide you want to show me where I make baseless speculations and misrepresent your arguments, I’m all ears.

          Thanks.

          • Posted May 21, 2018 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

            [Mr. Cofnas’ comment deleted for pretentiousness and snark.]

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance