You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

This article is a follow-up to the "Jewish Question" debate, replying to Nathan Cofnas' Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.

Professor Kevin B. Macdonald is the Professor Emeritus and Editor of the Occidental Quarterly. He is perhaps best known for writing the three-volume series, The Culture of Critique. In this work, he writes about the history of Jewish group strategy, a variety of collective altruism used to empower Jews - religious and racial - at the disenfranchisement of gentiles, particularly individuals of European descent. He outlines this by specifying Jewish interference in multiple countries and cities throughout the post-Christ period and explains their meddling in governments, economies, and public images of many highly traditional nations.

Jews were originally expelled across states comprising the European continent, then in North Africa, and finally other Arab states within the Middle East. A common tactic used by the Jews which led to their many, many expulsions, was denying ethnic and religious identities for various demographics across different continents. Jewish legacy can be seen today, where they control a disproportionate quantity of the media and property in the West. This much at least is surely undeniable as a matter of historical fact.

Nathan Cofnas of Oxford University wrote an article in response to Kevin Macdonald’s theory of Jewish involvement in the cultural sphere. It was published in an issue of the journal Human Nature.

On the website Ideas and Data, an extensive and detailed analysis of Jewish overrepresentation in Europe and the United States was made; The Jewish Question: an Empirical Examination. This data was later used to produce a video called A Celebration of the Jewish People by Ryan Faulk, who goes by the username The Alternative Hypothesis.

A friend of Ryan Faulk, around the same time he published his video, made another video titled The Jewish Question: an Empirical Analysis. I have also been told, and anyone can see that the names are the same, that Sean Last is the proprietor of Ideas and Data.

Nathan Cofnas made a reply to the article itself, making sure to specifically refer to Sean Last. Clearly, Cofnas is at least aware of the supporting data for Macdonald's ideas.

I have four major problems with Cofnas' critique, Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory.

  1. On anti-Gentilism and anti-Semitism

Cofnas has a mainstream perception of Jewish resentment toward gentile survival and genetic determinism – especially that of European and Arab non-Jews – relating to past events, such as persecution in Europe and Israel.

Since New Antisemitism developed after World War II, most people critical of Jews who exist within the Western world will bring up concerns over their representation in Western media, economics and political fields such as parliaments, voting, and general government-related issues, as opposed to their past atrocities, such as the Holodomor (Ethnic Ukrainian famine in Eastern Europe) and their high enrolment rate in the Soviet Union’s army (page 659). The over-representation of South Caucasians is due to most of them being Muslims (Azerbaijan comprising the largest nation in the region), as Nazi Germany made it illegal to practice any other religion aside from Christianity, and even then, just Protestantism. Catholicism and Islam were strictly prohibited, aside from Adolf Hitler having positive personal views toward Islam (page 96).


Nobody will deny Jews were oppressed throughout Europe and within the Palestinian territories, but the Jewish Question came into debate far before that of Hitler’s rise to power. Karl Marx’s On The Jewish Question was written in 1843, far before World War II and the drastic changes to Germany’s historical image occurred.

Jews escaping persecution and belittlement in Islamic, Arab countries, fled to Europe where they became evidently troublesome to the continent’s religiously and ethnically homogeneous identity. If Europeans or Arabs were to occupy Israel, then negative attitudes toward their presence would without a doubt be justified.

Seeing Jews want to protect their culture and heritage, as many surveys reveal, taking such pleasures away from Europeans and Christians is unquestionably hypocritical, in the same way it would be to Arabs and Muslims. Those who live within the Palestinian territories and are of Palestinian descent value the same qualities of a country as Israelis do. The two don’t see eye to eye, but they’re not so different when they actually confront their overt similarities.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whether you agree with its contents or not, was originally published in 1903, and in the Russian Empire of all places. Not in Israel or America, in Russia.

You'll have to ask yourself why the Jews have been expelled so many times throughout history. The evidence suggests that because they seek to be dominant in all fields of power, including in terms of land mass. Israel today is colonizing the remaining Palestinian territories, rather than enacting state control and then declaring two independent states: Israel and Palestine.

  1. On Chomsky and Soros

Cofnas highlights two prominent Jews who oppose Zionism (Israeli nationalism and/or imperialism) as examples as to why Macdonald is wrong. These are Noam Chomsky and George Soros, literally two people out of an ethno-religious population of roughly 16 million by 2016, which accounts for 0.000012499999999999999% of all Jews worldwide. This is clearly not statistically significant.

The Culture of Critique never states every Jew thinks the same. Data disproves that. But that there is a significant correlation between Judaism, Israelis and a bitter disdain for anything outside of that realm that happens when you combine the three.

  1. On Cofnas' remarks surrounding Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany and the Institute for Social Research.

There are blatant hypocrites such as Heidi Beirich who don’t even attempt to hide their hypocrisy, people who can’t be cited as true defendants of the school’s critical theories, but Frankfurt School’s younger members have later arrived to defend the establishment against accusations of Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness and so on. This isn’t a generational aspect of the country, it’s something inherent about ideology.

I actually happen to agree with the concept of a think tank dedicated to promoting socialist ideas through means of academic publication, alongside enrolment of students focused on learning economics from an egalitarian perspective. Despite agreeing with many of Marx’s ideas, I cannot identify with the more socially progressive side of modern academia today. I do very much appreciate and respect the love and care going into teaching Marxist beliefs.


When people reflect upon the Frankfurt School’s legacy, it’s a consideration more on who was influenced and how they were influenced. Less about what the actual philosophers themselves thought, retrospectives on the institute discuss how the future was inspired by the past. To modern Liberals, nationalism is only acceptable in the context of non-European countries striving for independence. If you ask your average liberal person, they’ll tell you they support Tanzania or India breaking free from British colonization, but not Ukraine wanting freedom from the Soviet Union.

Past generations who have read studies published by the Institute for Social Research came to their own conclusions, had their own interpretations. Most came away agreeing with Israeli nationalism, but also believe in European identity having no meaning, and that Europeans shouldn’t act collectively; they should instead only act as individuals. They saw Jews as a group, but not gentiles.

Yet, members of the Frankfurt School would condemn antisemitism even in comedy. In Herbert Marcuse’s essay -part of his book he wrote with other philosophers at the school A Critique of Pure Tolerance, Repressive Tolerance- he argues against speech against minorities groups in the United States, Africans, Arabs, Muslims – Jews being another – Indians, homosexuals, and even ideological groups such as socialists. But free speech was allowed as long as it was directed against more populous demographics, such as European Americans, Christians, and conservatives. Marcuse was in favor of essentially banning antisemitic speech, but permitting anti-gentile sentiment. As Jews show concern for Israel being taken over by Arabs and Muslims, they also display it in the context of the West, having rather unfavorable views of American Muslims as shown by polling.

Herbert Marcuse wrote in 1965:

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology’, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness–from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.

Jews are both a racial and religious minority in the United States, but Europeans and Christians aren’t. Well, as of then and now. Unfortunately, I can’t quite say the same for the future. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Christianity or Christians themselves, but it appears that a Jewish and Muslim America would be even more extreme.

One could point out that Marcuse’s essay was based upon the tolerance paradox, which would be true, but ultimately this misses the point. Anybody can insert political opinions into their works, even if the subject matter has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. With that said, in Marcuse’s essay, the entire purpose of why it was written was to make it clear he supported minority speech and suspension of free speech for the White American majority.

  1. On the statistics Cofnas cites on Jewish intermarriage.

In 2013, the Pew Research Center that non-religious racial Jews in the United States married with a non-Jew 58% of the time (between 2000 to 2013; page 35). However, take into account that in 2012 Jews only comprised 2.15% of America’s national population. With this in mind, Jews are 1853.48% more likely to marry a Jew than a non-Jew based upon their population size.

I don’t have a problem with this Jewish tendency. In fact, I don’t think anyone should marry outside their race or religion. Personal feelings aside, when Cofnas claims that Jews are disobedient to their own kind, to imply that they’re not loyal –as I believe they’re perhaps the most loyal out of any of the world’s human demographics– he is denying the facts.

Let’s pretend there’s a country where half of its residents are Jews and the other half are non-Jews. There would be practically no intermarriage between the two whatsoever.


I find Cofnas to be rather thought-provoking, and for that, I’m happy his criticism of the Culture of Critique exists. Even so, Cofnas lacks an understanding of the collectivism that has been and still is, historically present within Jews scattered all across Earth. And for that, I believe it’s very, very incorrect.

Kevin Macdonald's rebuttal to Cofnas can be found here.


Arjuna Rubbo-Ferraro

by Arjuna Rubbo-Ferraro

Utopianist philosopher, writer, and contributor at Republic Standard. The reawakening of humanity's mind begins with a hammer, sickle, and a homeland. Hold both New Left and Alt-Right beliefs.

Melbourne, Victoria (Australia)