Counter-Currents
Nathan Cofnas (from his Twitter/X feed)
2,399 words
Nathan Cofnas first came to my attention in 2018 when he became the first mainstream academic to challenge Kevin MacDonald regarding his classic work of counter-Semitism, The Culture of Critique. He engaged with Prof. MacDonald point for point over the course of several weeks regarding the work’s merits and demerits, producing academic theater that was both tedious and fascinating; perhaps a little more of the latter. I wrote a four-part series on it for Counter-Currents at the time.
Cofnas penned an essay on January 2 of this year with the provocative title “Why We Need to Talk about the Right’s Stupidity Problem,” and although I am coming to this late, I feel a response is necessary. As with his contentious treatment of Culture of Critique, Cofnas gets quite a bit right, but he gets quite a bit more wrong.
His thesis can be encapsulated thusly: Because both the Right and the Left in America accept the central egalitarian premise of wokeism, but only the Left is willing to see wokeism through to its conclusion, smarter people are more attracted to the Left than the Right. In order for the Right to combat this and claw its way back to relevance, it must inject race realism into our public discourse in order to refute egalitarian wokeism and bring all those smart Lefties back to the Right, where they belong.
Much of this is plainly absurd from a dissident Right perspective, since race realism has been the Right’s bread and butter for over a century. If race realism is all it takes, then why didn’t Madison Grant slay the Boasian dragon back in 1920? Soon, however, one realizes that by “the Right” Cofnas is referring to mainstream conservatives and not what I presume he would call the “far Right” — i.e., institutions such as Counter-Currents, The Occidental Observer, American Renaissance, and VDARE. (Such organizations would not have been considered “far” anything 100 years ago.) Indeed, Cofnas conflates conservatives and “the Right” so often that if you’re new to politics, you’d think there was almost no one to the Right of National Review and FOX News when reading Cofnas.
Given these parameters, however, Cofnas offers some cutting and valuable insights about wokeism and its origins:
I argue that wokism is simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality. Both the mainstream left and right believe that innate cognitive ability and temperament are distributed equally among races, and probably the sexes, too. . . . As I will explain, wokesters correctly follow the equality thesis to its logical conclusion, whereas conservatives fail to recognize the implications of their own beliefs. Smart people are disproportionately attracted to wokism in large part because it offers a more intellectually coherent explanation for the major issue of our time, which is the persistence of racial disparities.
Much of Cofnas’ essay delves into the idea that the egalitarian fallacy is the true source of wokeism, rather than competing explanations from Christopher Rufo and Richard Hanania. In his book America’s Cultural Revolution, Rufo points to critical theory and the Frankfurt School as the genesis of wokeism, while in The Origins of Woke Hanania looks to civil rights legislation. Since I more or less agree with Cofnas when he avers that both critical theory and civil rights are effects rather than the causes of wokeism, I won’t recapitulate his arguments — as interesting as they are.
Cofnas should be commended not only for promoting race-realism but for understanding that, logically speaking, it is the lycanthropic Left’s silver dagger. Once an honest person is armed with thorough knowledge of psychometrics, police statistics, political corruption, genetics, and neuroscience, explanations for racial inequalities become much more economical and conclusive.
This, unfortunately, is the end of all the nice things I have to say about Cofnas’ essay. His first mistake is to label mainstream conservatives as “the Right.” This allows him to set up a big, fat-headed strawman that he can smack around for 10,000 words. While he defines wokeism effectively, he never exactly defines what the Right is — other than it presumably not being woke. (And if both the Right and the Left accept egalitarianism, what significant difference is there?) We can surmise, however, that Cofnas’ “Right” consists of unserious, unintellectual rubes of middling intelligence and middlebrow taste. It’s no wonder they’re not able to accomplish what the more intelligent Left has. Further, the thought leaders of Cofnas’ Right — who I presume are all mainstream conservative pundits — are too scared to challenge the Left over the egalitarian fallacy. Thus, they fail to attract the best people and prove to be useless at everything except for distracting their audiences with stories about “UFOs, gay-sex conspiracy theories, and hydroxychloroquine.”
While a bit reductive, this description does have a ring of truth. But Cofnas weakens his argument by excluding most of the highly intelligent people on the Right. Yes, he does admit there are first-rate thinkers there, but he doesn’t name them, let alone compare them to the brightest people on the Left. He talks up race realism but never once mentions Jared Taylor or Peter Brimelow. He talks about the Left’s greater academic achievements, but does not mention scholars such as Greg Johnson or Ed Dutton. He sings the praises of Ezra Klein while ignoring Gregory Hood and Jim Goad. Why Cofnas does this is unclear. Perhaps it’s because these men also reject the egalitarian lie of the Left and for years have been pushing the very same race realism that Cofnas is trying to introduce to his readership. Acknowledging these thinkers would certainly put some backbone into his strawman, which wouldn’t make his un-pithy essay any pithier. Acknowledging them would also undermine his sales pitch.
Here’s Cofnas informing his readers about what some good ol’ race realism can accomplish (emphasis mine):
Hanania argues that if wokism is a “matter of philosophy and belief,” the solution is “more books, articles, essays, and scientific studies debunking the beliefs that form the basis of identity politics and political correctness. In other words, keep employing the same strategy that opponents of earlier and more contemporary forms of wokeness have used since at least the 1970s” (p. 19). But we have never tried the strategy of refuting the belief that forms the true basis wokism, which is the equality thesis. There is every reason to think that undermining the equality thesis is the ultimate solution. The entire woke system collapses when it is recognized that disparities are due to nature. That’s why the left fights so hard to defend the taboo on hereditarianism. Leftists understand what is at stake: everything.
Excuse me? We have never tried refuting the equality thesis? Has Nathan Cofnas not heard of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, William Shockley, Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Michael Levin? That’s precisely what those guys did and is what they are famous for doing. If Cofnas is arguing in good faith, then he is either ignorant or naïve. And if he is arguing in bad faith, then this better be some very good snake oil if he expects his readership to believe that his brand of race realism is the magic bullet, while all that those other losers offer is a bunch of duds. Yes, race realism is crucial for overthrowing the Left — but it alone has proven to be insufficient. If Cofnas cares to deny this, then he will have to explain why, after 30 years of beating the race realist drum better than anyone else, Jared Taylor isn’t on the board of trustees at Yale.
Another drawback of Cofnas’ essay is that he assumes the playing field is level, even when he says it isn’t. He assumes that people are free to align with whichever political ideology they see fit and will select the one that is most persuasive or “intellectually coherent.” He tells us that “[t]he fact that an ideology fails to attract smart people is an indication that there is something wrong with the ideology, which needs to be corrected.”
Yeah. No.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s young adult novel The No College Club here.
In the real world, the elites in charge of functioning societies want to maintain power. This means they have to keep a lid on their society’s subversive elements without cracking down on them so hard as to spark a revolution. When these elites are hampered by such things as the First Amendment and cannot simply jail dissidents (as they do in England), they must resort to rewarding political correctness, punishing political incorrectness, and ignoring everything in between. Most of the time, people avoid “incorrect” ideologies not because there is necessarily something wrong with them, as Cofnas claims, but out of fear of being punished. As we all know, if you choose to become a public dissident in America you will find yourself ostracized, cancelled, unemployable, undatable, impoverished, and the subject of your very own hate page on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. Who in his right mind would plop for that when he can just keep his mouth shut and go with the (leftward) flow? Just because someone is smart doesn’t mean he’s immune to this. One can be a genius in any number of academic disciplines and still be a squish when it comes to possibly losing one’s 401K.
Oddly, Cofnas seems to understand this:
It’s true that the playing field is not equal for right- and left-wing content creators. A newspaper or video channel that reported accurate information about race, crime, and IQ would be deemed a hate organization and would probably be kicked off of mainstream platforms. Some of the best right-wing YouTube channels were snuffed out by the censors. However, the right’s failure cannot be attributed entirely to censorship. There are plenty of spaces on the Internet where people can speak openly about whatever they want, and where right-wing talent is free to express itself. Liberals are not solely responsible for the right’s failure to capitalize on these opportunities.
It’s too bad that Cofnas never bothered to include interviews with actual Right-wing content creators who were purged from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube following Unite the Right in 2017. They went to alternative platforms, sure, but their follower counts plummeted from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands — without any reduction in quality or quantity of output. Organizations that unfairly lost their payment processors likewise lost the majority of their donors and funding. You cannot blame the Right for this. Yet Cofnas, for the most part, does. It comes across as plainly snide.
Cofnas similarly does not notice a glaring hole in his argument. If smart people are smart enough to recognize that wokeness is “intellectually coherent” because it takes the equality thesis seriously, then why aren’t they smart enough to spot the obvious flaws in the equality thesis itself? The answer is that the so-called smart people Nathan Cofnas trumpets are not actually very smart; they’re midwits. They are people in the 110-115 IQ range — highly functional and productive people, certainly, but not geniuses and not truly gifted. Although one advantage they do have over gifted people and geniuses is numbers — that is, a higher position on the Y-axis along the right side of the bell curve. As Cofnas himself explains:
But great institutions aren’t built by lone geniuses. They require a large network of staff and supporters to competently execute the myriad tasks that keep the gears turning.
This, more so than “intellectual coherence,” helps explain why Leftist institutions have such near-universal reach while intellectually coherent Right-wing ones such as Counter-Currents and American Renaissance do not.
Cofnas spills a lot of ink proving that the white consumers of Leftist media are on average smarter than white consumers of conservative media. After noting that Republican voters have a slight IQ edge over Democrat voters in the General Social Survey test, which administers a vocabulary test called WORDSUM, Cofnas states that
the results are skewed by the large number of lower-average-IQ minorities who vote Democrat. When Emil Kirkegaard restricted the analysis to whites (still the most culturally influential demographic) and considered ideological rather than party identification, he found a substantial difference favoring liberals in WORDSUM IQ. “Extreme liberals” score the highest at 107, followed by “liberals” at 105. They were trailed by “conservatives” at 101, and “extreme conservatives” at 98.5. Only people who reported that they “don’t know” their political orientation scored worse than extreme conservatives. The same conservatives who complain about immigrants not speaking proper American know fewer English words than liberals, and this indicates lower IQ.
I won’t challenge him on this because he is largely correct. But I will note that never once does Cofnas spare the feelings of the people he’s belittling. Note also that this essay’s third paragraph is just dripping with contempt for conservatives — or is it contempt for ordinary white people?
Following Marjorie Taylor Greene, some American conservatives think the solution to our political problems is a “national divorce.” I think this would be a bad deal for both sides, but worse for conservatives. The Conservative States of America would most likely be a middle-income country that squanders its national budget on hunting down abortion doctors and erecting Pyramid of Giza-scale Ten Commandments monuments. Not satisfied with country music and Daily Wire films starring Gina Carano, the conservatives would have to import most of their entertainment from Wokistan, which the conservatives would still complain about despite being unable to produce their own alternatives. Many conservative elites would probably apply for asylum in Wokistan.
The worst-case scenario is that Nathan Cofnas is an anti-white race realist. At best, he’s a race-neutral one. I’d like to think he’s the latter, but since at the end of his essay he insinuates that Kevin MacDonald is an “emotionally disturbed fool,” I think I’ll place my bets on the former. Of course, all of this is his prerogative. He has every right to insult a white advocate such as Prof. MacDonald and to call average-IQ whites stupid. It certainly doesn’t bother me. But this also means I have the right to call Nathan Cofnas a midwit in return, and to call the 115-IQ Leftists who run academia and the media midwits as well. I will leave it to Cofnas to explain why people who are educated yet too intellectually muddled to recognize the biological basis of race are actually somehow “smart.”
We’ll see if Nathan Cofnas is smart enough to answer that one.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
30 comments
The biggest challenge realists have against the woke is that wokism is a religion which means it doesn’t need facts, logic or reasoning, only faith in the holy words of Robin deangelo, Ibrahim Kendi etc. As a religion it teaches there is good (non-Whites) and bad (Whites). Devils (Whites) who preach evil (realism) are to be cast out.
The smart lefties who are pulling the strings, mostly don’t believe in wokism but it allows them to use the religion to achieve power. Some of these lefties in charge are so full of hate for Whites, they would bring the roof down on their own heads if it meant the destruction of Whites, people like Mayorkas and Merrick Garland.
As the Israel-Hamas conflict continues and protests grow between members of the left coalition we can expect to see ever more intense focus on White supremacy and more hoaxes to keep the coalition together.
Yes, wokeness is a secular religion and that’s why it’s extremely hard to convince most Americans in the correctness of race realism.
In fact I posted the following comment on Cofnas’ substack on 2/1/24- which Cofnas himself liked:
Excellent article. A number of people (myself included) have long stated that the denial of race realism leads to woke polices since people assume if different races have different levels of success it must be due to discrimination.
However, the awful truth is that most Americans believe it’s evil to even debate race realism. Their p.c. belief in equality is practically a secular religion and will be extremely hard to overcome.
One other matter is that the mainstream media certainly isn’t a level playing field interested in telling both sides of the story and imparting “just the facts, Ma’am” to readers, listeners, and viewers. Instead, it’s a massive corporate leviathan serving as The System’s propaganda arm. Does he figure that into his calculation of how the right is intellectually bankrupt?
I wouldn’t concede anything to Confas regarding ‘WORDSUM IQ’. Measuring how many words you know and whether your knowledge of them is very obviously subculturally biased. Of course, elite intellectuals would prefer to an indirect measure of IQ that focuses on exactly the same things their best at. But that doesn’t mean that people with a low WORDSUM score are less intelligent. They just don’t have the same vocabulary as those with high scores. Perhaps they don’t need it. Perhaps status in their communities is based on practical action rather than verbal manipulation.
Sometimes I think that the intellectualization of the Right is just a phase it has to go through. Unlike the Left, many of the values of the Right are intuitively accepted by ordinary people. In theory, the Right shouldn’t require anything other than slogans and a few sound policies about how to put the promise of those slogans into practice.
The Left needs verbal manipulation because their approach is not intuitively accepted by ordinary people.
White Nationalism is folk politics.
The White Vanguard should be seeking ways to communicate ‘There Is An Alternative’ to ordinary Whites in ways they understand so that we can build the kind of movement that is a meaningful alternative to both Left and Right liberalism.
WORDSUM is not nearly as culturally biased as you might imagine. The primary factor determining a large vocabulary is your ability to retain new words. Because of mass education, people tend to be exposed to roughly the same quantity of words across all sociology-economic environments. It’s the smarter people who will remember their meaning, and it’s the smarter people who will be intellectually curious enough to read on their own and discover new words — be them the son of a plumber or a lawyer.
Because of mass education, people tend to be exposed to roughly the same quantity of words across all sociology-economic environments.
I can guarantee you this is not true.
It’s the smarter people who will remember their meaning….
No. Like Confas, you’re placing a value judgement – ‘smarter’ – on a particular behavior that you valorize (vocabulary).
[I]t’s the smarter people who will be intellectually curious enough to read on their own and discover new words….
Again, you associated a particular behavior that you prize – reading on one’s own – with a value judgement about that behavior (‘smarter’).
There are different cognitive cultures. What you think of as ‘smart’ in the high-verbal culture of belles lettres is not the same as the ‘smart’ in STEM or the arts where langue concrete tends to prevail to the point of functional muteness.
Equating ‘high verbal’ with ‘smart’is a choice. It’s not a feature of ‘the world as it is’. As White Nationalist, I support only ideas that advance the value of Whites. Confas is a jew. His arguments for jewish supremacy in any aspect should be ignores or downplayed. Even if they seem plausible or – worse yet – ‘true’.
I concede nothing to jews like Confas. He and his kind manipulate the media environment to prevail.
So-called ‘anti-Semites’ understand that the idea of ‘jew’ is coincident with the idea of ‘jewish supremacist’.
Confas’ job is to make Whites feel inferior to jews, not to present valid data and argument.
If Confas had access to data that showed jews to be inferior, he’d suppress it. And he probably has.
Actually I took the wordsum test out of curiosity, and most of the words are not really hard. It’s more comparing shades of meaning of familiar words. It’s only a rough measure of iq(low ceiling) but I think it would measure gross discrepancies: tard, average, bright.
If I showed you a bunch of shades of blue and you couldn’t distinguish between them, would you consider yourself a ‘tard’?
Can you identify Prussian Blue from French Blue?
If you could identify the ‘negative space’ in a painting or drawing or advertisement, would you consider yourself a ‘tard’?
This is the problem with thinking the ‘output’ of one part of the brain is more important than the ‘output’ of some other part of the brain.
This is why ‘IQ Nationalism’ is such a complete dead-end for Whites.
The White race is an organic whole, each ‘part’ plays a role in the survival and thriving of the race.
White people particularly gifted by being at one end of the bell curve of a particular talent shouldn’t be thinking ‘I’m special’, they should be thinking ‘How can I use my gifts to secure the existence of White people and a future for White children.’
When I White thinks or feels ‘I’m better than these other Whites’ they’re perceptions have been colonized by the jews.
No sane White ever wanted anything other than to be of service to their people.
The reason so many Whites think otherwise is because the jews and their hatred of White people have so completely dominated the culture for so long that White desire and White assessment of existence has been colonized by jew-hatred of Whites.
Cofnas and virtually every other Jewish commentator just waste our time with mediocre sophistry. They repeat our arguments with the juice sucked out, leaving the desiccated infertile remainder for the use of the ‘conservatives’ at National Review.
Dude, seriously.. Madison Grant? This guy is one of the main reason white nationalism is a joke and not taken seriously!! Grant and Gobineau were terrible for white nationalism and just rich guys who hated poor people! Talk about sparing the feelings of people… And Hitler was largely influenced by them too! I read that text from Cofnas on amren and I saw so many insights there and even though some things were a bit off, it was 90%+ correct, in my view. The fact is we need to learn more about the theory of power and how laws relate to politics, etc. That was my main take from Cofnas.
Also, another important take for me there was realizing the approach by guys like Rushton, etc. Is a lame one. See, IQ can only get you so far anyway and most people don’t care about those “facts” (I would say that a lot of white people don’t have a 3 digit IQ either and they do fairly well on universities [which are not even that relevant anymore] and also a 90IQ for a black person could be different for a 100 IQ in a white person, there’s that [I think the main reason for black failure is lack of impulse control and family planning, much more than IQ]), therefore the problem with the right is the lack of capacity in defending their arguments philosophically and eloquently as Voltaire once did, through novels (not like the turner diaries), etc. It’s not the super hard focus on rationalism that Cofnas or so many others defend.
And trying to disregard Cofnas completely just because he is jewish or because he made bad comments about Kevin McDonalds is childish. See, this struggle somehow is affecting a lot more backgrounds than most people think. Even Ben shapiro for all his flaws is kinda changing and getting more to the right, etc.
Madison Grant was a man of the Right. It is a feature of the Right to have contempt for ‘the common’. It’s a sad fact, but a true one. But your claim that Madison Grant caused White Nationalism to be a ‘joke’ is pure hyperbole. He’s a central figure in the progressive development of a White Nationalist perspective in North America.
Confas is a jewish supremacist. He’s the enemy, not an ally. The only reason to expend any energy in responding to Confas is to affect the audience. No one is ‘disregarding’ Confas. We’re just pointing out the fact that Confas is a jew and therefore has vested interest in suppressing White Nationalism and attacking White advocacy.
‘Jew’ is a synonym for ‘jewish supremacist’.
Childish and ignorant.
Are you a jew?
That’s how you never move forward or learn anything. Everyone I dislike = Hitler or everyone I dislike = Jewish.
Reductive and erroneous
Madison Grant was also one of the first in America to attempt to protect the natural environment from jewish defilement in the name of profit. Hitler and the national socialists did the same inspired by Grant. Europeans have a natural connection to nature and wildlife not found in other races. I’ve seen black men squeel in fear of a squirrel or cat caused only by seeing one.
I hadn’t heard of Cofnas until all the brouhaha about him saying there would be less than 1% black Harvard professors without affirmative action. Frankly I’m amazed Cambridge didn’t try to fire him on the spot and put on a metaphorical show trial. But it could still happen. He can hear the wolves at the door… students are protesting, the university issued a statement that they do not support his views. He doesn’t have tenure and has his CV posted. I suspect that his discussions of anti-Jewish narrative allowed for him to get the job despite daring to bring up “IQ” and “race”. He was wise to not put both words together in obtuse titles like “Science is not always self-correcting: Fact–value conflation and the study of intelligence“.
Though “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry” started getting him some heat.
Everyone who sees the bad trajectory of the mien of our commissars needs allies. Seeing eye to eye on key issues is more important than all issues. I’m sure that he knows who Jared Taylor and Greg Hood are, among others, given that their mag wrote about him. And I imagine they understand he can’t drop too many names that will add fuel to his attackers, but information does trickle down. If he himself succumbed to some namecalling against MacDonald, now that he’s on the hotseat he probably looking for friends and is even more furious at the woke left mob.
Confas is a jewish supremacist. He’s not an ally and never will be an ally. Whites need to get over the Christianity-induced valorization of ‘the underdog’. In the case of a jew like Confas, he’ll land on his feet as soon as he repudiates most of his views. Confas is part of a movement to fend off White Nationalism, not support it. HBD isn’t ‘White Nationalism Lite’ it’s ‘Multiculturalism + Sneers’.
Allies aren’t brothers and sisters. If someone Jewish is speaking out against the upside down meritocracy and race-based ideology of everything, I’m not going to knock him down and say he needs to be replaced by a goy because he didn’t list Jared Taylor in his footnotes.
What does being ‘fair’ to Confas get you? A warm, fuzzy feeling? Mainstream Whites need a White Vanguard that doesn’t start compromising with the enemy at the drop of a hat.
Confas and HBD is basically ‘data driven’ jewish and asian supremacism.
If you’re White, there is nothing there for you.
The reason why someone like Confas advocates for ‘merit-based’ anything is because they know ‘merit’ is a lie.
The jews thrived in a ‘merit-based’ system because they did not play by the rules.
And they won’t now, either.
Confas isn’t an ally. He’s just a different face of the enemy.
“Fair play” is a rather white thing, and it’s meant to get reciprocity, not just warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe the tendency is a weakness that can be taken advantage of by nonwhites. Maybe it’s an approach that doesn’t work with jews. And maybe it’s also not totally a bad thing?
Here is my theory regarding the political spectrum and IQ. Leftists throughout history tend to be a little smarter than conservatives. Recall the old saw that if a man is not leftist when young, then he has no heart, if he is not conservative when old then he has no head. One big disclaimor: none of this applies to present company–we on the dissident right have the highest IQs of all, probably similar to the highest IQ set of Jews.
Young, idealistic people tend to congregate at universities, which tend to lean left of the greater civilization. However, today’s left is largely constructed by oligarchs, who shift the focus of leftist politics strongly to their own preoccupations, viz. racial egalitarianism and radical identity politics. This subset is highly vocal and does not tolerate dissent, so all the professors tend to express their point of view. It was similar with communism a couple of generations ago. Young people, most of whom are not actively contemplating their own politics, imitate their mentors, both out of admiration and a certain pandering for advantage. Their leftist politics is not a matter of real conviction, as often noted they live as far removed from dangerous minorities as possible, so much as a badge of tribal membership. They feel superior to the rubes back home, or out in the outlands if they came from the blue city originally, based on their peer group at the university. These beliefs and this spiritual peer group give them their sense of self worth and superiority compared to the rest of us. Hence they become strongly indoctrinated. And they have higher IQ, able to solve differential equations and interpret Derrida.
The next tier are your middle American rural maga types. They tend not to go to elite universities, but form their peer group in their churches and local communities. These form the backbone of the Republican Party. They look to their families for worldview, or at the furthest country music and nascar subcultures. They are closer to average IQ of course. They are conservative, and lower IQ than the first group. Not all, but in general.
The final tier are truly low IQ whites. This group is the most disadvantaged economically of whites and often has to live in close proximity to low class blacks and Hispanics as a result. They form a conservativism based on daily exposure to crime and disfunction. Their racial politics is based on actual empirical experience. But this is a marginal subgroup, with little or any social influence, and contains your meth heads and rough people. Hence conservative, but lower in IQ. Many of the last two tiers would have been democrat in the pre 1970 paradigm.
The lowest tier is lower class blacks and Hispanics. They are leftist, or rather vote democrat, I should say, from pure economic self interest. They want free stuff and entitlement. They don’t care about or understand climate change or Ukraine.
Why doe Spencer Quinn not bring up the fact that Cofnas is a Jew?
Hi Claus. Here are my reasons.
1. I’m attacking the essay not the man, except when I call him a midwit in return for his calling KMac an emotionally disturbed fool. That is fair play Cofnas himself established. Also, it’s less challenging and rewarding to write about people than it is to write about ideas.
2. I’m not 100% Cofnas is Jewish.
3. Cofnas barely touches on the JQ in this essay, so his lack or non-lack of a foreskin is not terribly relevant to my essay. It’s up to the commenters to connect or not connect dots if they want to.
4. I’d hate for him or anyone else to dismiss my essay because I’m white. So why would do that to him unless he brings his own Jewishness to the fore or explicitly bashes whites qua whites?
Thank you for exposing this subversive anti-White Jew. He is clearly not neutral in his assessment.
“Excuse me? We have never tried refuting the equality thesis? Has Nathan Cofnas not heard of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, William Shockley, Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Michael Levin? That’s precisely what those guys did and is what they are famous for doing. If Cofnas is arguing in good faith, then he is either ignorant or naïve. And if he is arguing in bad faith, then this better be some very good snake oil if he expects his readership to believe that his brand of race realism is the magic bullet, while all that those other losers offer is a bunch of duds. ”
The magic bullet is that Cofnas is directly reaching out to people who can inspire far more loyalty and are far more organized than any of these titans (and far far far more well funded!). Rufo, Charlie Kirk (TPUSA’s revenue is 55 Million a year and has charters in every major campus)… et al might have been cuck-civnats, but they are effective and have massive name recognition and plenty of loyal footsoldiers. They are reading, and Rufo is in the comments section. They are uncancellable by CON INC, they can’t even be parked in the corner and ignored like Murray was.
What is he supposed to do? Call them idiots for not becoming race realists in 2012..? How does this help exactly?
Well, okay. But Cofnas didn’t exactly rule out any other interpretation aside from yours, even if you are correct. Consider also that if anyone is going to sell race realism, they have to start with data amassed by some of the gentlemen I mentioned, no? To not even mention any of these people, let alone more modern race realists like Jared Taylor or Ed Dutton is suspicious.
Exclusively focusing on language IQ to define race realism is just what a rich jew would want. Of course we would keep all our jews and let them continue being at the top of our society because they allegedly have better results on language oriented tests but do poorly on logic and mathematics. Then they could still allow “smart” non-whites to be employed by jews at much lower rates and be used as golems as a weapon against any white political or labor organizing just as now. I’ll take a “stupid” european who knows how to properly maintain a rifle, dress a deer and has blood and soil common sense over these “smart” europeans who have reasoned themselves into racial masochism and washing the feet of blacks.
The Jew wrote:
I argue that wokism is simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality… Smart people are disproportionately attracted to wokism in large part because it offers a more intellectually coherent explanation for the major issue of our time, which is the persistence of racial disparities… woke, woke, woke…
There are tags under this piece for wokeness and wokeism. Those are Ebonic terms.
Despite the recent spike in its usage, ‘woke’ is not a new word. It was first used in the 1940s and was created as a political term by Black Americans. It means to be awake to issues of social justice and racial justice.
I axe you, what smart White person would talk like a street nigger?
Reply to Ignis Aeternum’s following comment on March 11, 2024 at 11:05 am:
That’s how you never move forward or learn anything. Everyone I dislike = Hitler or everyone I dislike = Jewish.
I move forward fine. And, not, everyone I dislike isn’t a jew.
But when people start defending jewish supremacist ideologies like race-neutral ‘merit’, I don’t make the mistake of thinking their an ally.
I don’t think of myself as moving ‘forward’ or ‘backward’. That’s a progressive view of history that I don’t have much faith in.
I’m on the hunt for tools to secure the existence of White people and a future for White children.
That doesn’t require that I care about non-Whites except to the extent they’re a threat to the survival and thriving of my – White – people.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.