Contra Cofnas: Part 1

Completely wrong

Introduction

This paper is refuting Cofnas (2018) in which he is supposedly critiquing Kevin Macdonald’s infamous book the “Culture of Critique.” This paper will be responding to the specific claims Cofnas’ levied against many Jewish academics. This article is part 1 in a 2 part series. Part 2 will be refuting his notion of a “Default Hypothesis” along with criticizing his last paper Cofnas (2023).

Beginning

In a section accusing Macdonald of cherry picking Cofnas states, “MacDonald says that “there is a broad Jewish consensus [in the US] on such issues as Israel” (1988a:305). Nowhere in the book does he acknowledge that a great deal of Jewish involvement in politics across time and place has been decidedly opposed to narrow Jewish interests, including Israel.” Firstly, there could be a “great deal” of Jewish involvement in anti-Israel politics. That would not mean there’s not a “broad consensus” in the Jewish community for support of Israel. According to a 2024 AJC poll, 85% of American Jews believe it is important for the US to support Israel. Cofnas then goes to state three noteworthy Jews; Marx, Chomsky, and Soros as Jews who are influential leftists but seemingly are either anti-semitic or who are against Jewish interests as Macdonald conceives them. This simply isn’t true.

Cofnas citation for Marx being “anti-Jewish” is of course Marx’s notes “On the Jewish Question.” However, there is much debate regarding this text, and when put into context, this text is not anti-semitic. Marx is responding to an actual anti-semite Bruno Bauer. Marx, refutes Bauer and makes his case for overall Human Emancipation. Fine 2006 explains “Marx’s 1843 essay On the Jewish Question was an important and early case in point. In this essay Marx’s aim was to defend the right of Jews to full civil and political emancipation (that is, to equal civil and political rights) alongside all other German citizens. The target of Marx’s critique was one of the mainstays of the young Hegelian movement, a well-known radical by the name of Bruno Bauer. In the previous year Bauer had written a text called The Jewish Question, in which he argued that Jews had to give up their Judaism if they were to become worthy of equal rights. His core argument was this: that as long as Jews remain Jewish, they are too consumed by Jewish self-interest and communalism to be worthy of full citizenship. In effect, Bauer was calling for opposition to the nascent movement for Jewish emancipation in Germany…Marx affirmed the claim of Jews to full civil and political rights regardless of whether or not they choose to remain Jewish.” What Cofnas fails to mention is that Marx supported a petition on the behalf of a Jewish community to the Provincial Assembly against Bauer. In a letter to Arnold Rouger Marx states “I have just been visited by the chief of the Jewish community here, who has asked me for a petition for the Jews to the Provincial Assembly, and I am willing to do it. However much I dislike the Jewish faith, Bauer’s view seems to me too abstract. The thing is to make as many breaches as possible in the Christian state and to smuggle in as much as we can of what is rational.” Apparently Marx’s “anti-jewishness” did not stop him from supporting Jewish interests when it came to subverting the Christian state. This could be used as support for Macdonald’s concept of Jewish “Crypsis.”

On Noam Chomsky a more nuanced position must be taken. While it is true Chomsky is a very vocal opponent of Zionism and a very notable supporter of Palestine. He is also extremely hostile to explaining America’s support for Israel and other foreign policy decisions at the feet of Jewish Power. When explaining why America has such a strong support for Israel, Chomsky places the blame on the “strong force of Christian Zionism” which Chomsky thinks is much more powerful than Jewish Zionism. Another example is Chomsky’s opposition to Stephen Walt’s and John Mearshemer’s work “The Israel Lobby.” Specifically when it comes to the role of the energy lobby. Chomsky posits the energy lobby has much more of a say than the Israeli lobby. Stating, “Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” Walt and Mearsheimer go to great length in their book (as have others, see Petras 2006) to explain why the energy lobby does not make sense in explaining the relationship America has with Israel or America’s overall position in the Middle East. However, it must be noted in the context of this paper, the case of Chomsky having a positive Jewish identity is not open and shut. Similarly to Norman Finklestein, Chomsky is an anti-Zionist Jew who spends a lot of time protecting Jews from criticism, and downplaying the role Israel has in Capitol Hill. In fact many Jewish anti-zionists have put their Jewishness at the forefront of their activism. In the “About Us” section on the JVP’s (Jewish Voices for Peace) website they state “We organize our people and we resist Zionism because we love Jews, Jewishness, and Judaism. Our struggle against Zionism is not only an act of solidarity with Palestinians, but also a concrete commitment to creating the Jewish futures we all deserve. We are fighting for a thriving Judaism and Jewish communities.” The anecdote of Chomsky should not be taken as a solid example against Macdonald’s theory, but could very well support it. Chomsky (and many other Jewish anti-Zionists) have made a grand deal of importance to remove Zionism from its association with Jewishness.

The last anecdote in this small section is George Soros. I will let this quote from an article in the New York Times given by Soros’ son Alexander Soros speak for itself. “Alex told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.” This is obviously in line with Macdonald’s hypothesis.

On pages 7-8 Cofnas accuses Macdonald of basically doing mental gymnastics for how his theory explains the Jewish position on affirmative action. He states “For example, he claims several times that Jews are opposed to affirmative action because it is against their ethnic interests (1988a:101, 105, n. 16, 308, 313, 315; see also 240–41). He says that affirmative action policies“would clearly preclude free competition between Jews and gentiles” (1988a:101) and, elsewhere, that they “would necessarily discriminate against Jews” (1988a:315). In a parenthetical, he notes that when an anti-affirmative action measure was put on the ballot in California, Jews voted for it “in markedly lower percentages” than other white groups (1988a:311). That is, Jews voted to support affirmative action. His explanation for this is that “because of their competitive advantage” among whites, “Jews may perceive themselves as benefiting from policies designed to dilute the power of the European-derived group as a whole on the assumption that they would not suffer any appreciable effect.” Again, he shows a facile tendency to spin an apparent disconfirmation of his theory as actually a verification of it.”

Well let’s look at polling regarding affirmative action. Looking at a Quinnipiac poll from 2009 43% of Jews favored continuing affirmative action (a plurality) while the majority of whites (63%) wanted to abolish it. So Macdonald was not necessarily wrong on Jewish (non) support for affirmative action. When it is made clear Affirmative Actions policies will hurt Whites, the support for Affirmative Action goes up among Jews. (question 14, margin of support went from 4 points to 9 points.) Notice that Jewish opinion on this matter is always at odds with gentile Whites. Likewise, in Israel 79% of Israeli Jews and 85% of Jews in the West Bank think Jews should get preferential treatment (Jewish affirmative action.)

The essence of what Macdonald is saying is essentially correct. Jews support affirmative action to decrease the power of whites, and seem to support it when it favors them. This does support Macdonald’s idea of Jews being a morally particularist group.

Boasian Anthropology and Race Anti-Realism

Cofnas in a section on Boasian Anthropology quoted Macdonald saying how Boasians criticized Western society for being homogenous and indebted to negative cultural traits, comparing the West to non-Western primitive societies. Of course. this is exactly what Mead did in her work on Samoa. However, Cofnas has issues with Macdonald saying it was the Jewish (Mead isn’t Jewish) Boasians who innovated this critique (Western as bad, primitive as good.) Cofnas points to Jean-Jacques Rousseau

as a gentile European philosopher who critiqued Western society in a way similar to Boasians, long before them. Therefore it couldn’t be the case that the Boasians were the first of their kind to do so. Fair point. However, it should be noted the larger point Macdonald is making is that it was Boasians (who were largely Jewish) were partaking in scientific fraud to get anthropology and science in general away from biology and towards a sociocultural understanding of racial differences. It definitely seemed that is what the Boasians were up to. Take the 2003 reanalysis of Boas’ study on skull shapes. His findings didn’t replicate, and they didn’t replicate because of the fact he didn’t account for age when looking at the change in skull shapes of European immigrants when comparing them to their parents and native born Americans. Boas was the pioneer of race anti-realism in science in America, the founder of cultural relativism in anthropology. His doctoral students, the gentiles Cofnas focuses on (Mead and Benedict) probably wouldn’t have done their studies without Boas.

Cofnas states in this section “MacDonald ignores the fact that influential gentiles have been well represented among environmentalists studying race differences in intelligence, and Jews have been clearly overrepresented among prominent hereditarians.”

Leiberman&Reynolds 1978 surveyed anthropologists and collected information on their ethnic backgrounds. Anthropologists who had Jewish mothers were significantly more likely to embrace race anti-realism than were Gentile anthropologists. In fact, 64% of Jews race deniers, while 66% of Gentiles were race realists. It seems to be the case the Jews were much more represented in anthropology as race deniers than were Gentiles. Last 2020 also notes “looking at the “Sociobiology Study Group”, an important organization of scientists who opposed biological explanations of human psychology in the 1970s. Wikipedia lists 7 members/associates of the groups which were important enough to have their own wikipedia pages. Of these, 6 (Lewontin, Gould, Beckwith, Hubbard, Chomsky, and Keller) or 86% are also identified by Wikipedia as being Jewish (Wiki, 2020).” This group (specifically Lewontin with his infamous study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity” and Gould’s largely discredited “Mismeasure of Man”) has been extremely influential on the environmental side of the race debate, and Jews were significantly more overrepresented in this list, than the list of race realists Cofnas gave (only 2/7 in that group being roughly 28%.) Interestingly enough the two Jews Cofnas mentions in his list (Herrnstein and Eyesink) seem to have had positive Jewish identities which motivated their thinking. In their infamous book “The Bell Curve” Herrnstein was very conscious of quotas during the 20th century that limited Jewish representation in colleges. He would go on to link contemporary Affirmative Action with the anti-semitic quotas. “Indeed, early in this century, when colleges were discriminating against Jews, the reasons given, when they were given at all, were a mixture of institutional self-interest and social utility. Once again, however, the rationale for affirmative action is not fully satisfactory. Looking back to the time when the numbers of Jews or women on a campus were strictly limited, most people feel uncomfortable with the rationales, however dispassionately accurate they might have seemed at the time. They are uncomfortable partly because of the injustice, which brings us to the final criterion that should be part of the admissions process.” (Herrnstein&Murray 1994 pg 461) Ironically, Herrnstein’s position on Affirmative Action is very much in line with Macdonald’s explanation on how Jew’s view affirmative action (potentially dangerous for them.) Eyesink also appears to have a positive Jewish identity. Colman&Frosch (2016) wrote a paper that covered Eyesink’s Jewish identity in great detail. They state “he was strongly and consistently pro-Semitic throughout his life.” They justify this by quoting his autobiography, which states “Certainly at school and later on in life most of my friends were Jewish, as is my second wife. So were many of my colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry. When it is remembered that only about one person in a hundred in England is Jewish, it is obvious that the Jews have an attractive quality for me.”

So not only are Jews much more represented in race denialism (more on this in Part 2) than race realism, the two Jews Cofnas mentions are very much in line with Macdonald’s thesis.

Freudians and Jewish Identity

Cofnas states in the section on Freudian Psychoanalysis “The 15 Jews among the top 21 intellectuals were (1) Daniel Bell, (2) Chomsky, (3) Irving Howe, (4) Norman Mailer, (5) Robert Silvers, (6) Susan Sontag, (7) Lionel Trilling, (8) Hannah Arendt, (9) Saul Bellow, (10) Paul Goodman, (11) Richard Hofstadter (Jewish father), (12) Irving Kristol, (13) Herbert Marcuse, (14) Norman Podhoretz, and (15) David Riesman. A closer look shows that only two or three of these cases support MacDonald’s thesis, and several are clear counterexamples. First off, five of these intellectuals are, by MacDonald’s criteria, unambiguously anti-Israel and therefore opposed to Jewish interests.” The 5 Cofnas is referring to are Chomsky, Mailer, Marcuse, Sontang, and Ardent. I will show how all of these 5 intellectuals (Marcuse will be discussed in the section addressing what Cofnas said on the Frankfurt school) had Jewish identities and motivated them to take on their political views, which is inline with Macdonald’s thesis. Macdonald makes it clear that what is important here is self identification with Judaism, and interpreting what Jewish interests are. I already addressed Chomsky above, who could indeed be an example of Jewish crypsis. On Mailer, he definitely had a Jewish identity which was influential to his political/self identity. Mailer was “obsessed with the Holocaust.” The Freudian and Jewish influence of Mailer can be seen his novel “The Castle in the Forest” which is a story about how Hitler (who’s a product of incest) was manipulated through an early age by a demon named Dieter. In an article written by a personal associate of Mailer, he stated “When asked, “What role has your being Jewish played in your being a writer,” Mailer replies emphatically, “An enormous role.” He picks two aspects of the Jewish experience that influenced him — the sense of history that makes it “impossible to take anything for granted” and also the Jewish mind. “We’re here to do all sorts of outrageous thinking, if you will … certainly incisive thinking,” Mailer said. “If the Jews brought anything to human nature, it’s that they developed the mind more than other people did.” While he didn’t have particularly strong feelings about Israel, his Jewish identity was strong and definitely played a self admitted role throughout his life.

Cofnas states that Sontang also runs counter, not in favor of Jewish intellectual ethnocentrism, due to the fact she criticized Israel when receiving her Jerusalem peace prize in 2001. However, Cofnas does not explain the full story of Sontang or even the speech she gave in Jerusalem. First, Sontang seems to have got her interest in “inventory of horror” from being personally struck by the Holocaust. Grauer (2004) states “Jews are frequently a point of reference in her writing, from which she drew analogies to other groups. Moreover, Sontang traced her personal interest in photographs of suffering (what she called an “inventory of horror”) back to seeing images of the Holocaust at the age of twelve. She wrote that “Nothing I have seen—in photographs or in real life— ever cut me as sharply, deeply, instantaneously. Indeed, it seems plausible to me to divide my life into two parts”: before seeing the images and after (On Photography 19-20).” Cockburn (2001) explains that Sontang’s condemnation of Israel was more or less to save face for criticism from fellow progressives and was not a serious criticism of Israel. “Sontag told the Jerusalem Post that there’d been a lot of pressure on her not to attend the Jerusalem Book Fair and accept the prize.” Cockburn then goes on to explain how he asked his colleague “to check the record” to see if Sontang had made any previous condemnation of Israel. His colleague could only find one letter signed in 1991 by Sontang and others about the detention of a Palestinian activist Sari Nusseibeh. The letter stated “We are acutely dismayed by the continuing detention of the Palestinian intellectual and activist Sari Nusseibeh in Jerusalem, for what the Israeli Government first called ‘subversive activities of collecting security information for Iraqi intelligence…We are concerned that the Israeli Government is exploiting these difficult days of war against Iraq to crack down on precisely those figures whose moderation and opposition to violence will be essential to the conclusion of a just and secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians in the aftermath of this war.” The article then goes on to cite an article published in May by the Jewish paper Haaretz stating at the same hour of the acceptance of the prize by Sontang, a proposal had passed in the local administration to shut down the activities of Al-Quds university, the president being Sari Nusseibeh. Cockburn states “Sontag accepts a prize from a group that’s trying to boot Nusseibeh out of East Jerusalem–the very same man whose detention she petitioned to end ten years ago, during the first intifada! She deserves credit for condemning the occupation policies, but she could have gone a lot further. For example, she praised the man giving her the prize, Mayor Olmert, as “an extremely persuasive and reasonable person.” Olmert at the time was a member of the ultra-Zionist Likud party. Cockburn goes on to say “Olmert is a fanatical ethnic cleanser, one of the roughest of the Likud ultras. During his period in office, he has consistently pushed for the expropriation of Arab property and the revocation of Arab residence permits. Olmert was a principal advocate of the disastrous 1996 tunnel excavation underneath the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. During the ensuing demonstrations, Israeli security forces shot dead about fifty Palestinian civilians. The mayor was also instrumental in the seizure of Palestinian land at the southeastern edge of Jerusalem in order to build the settlement of Har Homa, another link in the encirclement of Arab East Jerusalem.” The letter Sontag signed off of in 1991 and her condemnation of Israel in 2001 seemed to be completely performative and probably an attempt to save face. She praised a Jew that is responsible for ethnic cleansing, and while condemning the unnecessary civilian killings and expansive settlements by Israelis, she seems to also be in support of a Jewish state existing. This is pretty typical of a Liberal Zionist. However while she is aware of literal genocide committed by the Israelis, she gives forced half hearted criticism. In 1967, writing for the Partisan Review, Sontang stated “If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far.... The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, Baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads.” Why is the White race condemned as a cancer to humanity for its genocides, but a Jew personally responsible for contributing to an ethnic cleansing “an extremely reasonable person.” Cofnas completely leads out this context of Sontang’s speech in Jerusalem. Sontang is rightfully used as evidence of Jewish moral particularism and a Jewish intellectual.

Another Jewish intellectual Cofnas states counteracts Macdonald’s concepts of an Jewish intellectual is Hannah Arendt. Cofnas states Arendt “was the student, promoter, and lover (in a romantic sense) of the Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. She was best known for her book Eichmann in (Arendt 1963), in which she argued that Israeli laws were comparable to the Nazi Nuremberg laws and that holocaust-orchestrator Eichmann had been given a“show trial” and was not a particularly bad person (just that he was prompted to do bad things by circumstances beyond his control—though she faults him for not being brave enough to protest). In 1948, Arendt (along with Einstein, Sidney Hook, and 24 other prominent Jews) signed a letter to the New York Times which described the political party of Menachem Begin as“closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.” Cofnas is painting a picture that Arendt didn’t support Israel, therefore didn’t have a Jewish identity and also didn’t advocate for Jewish interests, so doesn’t fit into Macdonald’s thesis, and actually counteracts it. This is a blatant misrepresentation of Arendt’s Jewish identity, which was largely impactful for her political thought. Cofnas seems to think that if an intellectual that is Jewish lacks support for Israel, then they lack a positive Jewish identity. Or if they do support Israel and don’t support other progressive ideas then they don’t advocate for Jewish interests. That isn’t the case Macdonald is making. Macdonald is stating that Jews developed a group evolutionary strategy and a part of this was developing a strong sense of ethnocentrism. This ethnocentrism in modernity led to them leading specific intellectual groups because of their self conceived Jewish identity. There are plenty of Jews with vibrant positive identities that don’t support the state of Israel. One need to look no further than the Hasidic community. A 2016 pew survey found only 33% of Israeli Hasdim were to identify as Zionist, and Hasdim were the least likely group to say Israel was a necessity for Jewish success. Hasdim have become known for leading the charge in anti-Israel protests. Now, no one would say these ultra-orthodox Jews that follow Torah strictly lack a Jewish identity or advocate against Jewish interests. However, according to Cofnas they would. Likewise, there are plenty of highly ethnocentric Jews that are far-right and vastly opposed to liberal ideals (see the Jewish Defense League.) The point of Macdonald is to show that the necessary shift towards progressivism on issues such as race, immigration, sex roles, and America’s hawkish stance on Israel, is because of highly political Jews and their self conceived interests and identity. Advocating for a Jewish nation-state is just one piece of evidence a Jew is ethnocentric. But it is not the only piece of evidence.

That being said Hannah Arendt, despite what Cofnas said, did have a vibrant Jewish identity that did shape her political thought. Sznaider 2007 points forward the case that Arendt was a part of a specific type of cosmopolitanism that synthesized particularist and universalist identities. He makes a very convincing case that Arendt’s Jewish identity was a cornerstone for her political thought. “Scholem and Arendt had known each other for a long time, sharing at some points similar views about Jewish nationalism. Especially before the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, both tried to develop a 'non-nationalist nationalism' (Eddon, 2003), different from other nationalist movements while at the same time fulfilling a pragmatic obligation to the Jews. We can call this a 'cosmopolitan nationalism', to capture the paradox of embracing universalism and Jewish national independence at the same time.? Arendt's calls for Jewish political action, even forming a Jewish army, were based on the particularistic premise that only within the boundaries of a political community are people free to raise their voice and be heard…Arendt replied a month later. She wrote: 'I have always regarded my Jewishness as one of the indisputable factual data of my life, and I have never had the wish to change to disclaim facts of this kind' (Scholem and Arendt, 1964: 53). For Arendt, her Jewishness was a given, a 'physei' rather than a 'nomos' as she put it (Scholem and Arendt, 1964: 54).”

“Arendt said Jewishness was a key feature of her identity. After all, her most important book on political theory dealt with the horrors of totalitarianism and of what was later to be called the Holocaust (Arendt, 1951). On a deep existential level, the book dealt with the fate of the Jews in the 20th century…Politics was her life and she was passionately involved with Israel. As she once said, the fate of that country affected her more personally than the fact of any other country in the world (Young-Bruehl, 1982: 455). Even when she was furious at Israel, she cared about it.”

Sznaider in his book “Jewish Memory and the Cosmopolitan Order” states more on Arendt’s position.“The only viable answer for modern Jews is politics not necessarily Zionist politics, but collective politics of some kind.” Ardent worked for the committee of Jewish Cultural Reconstruction, which Sznaider states Ardent “believed that the JCR would be the representative of the Jewish people as a collective and not of Jews as citizens of their respective countries.” It becomes blatantly clear Arendt had a Jewish identity and was a member of a Jewish ethnic advocacy group, and definitely saw herself as advocating for Jewish collective interests, along with universal humanitarian interests. Cofnas ignored these facts, and instead painted Arendt as simply a leftist who was hostile towards Israel and Jews. In fact, Cofnas makes the same non-nuanced argument about Arendt’s position on Eichmann Sznaider addresses in his paper. When Hans Magnus Enzenberger used Arendt’s book on Eichmann as a “foundation” for his work (Politics and Crime) arguing that genocide constituted as a universal evil, and uniqueness and nuance need not apply. All genocides, he asserted, are holocausts. Arendt did not like this work. Sznaider states “But it was not the main point for her. What she said in her reply was: you misunderstood my book. It is not the meaning of the Holocaust in my book. It is not the meaning of the Holocaust for me. And most of all, it shouldn't be the meaning of the Holocaust for you, a German. She insisted: 'It did happen in Germany and nowhere else, and has turned into an event of German history' (Arendt and Enzensberger, 1965: 384). She continued disagreeing with him about the comparisons he drew between Auschwitz and war-related deaths as in Dresden and Hiroshima. For her, Auschwitz had nothing to do with war. Its aim was to exterminate the Jewish people (Arendt and Enzens-berger, 1965: 385). Why shouldn't a German understand the Holocaust without reference to its particularity? Because, for Arendt, morality is based on particularity.” Arendt is a clear cut case of Macdonald’s concept of a Jewish intellectual and evidence of Jewish moral particularism.

Cofnas then states “Another intellectual on the list, Saul Bellow, was a conservative who opposed feminism, multiculturalism, and political correctness. Bellow urged Allan Bloom, another Jewish academic at the University of Chicago, to write The Closing of the American Mind (Bloom 1987), one of the most influential pro-traditionalist academic books in the past few decades (Ahmed and Grossman 2007).”

Is Bellow being conservative supposed to disprove the notion he had a Jewish identity? To reiterate, the thesis is; due to Jewish GES Jews are an ethnocentric people, thus a prominent Jewish identity will motivate them to hold a political stance (typically progressive.) Thus, while most Jews are liberal because of their identity (see part 2) it does not exclude the possibility of a Jew being conservative because of his/her Jewish identity. Macdonald goes over the Neoconservative movement in COFC as an example of a Jewish intellectual movement despite it being on the right wing. This adds to the point about supporting Israel or being a progressive on both diaspora and Israeli politics. The overall point is what motivates Jews as a collective and the specific intellectuals and intellectual groups covered in COFC is a GES to make the society Jews are living in safer for them, and is to say political opinions held by Jews is motivated by their self conception as a Jew.

Mehiri&Cheikh (2024) state on Bellow “His Jewish background is not a biographical detail alone but an ingredient that runs throughout his writing to create a unique viewpoint on questions of identity and alienation in today's world.” They even go on to say that Bellow’s internal dialogues in “The Dangling Man” are based on Talmudic Dialectics. The facts Mehiri and Cheikh lead to them to conclude that Bellow’s work reflect the “body of Jews using psychoanalysis.” Bellow surely meets the description of a Jewish intellectual (whether he likes that title or not) that was heavily influenced by Freudian theories. While Macdonald was wrong to call him a liberal, he does not contradict what Cofnas would call “an anti-Jewish narrative.”

Cofnas states on page 12, “Bell, Hofstadter, and Riesman were liberals, though not particularly extreme, not known for promoting Freud, and not seriously involved in Jewish causes.” Cofnas doesn’t substantiate why he says Hofstadter wasn’t known for “promoting Freud” when Macdonald’s specific claim was “significantly influenced by Freudian theory at some point in their careers.” Which is the case with Hofstadter. Baker (1985) states, “In addition to his new friends and the different viewpoints they offered, he read Max Weber, whom Mills was then translating. He read Karl Mannheim, whom he later claimed as a primary influence. He read all of Freud, amazing his friend Alfred Kazin by the thorough and systematic study he made of the psychiatrist. Acquaintance with these major figures turned him from the preoccupations of the New York Left and toward new interpretive devices for his historical subjects.”

Hofstader is quoted as saying “I spent a lot of years acquiring a Jewish identity, which is more cultural than religious.” (Brown 2006) Brown, also states in his biography on Hostader “Identity played a vital and no less significant role in contextualizing Hofstadter's scholarship. Half Jewish, he was part of the first wave of intellectuals to incorporate secular, cosmopolitan, and universalist perspectives into his work; as such, he served as a thoughtful agent of change in a nation rapidly moving away from its Protestant moorings…Hofstadter found in earlier schools of historical writing a Wasp bias that favored Anglo-Saxon preferences over more nuanced and culturally diverse narratives. His rebellion against the dominant trends of prewar historiography occurred as others close to him remained committed to the inherited past.” Macdonald was 100% accurate in including Hofstader as a Freudian influenced Jewish liberal.

Daniel Bell probably does fit the identification of “radical.” Describing himself as a “Socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.” (Gardner 1999) Bell is also quoted saying “The Shul and the Socialist party, that framed my life.”(Dorman 1997) So Bell, according to himself, also had a prominent Jewish identity. It depends on what Macdonald means by “Freudian influence” since Bell after his divorce, went under intense Freudian psychoanalysis to handle his depression. (Bell 2019) Macdonald however was 100% accurate in framing Bell as a radical Jewish intellectual.

Riesman, however Cofnas may be correct about not fitting Macdonald’s definition of a Jewish intellectual. However, that question needs more investigation. Riesman did take the rise of anti-semitism seriously, writing in “Commentary magazine” that while the “militant” approach to anti-semitism was honorable and somewhat successful, education would be a better solution to ending anti-semitism. However, a prominent and needed goal is to end anti-semitism. Note also, Commentary magazine was founded by the American Jewish Committee as a journal to specifically express “significant thought and opinion, Jewish affairs and contemporary issues.” (Jew Virtual Library) This doesn’t necessarily mean Macdonald was wrong in calling him a Jewish Freudian liberal. The influence of his Jewish identity is not an open and shut case. Cofnas is wrong about Riesman not being a Freudian, that is evident. (see Riesman 2016)

On the case of Trilling, Cofnas also leaves out incredible nuance about his Jewish identity. (Benjamin 2017) documents a “reverberation” of Trilling’s Jewish identity in 1944. The “Contemporary Jewish Record” published responses from 11 different Jewish intellectuals (Trilling being one of them) to a 40 question document they (the Contemporary Jewish Record) sent them (the Jewish intellectuals.) Trilling, uncharacteristically of him replied with a 4 page rant which gives great incite on Jewish identity. He ranted against the Zionist Ludwig Lewisohn, essentially claiming Lewisohn was too Jewish out in the open and gave a bad name to Jewish novelists. Trilling, while not wanting to be known as a “Jewish writer” explicitly claiming as such, did note in many instances his Jewishness had an important impact on his self-conception. Claiming “It is never possible for a Jew in my generation to escape his Jewish origin” and he noted his Jewishness “was a point of honor.” (Benjamin 2017 pg 3) Trilling, whether he wanted to be known as one or not, was a Jewish intellectual, just a unique type who was not fund of Jews he thought were too loud, such as Lewisohn (which was not uncommon for Jewish contemporaries of Trilling see Benjamin 2017 pg 17.)

While the extent to which Paul Goodman had a Jewish identity needs further investigation, it is interesting that Cofnas says specifically “no interest in his fellow Jews” despite giving classes on the Holocaust. Likewise Goodman wrote the “A Memorial Synagogue” where he wrote “memorialized in original and arresting fashion the disasters of the Jewish people — and all other peoples — years before the full dimension of the Shoah became known.” (Chametzky 2012) Goodman did probably have a Jewish identity, but that needs further investigation, the specific claim Cofnas made is obviously false.

Cofnas continues “That leaves the neoconservatives Kristol and Podhoretz. Kristol and Podhoretz became decidedly anti-liberal, though later in their careers they openly and aggressively supported Israel, Jewish interests, and, in Podhoretz’s case, unfettered immigration to the US.” Cofnas seemingly does not dispute the Jewish identity of these individuals and their concern with Jewish interests. Cofnas, likewise acknowledges Howe’s support for Israel, despite being a progressive.

Cofnas states “Even if it is true that 11/15 of these intellectuals were influenced by Freud “at some point in their careers,” virtually none of them comes close to conforming to MacDonald’s paradigm of a Jewish radical.” Cofnas quotes Macdonald above this quote stating “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.” If Jewish radical means an intellectual highly influenced by his Jewish identity, Macdonald has correctly identified all but 3 of the intellectuals on the list as being Jewish intellectuals (the 3 being Chomsky, Goodman, and Riesman who arguably do actually fit the description of a Jewish intellectual.) Macdonald might have been wrong to call everyone on the list “a liberal” and “Freudian” however many on this list are Freudian liberals.

Cofnas concedes Freud had a Jewish identity. No reason to counter the rest of what he says about Freud. I don’t think just because Freud acknowledged Jews engaged in an atrocity does not undermine the plethora of evidence Macdonald presents in chapter 4 of COFC presenting Freud’s strong hostility towards Catholicism and gentile Europeans.

The Frankfurt School and Jewish Ethnocentrism

Cofnas on the Frankfurt school asserts “There is no positive evidence that members of the Frankfurt School were hypocrites who condemned collectivism in gentiles and promoted it for Jews.” He is wrong. Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm,and Lowenthal all had Jewish identities and had dedicated their lives to minimizing anti-semitism as much as possible. Most of them saw “Jewish collectivism” (although in different ways) as perfectly acceptable and necessary for shielding Jews from anti-semitism.

Horkheimer was born in an observant Jewish family (Jacobs 2015 pg8) and throughout his life had a very prominent Jewish identity. Horkheimer, in 1940 became a Consultant for the ethnic advocacy group the American Jewish Congress. Horkheimer when he returned back to Germany in 1951, a year after returning to Germany joined the “Jüdische Gemeinde Frankfurt am Main” (Jacobs 2015 pg133). While in Germany, Horkheimer would partake in many Jewish practices, such as observe Passover, recited kaddish, and even asked the Jewish Community of Stuttgart what his original Hebrew name was (Jacobs 2015 pg 133-134). Horkheimer would give a series of talks to the Jewish Community, one even titled “Cultural Tasks of a Jewish Community in Our Time.” Horkheimer, was not a Zionist, but did believe (like Fromm) in a type of non-Zionist Jewish collectivism which would shield Jews not only from anti-semitism but also from being identified with Zionism (Jacobs 2015 pg 136). Despite this, Horkheimer would take a very sympathetic approach to Israel, such as in 1956 defending Israel’s actions towards Egypt claiming “Arabic robber states” had been waiting on the chance to “pounce” on Israel (Jacobs 2015 pg 137) and even went as far as saying “We have every reason to affirm Israel” (Jacobs 2015 pg 138). Horkheimer would even personally go to the German ambassador to the United States to voice his concern about German scientists contributing to Egypt’s armaments program (Jacobs 2015 pg 140). Horkheimer would donate to several Zionist organizations (Jacobs 2015 pg 139) but it should be noted Horkheimer was opposed to Zionism. But however, his reason was rooted in the fact of his Jewishness (which is the case for many of the Frankfurt school Jews) and thought of it as a violation of the Third Commandment and none of his feelings towards Israel should be considered “anti-Zionism.” Jacobs states “It should, finally, be underscored that Horkheimer’s continuing doubts about the Jewish state had nothing in common with“anti-Zionism.” Horkheimer was well aware that purported anti-Zionism provided a (thin) screen both for neo-Nazis, such as those writing in the late 1960s for the Deutsche National Zeitung, and for Communists in Eastern Europe.166 Horkheimer’s critique of Zionism was in no way similar to the criticisms current at that time in the Soviet Union, or in the Arab world. His attitude was rooted not so much in specific policies of the state as in his understanding of the role that Jewry had historically played in the world, and of how the creation of Israel had altered that role.” Lowenthal would remark Horheimer “in his thinking was always very conscious of the Jewish heritage.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 12)

Out of the entire Horkheimer circle, Fromm was the most Jewish, and Judaism played the biggest role in his thinking. Fromm grew up in an orthodox household and very early in youth got involved in Zionist politics. Fromm’s family history was steeped in Jewish tradition as Jacobs explains “Both Fromm’s mother and his father were descended from rabbinic families. His great grandfather, Seligmann Bär Bamberger, known as the Würzburger Rav, was a Talmudist and a leader of the Jewish Orthodox world in southern Germany. Fromm seems to have grown up hearing about his ancestor. Fromm’s grandfather, Seligmann Pinchas Fromm, son-in-law of the Würzburger Rav, served for many years as a rabbi in Bad Homburg, and later as personal rabbi to a member of the Rothschild family.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 33). Fromm in 1919 actually co-founded the Frankfurt’s Society for Jewish Adult Education with Rabbi George Salzberger (Jacobs 2015 pg 32-33). Fromm would go on to becoming a leading figure in the KJV and would write his dissertation on the sociological function of Jewish law (Jacobs 2015 pg 34). Even though Fromm would eventually become secular, Judaism would play a fundamental role in his thinking. Rodin 2017 documents how much of the Torah and Talmud shaped Fromm’s notable works stating, “Fromm’s penetrating analyses of the root causes of some of the the crises of modern society, and his guidance on developing our human potential for creating a just and peaceful world, had a profound, enlightening influence on many readers in the 20th century and remain even more relevant in the 21st. What is often not remembered, however, even by admirers of his work, is that the roots and inspiration for Fromm’s radical humanism lay in the Jewish tradition.” Rodin actually quotes Fromm from Friedmann’s biography in which he states his love of the Jewish tradition never died, and you could not speak to him without hearing the Talmudic or khasidic story. Meaning, when reading or speaking to Fromm, you are hearing his interpretation of Jewish tradition. Like Horkheimer (and Lowenthal) Fromm’s opposition to Zionism would be rooted in Judaism. Jacobs states “Fromm’s critique of the State of Israel was grounded in his knowledge and understanding of Jewish text and thought, and in his firm belief that the leaders of Israel were acting in a manner contrary to the teachings of Judaism.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 125). Fromm would actually write an entire paper titled “Jewish States and Messianic Tradition” in which he proclaimed Zionism was at odds with rabbinic Messianic traditions. However, that would not stop him from getting involved in non-Zionist Jewish collectivist organizations. Fromm was a massive supporter of the Freeland League, which was a Jewish territorialist organization which advocated for a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine. Fromm would give several talks for the League and being unable to join personally in a meeting in New York wrote a written greeting to the organization. Jacob states “He noted that the League was comprised of that sector of the Jewish population that believed that only moral principles would guarantee the future of the Jewish people, and explicitly declared that the League was, in his eyes, the expression of“the best Jewish traditions.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 125) Fromm would also go on to become a high up member of Ichud which was a binational Zionist party. Fromm would state “I have always been a warm admirer of Ichud, which, in fact, is to me the only bright and hopeful spot in the picture, politically as well as morally, of the State of Israel.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 126) Fromm was definitely a Jewish intellectual in the truest sense, and definitely not opposed to Jewish collectivism.

Cofnas provides a quote from Marcuse to prove Marcuse was not a hypocrite when it came to supporting Israel and supporting multiculturalism for the West. This is also (presumably) to be taken as evidence that he did not have a Jewish identity/wasn’t ethnocentric. This is wrong, as Jacobs states on Marcuse’s take on Israel “Marcuse differentiated between the policies of Israeli governments and the rationale for the existence of Israel, opposing the former, in a number of instances, while steadfastly defending the need for a place of refuge from antisemitism. Herbert Marcuse’s rather sympathetic stance towards Israel was manifestly influenced by his Jewish background [emphasises added].” (Jacobs 2015 pg 123) Marcuse was a supporter of Jewish collectivism as he saw it necessary for a Jewish homeland to protect them from anti-semitism, even though he took a more liberal stance on it maintaining Jews should probably be a minority in Israel so they wouldn’t be targeted by the Arabs which would increase the chance of rising anti-semitism. Would Marcuse support a state for Whites to protect themselves from demographic change? Absolutely not. Marcuse spent his whole career criticizing the traditions and system of Western civilization.

Leo Lowenthal also had a prominent Jewish identity. Although, he did not grow up in a Jewish home, in an act of rebellion against his parents he soon became heavily involved in Jewish affairs. Lowenthal in university would (like Fromm) join the KJV and become a Zionist. Stating “Is the fact that I am not altogether convinced that to be a Zionist means to want Palestine an objection? No! To be a Zionist means to be a Jew.”(Jacobs 2015 pg 17) Lowenthal would, not just become a Zionist, but also get involved in Orthodox Judaism. Jacobs states “The Löwenthal family had a“particularly good dinner at home” on Yom Kippur– a fast day, and the holiest day of the Jewish year– Leo expressed his new-found Jewish identity, which included an attraction to messianic and other religious ideas,70 by becoming involved with the Frankfurt-based circle revolving around Rabbi Nehemiah Anton Nobel.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 20) However, while Lowenthal would move away from Orthodox Judaism, the impact of Judaism still had a significant impact on his life. He would actually admit himself “now, years later and after mature consideration, I must admit to a certain in uence of Jewish tradition, which was codeterminative” in the development of Critical Theory.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 32) Jacobs adds on saying “Lowenthal apparently came to believe that Jewish motifs had a key role in the development of Critical Theory even if the members of the Frankfurt School had not been conscious of that role as the Frankfurt School was brought into being.” (Same page) Lowenthal also supported the existence of the State of Israel, however he like Fromm was concerned about the possible contradiction that existed with Israel and the Messiance tradition. Lowenthal in a letter to his cousin who lived in Israel Arye Ben David that “Needless to say that I pursue with profound empathy the news from Israel and the Near East and I am profoundly concerned, yet hoping that a livable solution may be found in the not too distant future. All the signs point toward tragedy, but I pray fervently as far as an agnostic can do, that Israel will not only survive but will grow and prosper in the years ahead.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 143) Lowenthal would also state “I certainly speak critically about Israel– just as I speak critically about everything in my life– but I do not for a moment question the right of Israel to exist.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 144) Lowenthal never abandoned his Jewishness, just like Fromm even though he stopped being Orthodox. He, while opposing collectivism for Whites, supported for Jews insofar as it protected them from anti-semitism. This is no doubt due to his personal Jewish identity.

Adorno was the least Jewish out of the bunch. Owing to the fact he was half Jewish on his father side. Unlike the others who grew up Jewish (or like Lowenthal got involved in Jewish affairs as youth) Adorno only became interested in anti-semitism and his Jewishness after World War II. This paper can not do justice the significance of the war had to psyche of these Jewish thinkers and how defeating anti-semitism became central principle of the theorists. I suggest reading the entirety of chapter 2 of Jacobs’ book to get a full grasp on it. Adorno however played a key role in shifting Horkheimer’s understanding of anti-semitism. As Jacobs states “Horkheimer still placed particular stress on the primacy of economics, and on a Marxist framework, in explaining the phenomenon of antisemitism. In pieces by Horkheimer and by Adorno written during and immediately after the war, economics is one component of a multi-faceted explication of hatred of Jews. The shift in Horkheimer’s perspective on antisemitism was part and parcel of a larger shift that deeply affected Critical Theory as a whole, and is best explained by the influence of Adorno [emphasis added].” On Adonro’s personal Jewish identity, Lowenthal stated “[i]n conversations, although he was half Jewish, he always identified himself as a Jew, and ascribed an‘aristocratic’ signi cance to this state of affairs.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 109)

On the totality of the Frankfurt School, it is obvious these theorists were motivated by their Jewish identity and their identity stuck with them for the entirety of their life (besides for Adorno who only had a positive Jewish identity after the war.) The Lowenthal quote cited earlier should speak for itself. However the further drive the point home Jacobs states in the conclusion of his book. “Neither Horkheimer nor Fromm nor Lowenthal nor Marcuse fall neatly within Deutscher’s category of “non-Jewish Jews” (because all of them had far more extensive familial ties to Jewishness than did figures like Marx or Trotsky). However, their of nity for the Institute can be partially explained using Deutscher’s mode of analysis. The roads that brought these Critical Theorists to the Institute had Jewish markers. Like those in Deutscher’s pantheon, key members of the Frankfurt School became Jewish“heretics” who remained“very Jewish indeed.” (Jacobs 2015 pg 150)

These individuals did have Jewish identities and certainly promoted (and in many instances took part in) “Jewish collectivism” while psychopathologizing White Western collectivism. Cofnas here is dead wrong, and Macdonald is justified in portraying the Frankfurt School theorists as he did.

Communism and Soviet Jews

On the section of Communism, It has already been documented Marx’s Jewish identity. However, Cofnas quotes Marx’s letter to Engles where he slurred Lassalle (Cofnas pg 15.) Is Marx insulting a fellow Jew supposed to indicate he didn’t have a Jewish identity? Unlike Lassalle who Cofnas quotes on the same page claiming he did not associate himself with Jews, Marx definitely did. Marx in a letter to his uncle identified the old Prime Minister of the UK Benjamin Disraeli “a fellow member of our race.” (Bardamu 2020) Lassalle did not have a Jewish identity, but Marx did. This could explain why Jews took on Marxism and not the views of Lassalle. Philosemitism amongst the early Marxist is apparent. Engles (Engles 1890) called anti-semitic cultures “retarded” and he bragged about all of his friends being Jewish, going as far to say “I myself was dubbed a Jew by the Gartenlaube and, indeed, if given the choice, I'd as lief be a Jew.” Lenin (who was partially Jewish) as well shared similar sentiments. Condemning the anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia and calling anti-semites “the most ignorant and downtrodden people.” (Lenin 1919) One can ponder whether it was the philosemitism present amongst these thinkers that attracted Jews towards Marxism; or was this positive sentiment about Jews due to the influence Jews had on them? Either way, this does nothing but confirm what Cofnas would call “an anti-Jewish narrative” and helps explain the large Jewish over representation in Marxism.

Cofnas quotes Macdonald (pg 16-17) and then infers “Again, he interprets any objection to anti-Semitism—even silent opposition—as evidence that Jews are uniquely ethnocentric.” This is not necessarily the case. If Jews, were in fact “de-judaized” as pre-supposed, then they would not react so negatively, to the Non-Aggression pact, since there was not this large negative reaction from gentile communists, who would’ve been just as much likely to oppose it for ideological reasons. This is evidence (albeit maybe weak on its own) for Macdonald’s point. Cofnas then states “However, MacDonald leaves out a key fact noted by Schatz (1991:225), which is that 40% of the victims of the secret police were Jewish. Since the Jewish population of Poland at the time was miniscule (less than half of 1% of the population in 1949; see Schatz 1991:208), Jews were extremely disproportionately likely to be attacked by the security service. These data are more consistent with the thesis that Jews were simply more likely to be in positions of power—more likely to be in the position to persecute others, and more likely to be perceived as rivals by those in power, so more likely to be persecuted.” I am very skeptical that 40% of the victims of the Polish secret security service were Jews. However, if that was the case this all begs the question of why Jews have such a propensity for positions of power. Cofnas seems to think this is because of IQ, urbanization, and personality traits (this doesn’t account for it see Part 2.) However, if Jews are being targeted (like they were during the anti-cosmopolitan campaign) for being over-represented in holding “counter-revolutionary” ideals, such as anarchism or religious Zionism, this could possibly confirm Macdonald’s thesis. Macdonald documents in his book (and as we saw with Trilling above) it can get ugly between Jews, specifically over what's best for Jews. Macdonald documents in great detail how Jewish the Polish communists actually were. So the idea that Polish Communist Jews weren’t motivated by their Jewish identity because a lot of fellow Jews were killed is laughable.

Cofnas (pg 17) states “There is no convincing evidence supporting the tale of Jews qua Jews victimizing gentiles for revenge on a significant scale.” Look no further than the Soviet Union. Lazar Kaganovich was the Second Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1930-1939 and one of the chief men responsible for the Holodomer. The CHEKA, known for its brutal and inhumane actions, initiated the Red Terror as state policy, resulting in at least 10,000 deaths within months. The discussion of CHEKA's brutality leads inevitably to the gulags, with death toll estimates ranging from 2.3 million to 17.6 million. Richard Lynn (2011) notes 19% of the Cheka was Jewish, and Jews made up 50% of the Cheka’s investigators employed in the counter-terrorism department. Key figures in the establishment and management of the gulags included Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel and Matvei Davidovich Berman, both of whom were Jewish. Frenkel played a significant role in organizing forced labor, particularly at the Solovetsky Islands camp, an early gulag site. Berman, on the other hand, was instrumental in developing the gulag system and led the Gulag from 1932 to 1937, receiving the Order of Lenin in 1933. The NKVD, CHEKA's successor, was overseen by its first head, Genrikh Yagoda, who was Jewish. Lynn (2011) also documents 63% of the NKVD senior leadership was Jewish.

The Jew Yakov Sverdlov, is the man who practically started the Red Terror, as noted above which led to the massacre of thousands. Sverdlov is also the man who ordered the death of the Tsar and his whole family. The men who themselves executed the Tsar were Filipp Goloshchyokin and Yakov Yurovsky (Slezkine 2006) all Jews. J Otto Pohl (Pohl 2023a Pohl 2023b) documents the groups most affected by the Great Terror and the National Deportations were Germans, Finns, and Poles however Jews were proportionally affected by what their population would predict. Pohl states “So far the rumors of a pending mass internal deportation of Jews by the Soviet regime stopped only by Stalin’s death have failed to find any archival backing.” Due to the lack of oppression of Jews, but the heightened oppression of European ethnics, and the fact this is being done by Jews who believe in a philosemetic ideology; it would not be unreasonable to suggest the mass death that was inflicted was at least in partial due to an ethnic grievance (especially with the Ukrainians who were known to be anti-semitic and the Tsar who had participated in pogroms.) Cofnas does not challenge the numbers Macdonald presents when it comes to Jewish over representation in the CPUSA nor does he refute the Jewish identity and the Jewish character Jewish American communists embraced.

Conclusion:

Cofnas 2018 looks over tons of nuance and evidence and jumps to the conclusion the vast amount of Jews covered in COFC did not have a Jewish identity and therefor could not be Jewish intellectuals. This paper disproves that. I skipped over his last section on “Diversity and Immigration” as that subject will be covered in more detail in Part 2. The Jews covered in this paper were highly influential in shifting American culture to leftism, specifically opposition to White collective identity. It is clear they were motivated and influenced significantly by their self conceived Jewish identity.