On the Jews, MacDonald is correct.
Contrary to the idea that I am always critical, I will point out that Quinn’s writing, re: the MacDonald vs. Cofnas issue shows maturity and reasonably good analysis. That is similar to some of the things I was writing 10-15 years ago, when I was defending or opposing various “movement” memes. These days, while I will still defend Salterism, given its importance and solid scientific legitimacy, and while I may occasionally still dive into certain debates, I’ve grown cynical over the utility of some of these online arguments. For example, on the issue Quinn writes about, when all is said and done, and regardless of what arguments are made in both directions, the Far Right will still, by and large, support MacDonald, and the rest of the political spectrum will oppose MacDonald and support Cofnas and Peterson. People “choose their teams” on these issues for reasons based on subjective rational interests as well as irrational (yet wholly legitimate if they affect Identify and pursuit of interests) impulses; I have yet to see any significant “changing of teams” based on objective rational arguments. The same holds for, e.g., pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism or pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism. I haven’t seen much movement in any of these directions based on arguments; people defend their ideas and that of their ideological “tribe,” and there really isn’t a big pool of third party observers to be swayed one way or the other.
That said, there is still some utility in speaking truth and defending truth (although Pilate would ask: “what is truth?”) and if a person early in their activist career, like Quinn, wants to “cut their teeth” on such topics, that’s fine as far as it goes. However, he’s preaching to the choir at Counter-Currents (as MacDonald is at TOO), and no one is likely to be converted. Of course, there is some value to have these refutations of Cofnas and Peterson online, just so they can be linked to, to deflate the claims of the Left (just don’t expect to convert many people, as I said). People may of course change their mind on these issues, but they will most likely do so after either joining or leaving Der Movement for other reasons (mostly irrational, I suppose).
Obviously, I support the MacDonald view in these debates; Cofnas is a ludicrously non-objective “scholar” (and thus no better in his irrational and/or subjective interests as any “movement” activist) with a parcel of poor arguments; Peterson is a gravel-voiced over-rated bore, who pretends (LARPs to use Alt Right language) to be some sort of cutting-edge dissident, while actually being just another water boy for the System and for anti-White interests.
I read MacDonald’s Trilogy when it first came out, and although I have serious issues with the direction TOO has gone in the last few years, I nonetheless value MacDonald’s core contributions, his work on the Jews, and on diaspora peoples and on group evolutionary interests in general.
The best way to understand who is right or wrong in this debate is to ask: which view, which explanation, has predictive power? If you follow MacDonald’s view, you will be able to predict, with reasonable accuracy and precision, general Jewish behavior (of course, there will always be outliers and exceptions); on the other hand, those who follow the Cofnas/Peterson direction, ignoring obvious patterns and the ethnic interests that underlie them, will be wrong more often than they will be right. A default setting of “Jews as a group in general behave to defend their interests in an ethnocentric manner, typified by a dual morality, and they are very successful in doing so, and Jewish group interests are typically incompatible with those of European-descended people; hence, Jewish activism as a net outcome will be harmful to Europeans” will typically (not 100% of course, that’s not how the world works, but the vast majority of cases) lead you to the right prediction. Following the Cofnas/Peterson direction will make you as easy mark, as you’ll be unable to accurately and precisely predict and understand Jewish group behavior.
I’d like to point out it is safer for Whites to err on the side of caution; it is safer to be unfairly suspicious of Jews even in cases where Jews are ethnically disinterested and not hostile to White interests than it is to be childishly naïve and ignore those cases where Jews are being destructive. False positives are safer than false negatives when core group interests are at stake. Better safe than sorry.
Further, the argument can be made – and has been made by some activists over the years – that spotty Jewish “universalism” actually serves ethnocentric Jewish group interests by diversifying their ideological/sociopolitical portfolio. Thus, the Jews are hedging their bets by not putting all their eggs in one basket, infiltrating intellectual movements in order to bend them to Jewish interests (look what happened to conservatism, or even look at the Alt Wrong in Der Movement), and obfuscating the destructive role of Jewish activism in order to fool the dumb goyim. As regards the last, think about all the nitwits who agree with Cofnas and Peterson and who let scattered Jewish ideological outliers (who typically have little power to reverse the damage done by their more typical co-ethnics) fool the goyish latrine flies into thinking: “see, see – not all Jews are like that, Moshe Finkelstein is a conservative, he even reads Amren.”
I’ll be checking out how Quinn completes his series.