It’s Der Jews

MacDonald vs. Cofnas. In all cases, emphasis added.

See this.  

I will say that both MacDonald and Cofnas should very carefully outline how their respective hypotheses can be falsified. However, I suspect that they'd create an outline designed to make falsification impossible. In any case, MacDonald is so far winning the debate. The evidence of Jewish influence being predominantly on the side of anti-White action is overwhelming.

In a telling comment indicating Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces and reflecting the disinterest of other immigrant groups from earlier in the century noted above (Neuringer, 1971: 83), Handlin complained about the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” in joining the immigration battle. He repeatedly used the term ‘we’—as in “if we cannot beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons” (4)—suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy…

Therefore, Southern and Eastern European White ethnics were not involved, in any meaningful way, in over-turning immigration restriction, even when that restriction limited their own numbers. It was the Jews who did it. Who did the Jews have as allies?  The answer:

An important part of this effort was to recruit Senator and future President John F. Kennedy to attach his name to A Nation of Immigrants (1958) and to recruit Senator and future Vice- President and Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey for his Stranger at Our Gate (1954)…

And, of course, we know the role of Ted Kennedy in the 1965 Immigration Act. Various "Nordish" politicians – both NW European Protestants as well as Irish Catholics - were the junior partners to the Jews in opening the floodgates to Third World immigration.

Moreover, minorities have an advantage in ethnic competition in being more mobilized than majorities (Salter, 2006). Mobilization is the willingness to make sacrifices for a cause, for example, by donating money, time, and labor. Even a small group with limited resources can exercise disproportionate influence when its members are highly mobilized and its opponents, though superior in numbers, are indifferent.

Can the same apply to intra-dissident politics?

Scandinavian societies are the most individualist cultures on Earth…

That MacDonald continues to assert that lie, refuted at my blog, and then cites himself as evidence (!!!), really trashes his reputation as an objective scholar.

Should Jews Be Welcomed in Movements Aimed at White Advocacy?...My view is that Jews should be allowed to join such movements...

The other shoe has dropped.  We should accept Jews now?  This from MacDonald?  Is this part of the “big tent” WN 3.0 agenda?  Gee, I guess even “anti-Semitism” now has to be compatible with “HBD race realism.”

Addendum

See this about intermarriage; that is a reference cited by MacDonald.

Abstract The study of Jewish intermarriage has largely ignored the measurement conventions prevalent in the field of demography such as using first marriages (as opposed to current marriages) and not controlling for mixed parentage. I re-analyze the NJPS 2000–2001 using first marriages and controlling for parentage and find evidence that intermarriage has leveled off among single ancestry Jews. Jewish intermarriage is placed in an American context by (1) putting in Kalmijn’s conceptual schema and (2) using the odds-ratio to compare intermarriage in controlling for group size. Single ancestry Jews are surprisingly endogamous compared with other groups in America. Two new directions for further research in a demographic context are discussed: including non-jewish spouses in population studies and thinking about mixed ancestry Jews in the context of multi-racial persons.

I’ve been saying that for about 20 years now, based on my reading of Alba’s ethnic data. Compared to European-American groups of similar demographic size, American Jews are outmarrying less than would be expected.

Among persons of single Jewish ancestry, however, intermarriage peaks in the period 1980–1989 at 39 % and then decreases to 32 % for the period 1990–2001...

…for comparison among groups odds ratios are preferable because they control for group size (Kalmijn 1998). As Rosenfeld (2008) explains, ‘‘The odds ratio for endogamy is simply the odds of endogamy divided by the odds of exogamy (or outmarriage). An odds ratio of 1 would mean that the category in question had no significance in the marriage market, because the odds of marrying within the group would have to be the same as the odds of marrying someone from outside…

(American) Odds Ratio Data: Negroes – 3525, “pure” Jews – 2085, Asians – 1056, “non-White” Hispanics – 596, “White” Hispanics – 329, ”mixed” Jews – 50

It would have been optimal to have White ethnic data for comparison, but I suppose that there are so few “pure” ethnics in America that this becomes difficult to calculate.  In any case, also note that for Jews, insofar as I know, the vast majority of outmarriage is with White Gentiles. Now, if we consider White ethnic groups, yes, most intermarriage is with other White ethnics, but as stated, they are already mostly mixed. If we consider Whites and Jews as racial groups, then White intermarriage is well distributed among Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, while Jewish intermarriage is overwhelmingly with White Gentiles, as far as I am aware (precise data would be welcome). Thus, Jews are not mixing to the extent that they recommend to others.