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.

Odds and Ends, 10/26/20

In der news.

See this. “Japanese cinema.” With all of the things that could be discussed or debated (the “Jewish Question” for example), with all of the current events that could be analyzed, with the upcoming Presidential election and all it means for Whites and for Der Movement, these two prominent “movement” “leaders” conduct a livestream to primarily discuss…Japanese cinema.  Incredible. At least the questions brought the discussion back to reality, but should that have been necessary?  Johnson and Taylor should have dealt with “red meat” topics from the start – instead of waiting one hour and thirteen minutes into the livestream to bring up those issues themselves independent of the questions.

Taylor had to control himself from making anti-Slavic comments; the Poles are not as polite as the British when they ban someone. For shame, all you Polack Hunkies!  And I'm sure the British were ever-so-polite-and-proper when they for years covered up the sexual abuse of English children at Rotherham and elsewhere.  Tea time, mate!

“Everyone can take their lumps like adults” – except Johnson, who has temper tantrums and bans people and, in a cowardly fashion, refuses to debate opponents. I’m not going to specifically comment about the Goad-Costello situation – after all, you should never interfere with your enemy when they are making a mistake.

And if White-Japanese marriage is bad, what about Derbyshire’s marriage to a Chinese woman?

Taylor’s criticisms of Trump were right on target.  Remember, I correctly labeled Trump as a vulgar, ignorant, buffoon even before the 2016 election.

Other issues:

As part of the MacDonald-Cofnas debates, Cofnas cited the “high Jewish intermarriage rate” as a riposte against MacDonald’s claims about Jewish ethnocentrism. I have written about this issue previously and noted that while the current Jewish intermarriage rate is high by Jewish historical standards, it is not particularly high by the standards of European-American ethnic groups. More fundamentally, when considering non-White groups, ethnocentrism is not always incompatible with personal involvement in intermarriage – e.g., there are cases of this among Negroes and among other groups who view “half-breeds” as part of their own people. 

Even more fundamentally, personal attitudes on these issues are complex and people can distinguish between personal interests ("I like that shiksa") and group interests ("the Jewish people need to survive and prosper"). Now, it is somewhat understandable that many Jews prefer to outmarry. Compared to White Gentiles (the group that the overwhelming majority of Jewish intermarriage is with), Jews tend to be physically unattractive and, indeed, mentally unattractive (e.g., being neurotic and abrasive) as well. So, on a selfish level, a given Jew – even one concerned with Jewish survival – may prefer a White Gentile spouse as opposed to a Jewish one.

I believe it fair to say that most Jews are relatively ethnocentric and that they value the continuity of the Jewish people and promote Jewish group interests. My point here is that even Jews who marry White Gentiles can be ethnocentric as well (albeit perhaps less ethnocentric than Jews who insist on only marrying other Jews). I view this as a type of “tragedy of the commons” situation. A given Jew may strongly support the continuance of the Jewish people but does not want to be the one to marry another Jew and sacrifice their life happiness for that group goal. So, such a person may have the attitude of “let someone else do it” – they value Jewish group survival but they want and hope that some other Jews will do the hard work of marrying Jews and reproducing their kind. My point is that Jewish-White Gentile intermarriage does not necessarily preclude ethnocentrism among those outmarrying Jews, so the historically high rates of intermarriage does not have to mean that Jews are losing their ethnocentric tendencies. We need to observe how Jews behave as regards national social and political issues, rather than focusing on how they behave in their private lives. MacDonald is correct.

I despise people, including population geneticists, who make moronic comments about ancestry testing, particularly in relation to historical/ancient/archaic samples and their relative similarity to modern people – with the population geneticists (and others) pointing out that genetic similarity does not mean actual descent, and that when considering people so far in the past, everyone today is descended from them or the geneticists will claim that a person today is unlikely to have any (or very few) of the actual genes from any specific ancestor from very long ago. That's true but it does not mean - as the mendacious morons imply (or sometimes openly state) - that the comparisons are useless or misleading.

Their views of course ignore that genes can be similar by identity by state and not just by identity by descent. When making the comparisons, we are not stating that the current person is (necessarily) a direct descendant from the historical, ancient, or archaic source, only that they share more genes than other sort of comparisons. The fact that a European is going to be more genetically similar to Otzi the Iceman than is a Nigerian or a Japanese does not mean that the European is any more of a direct descendant of Otzi than is anyone else, and it does not mean that the specific gene sequences shared to a greater extent in the European-Otzi comparison are present in the European because they were directly derived from Otzi. The greater similarity does mean that they share more most common recent ancestors and would mean a greater similarity between the ancestral stocks of the European and that of Otzi, compared to the other comparisons.  That is what is being considered and that is quite reasonable. Jared Taylor no doubt is more genetically similar to King Henry VIII than is a Chinese rice farmer. That does not mean that Taylor is a direct descendant, in a direct genealogical fashion, of the king, or that any of Taylor’s gene sequences derive from the king. It means that both men derive from similar ancestral stocks and have many more most common recent ancestors than either has with a Chinaman.