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.