Kevin MacDonald: Jews and immigration policy — Again

Kevin MacDonald: A friend sent along Steve Sailer’s review of historian Otis L. Graham’s  Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future. Misleading title. American immigration policy was chosen. It just wasn’t chosen by the vast majority of the American people, and this is Graham’s point. As I have tried to show, it was chosen by the organized Jewish community and put into action as a result of Jewish political pressure and financial wherewithal. Graham notes that the successful immigration restriction of 1924 was seen by historians as one of the reforms of the Progressive Era’s campaign against the excesses of capitalism, since immigration lowered wages.  

It’s fair to say, however, that Jews never saw it that way and there’s at least a fair amount of truth in the idea that the 1924 law was enacted to achieve an ethnic status quo that Jews saw as unfair to them. (Jewish immigrants were correctly seen by restrictionists as disproportionately involved in political radicalism, and it was generally a period of ethnic defense of White America.)

As Sailer’s review shows, Jews have not ceased seeing the 1924 law as exclusion of Jews. Graham points out that Jews live in the past when it comes to thinking about immigration: “the “filiopietistic” urge (“of or relating to an often excessive veneration of ancestors …”) is particularly strong among Jewish media figures. Italian-Americans, in contrast, tend to approach the immigration policy question by thinking about the future rather than by obsessing over the past. This anti-rational emotional reflex about immigration contributes to the kitschy quality of MSM discourse on the topic.”

In other words, Jews see the 1924 immigration law as part of their lachrymose history among Europeans, It’s just another example of irrational anti-Semitism — an example that warrants the evil nature of  the people and culture who created it. Since, as Sailer notes, Jews constitute half of the most influential media figures, and since the other half are rigorously vetted to exclude anyone who opposes what amounts to the Jewish consensus on immigration, there really isn’t much real debate in the above-ground media.

Of course, there is a lot of self-censorship. Graham recounts the example of Theodore White, then the most influential journalist in America (and a Jew), refusing to publish his views on immigration. “‘My New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right [on immigration], but I can’t go public on this.’ ” Sailer quotes Graham:

Hearing White’s agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo [against immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public with his worries about the state of immigration. …

I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons. They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public policy in America.

In a nutshell, that’s the problem with Jews: They get what they want and what they want is not necessarily what others want (leading to conflicts of interest) or what is good for the country as a whole. It really wouldn’t matter if the only group that wanted open borders was African Americans. But it matters greatly that Jews do.

Incidentally, Otis Graham’s brother Hugh Davis Graham, agrees with me on the forces behind the 1965 law. He wrote in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

Bookmark and Share

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

35 Comments to "Kevin MacDonald: Jews and immigration policy — Again"

  1. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    January 11, 2010 - 5:46 pm | Permalink

    If anyone has proof that Norbert Schlei was a Jew, or had Jewish cult/ethnic/racial background, please share it with us.

    Another big unanswered question is why the Jewish-Catholic alliance to change our immigration laws in 1965. Ted Kennedy & Philip Hart were both Roman Catholics, and as responsible as the Jews for that law. The final vote in the Senate was 76-18. With the 18 against, as far as I know, being Southern & Western Protestants. Were any Roman Catholic politicians opposed to the 1965 Hart Celler Act in the Senate??? How about in the House where it passed 326-69—any Roman Catholics against it???

  2. Matthew Dunnyveg's Gravatar Matthew Dunnyveg
    January 11, 2010 - 7:25 pm | Permalink

    “Another big unanswered question is why the Jewish-Catholic alliance to change our immigration laws in 1965. Ted Kennedy & Philip Hart were both Roman Catholics, and as responsible as the Jews for that law. The final vote in the Senate was 76-18. With the 18 against, as far as I know, being Southern & Western Protestants. Were any Roman Catholic politicians opposed to the 1965 Hart Celler Act in the Senate??? How about in the House where it passed 326-69—any Roman Catholics against it???”

    This is a question that can only be answered if ethnic differences are taken into account. As Samuel Huntington and others have pointed out, the US has a British Protestant cultural core. These groups consisted of colonists rather than immigrants.

    Many of the immigrants who came later were Catholic. These groups and their descendants frequently don’t approve of the native culture, even if they enjoy the good things it produces.

    Granted, there are many fine Americans who are descended from immigrants. But overall they do tend to be more leftist than founding stock Americans, especially when they heavily congregate in an area.

    Here are several examples: Austin is the most leftist part of Texas because it is culturally German rather than Southern. The northern Midwest tends to be more leftist than the lower Midwest because these northern areas were settled by white ethnics.

    With this in mind I can answer your questions: The Catholic Church has profited greatly from immigration. Just look at the number of Catholics in the Third World. The Church sees its future in these people and looks after their interests accordingly.

    But it’s more than just the Catholic Church. Since the Southerners got thrown out in the late sixties, the Democrat Party has been a party largely composed of non-whites of all types, Jews, and immigrants and many of their descendants. As a result, the Democratic Party has become largely hostile to the founding stock Americans and those who identify with them. And Jews serve as ringleaders.

  3. Shiva's Gravatar Shiva
    January 11, 2010 - 7:25 pm | Permalink

    The claim of MacDonald and others is that Jews, including Kravits, Celler and Lautenberg, created the 1965 Immigration Act, as well working for more than a century to create the social and intellectual climate which insured its passing. The Civil Rights movement, the corruption of the teaching and practice of law, the outright ownership of the media, with control over all broadcasts and op-ed pieces, all this is has been done by the Jews as a conscious political entity.

    That they USE frontmen, goy frontmen is EXPLICITLY stated by Dr MacDonald in CoC.

    Some years ago Eliyahu Salpeter writing in Ha’aretz Jewish groups, stated that for the last century or so, have pursued a strategy of encouraging non-White immigration into the West!
    Exactly what Dr MacDonald has proven in CoC with citations out the yin-yang, to use the vernacular.

    The National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, or NCRAC is where policy for the United States is formulated. Look into them.

    Distracting their role in the immigration debacle, covering up for them, is obscene.

  4. David F.'s Gravatar David F.
    January 11, 2010 - 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Matthew,

    Your idea about Austin’s liberal character coming from the German Texans is interesting, but I don’t think it’s the explanation.

    Austin was originally created (like DC) for the state capital. The only people who came to Austin were either government employees or students/employees at the University of Texas. Until the real-estate boom in the 80′s it was a pretty small city, and since it was dominated by UT it naturally collected a more liberal population.

    The booming tech growth attracted large numbers of exiles from Southern California, along with all the other immigrant tech workers and students who have no ties to Texas. There was never really a native core, German or otherwise, in Austin.

  5. Stan Anagram's Gravatar Stan Anagram
    January 11, 2010 - 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Schlei was probably not Jewish. His children are named Graham, Blake, Kit, Lincoln, Elizabeth, Bradford, William, and Andrew. Not a Jewish bunch of names. Schlei’s middle name was Anthony. Most of the Schleis listed in SSDI lived in the Manitowoc, Wisconsin area.

    I couldn’t find whether his second wife, Barbara Lindemann, was Jewish either, but she runs in some very Jewish circles. Their daughter, Norma Blake Lindsley Schlei, who uses the stage name Blake Lindsley, has a lot of biographical material here: http://www.blakelindsley.com/bio.html and here: http://stds9.epguides.info/?Actor=680, none of which points at her being Jewish. But even if she were, it does not necessarily mean her father was.

  6. Pitbullexpress's Gravatar Pitbullexpress
    January 11, 2010 - 11:19 pm | Permalink

    It’s clear that there is and has been a group strategy at work. But the Jews merely exploited a situation that they did not create.

    By the time the USA was established the Enlightenment values of perfect adaptation were long in place. In one sense the US Constitution is almost a parody of Enlightenment values and that points to something else, the Frontier mentality. That is to say, that as European man moved westward (and America was and is an extention of European culture) his mind went through a dramatic transformation of intense over-simplification.
    The patterns of simplification-reductionism-violence were codified and validated as proper behavior, the consequences of which we are living with today.
    The stubborn insistence to cast this entire argument and the complexities involved into a Either/Or argument is symptomatic of this very culture of over-simplification.
    And that’s why there is more diagnosis than innovation in sites like these.

    The West was crippled when the Enlightenment merged with the Frontier culture, but the rise of the Middle Class, and Materialism, and all of the abstractions, and distractions and bread and circuses all but blinded us to it. Until now.

    Jews most certainly have exploited the situation, and this site, above all others, has performed a valuable service in helping us see the extent of the damage they have and how grave our situation is. b
    But the merger between the Enlightenment and the Frontier mentality goes a long way toward understanding exactly why it’s been so easy for them. That and the fact that they are good at hiding, and we’re not good at looking. But then, that’s connected as well.

  7. Barbara Cornett's Gravatar Barbara Cornett
    January 12, 2010 - 5:04 am | Permalink

    Jews’ ability to have such a profound effect upon America in spite of the fact that they make up only about two percent of the population is very impressive. What percentage of the population is made up of mobsters?

    Imagine if we allowed the mob to get elected to government or play a powerful role behind the scenes. What if we allowed the mob to run the Fed or control the media? Would they do anything differently then the Jews do? Jews are very impressive just like the mob.

    There is no doubt that Jews are the ones responsible for diversity in America, the question is what are we going to do about it. The goal now is to show how diversity is not good for White people. Why must we make it easy for other races to live in Western countries and give them welfare, housing, education, health care, a big screen tv, affirmative action and PC? What if we refuse to pay taxes to fund all of this including the Jew holocausts in the ME?

    What percentage of the population is Muslim terrorist?

  8. Say the Name's Gravatar Say the Name
    January 12, 2010 - 9:14 am | Permalink

    Pitbullexpress sure works hard to try and take at least some of the pressure off the Jews. It isn’t working. Ramble on about the Enlightenment all you wish, then look at history. The Jews want the chaos of multicultural America because it makes it harder to keep an eye on what they’re up to, never mind them feeling less visible as a “different” ethnic group. It’s that simple. Even simpler is the fact that they simply like to destroy any “white” society. It’s an innate drive. They had to destroy America simply because it was doing so well, so successful. They will destroy things and move on. Like locusts. This time around it will eventually backfire in a big way. But we’re a ways from that yet. So enjoy all the coming chaos and societal upheaval, not courtesy of any Enlightenment mentality, but merely from the always overreaching Jews, who never quite look far enough ahead, their arrogance so great that they can never conceive of themselves actually loosing power or screwing power. But they do and will.

    They had to destroy America, the West, because that’s what they do. Look at the remarks of Jews on other sites. They will state that countries that kicked them out were cursed, didn’t do well. They fail to see the ruined these places with their collectivist, hive like behavior, jealousy and hatred of their hosts. Yes, they are self-deceptive. But they are also fully aware, by that I mean the Jews in charge, fully aware of what they are doing. I remember one post at another site where the writer conjectured that if Jews were able to rid the world of whites, they would then take credit for all of the achievements of whites over the ages. I tend to agree.

  9. January 12, 2010 - 9:17 am | Permalink

    “Your idea about Austin’s liberal character coming from the German Texans is interesting, but I don’t think it’s the explanation.”

    Actually, Germans settled more than just Austin; they also settled the surrounding Hill Country. Yes, state employees settled in Austin obviously. And it is certainly plausible that they are more leftist than the general population. But while undoubtedly of some validity, your theory is of limited use because it doesn’t explain why the Hill Country is so liberal. Remember, these rural Hill Country voters gave the country Lyndon Johnson and a few others of his ilk.

  10. Pitbullexpress's Gravatar Pitbullexpress
    January 12, 2010 - 11:50 am | Permalink

    “Pitbullexpress sure works hard to try and take at least some of the pressure off the Jews.”

    Here’s the first sentence from my post.
    “It’s clear that there is and has been a group strategy at work.”

    I never said they aren’t doing it on purpose, and I agree that they can’t help themselves. It’s simply what they do.
    You talk right past this and then engage in a bit of their behavior by deliberately misrepresenting what I said and acting like your misrepresentation was the ultimate truth and final word.
    Which is why you didn’t think it necessary to refute my claim with any facts.

    You just didn’t like what you read, had no facts to challenge the point you were responding to, and posted emotionally.
    And you did it by inverting the Jewish, what I term, Myth of Innocence, which says “we never do or did anything wrong, things were done to us.”
    If it’s bad for Jews to do tihs, why are you doing it?

    The only people who can talk that way are abused and abandonded children.

    Then I said this,
    “But the Jews merely exploited a situation that they did not create.”

    Which is true.

    “Ramble on about the Enlightenment all you wish, then look at history.”

    Translation:

    “Talk all you want about the facts of cultural history I am going to blame the Jews for everything because we are perfectly innocent.”

    The sooner we extract this kind of “thinking” from our cause the greater it will become.

  11. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    January 12, 2010 - 11:57 am | Permalink

    I like the idea of pointing out how significant it is when Jews want something because of the success they have are in looking out for their interests over against anyone else.

    Re Ted Kennedy.
    There was and is a lot of manipulation of the Irish communal myths to enlist them against fellow whites, (and it gives a certain cachet to be from a discriminated community). For example the film Crossfire where the detective (who ends up shooting the fleeing killer down from a 1st floor window) reminisces how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier.

    No Irish Need Apply:A Myth of Victimization.

    “Irish Americans all have heard about them—and remember elderly relatives insisting they existed. The myth had “legs”: people still believe it, even scholars. The late Tip O’Neill remembered the signs from his youth in Boston in 1920s; Senator Ted Kennedy reported the most recent sighting, telling the Senate during a civil rights debate that he saw them when growing up 5 Historically, physical NINA signs could have flourished only in intensely anti-Catholic or anti-Irish eras, especially the 1830—1870 period. Thus reports of sightings in the 1920s or 1930s suggest the myth had become so deeply rooted in Irish-American folk mythology that it was impervious to evidence. Perhaps the Irish had constructed an Evil Other out of stereotypes of outsiders—a demon that could frighten children like the young Ted Kennedy and adults as well. The challenge for the historian is to explain the origins and especially the durability of the myth. Did the demon exist outside the Irish imagination—and if not how did it get there? This paper will explain how the myth originated and will explore its long-lasting value to the Irish community as a protective device. It was an enhancement of political solidarity against a hostile Other; and a way to insulate a preindustrial non-individualistic group-oriented work culture from the individualism rampant in American culture.”

    No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs.

    Jack Straw was claiming last week there were such signs in sixties Britain but as the commenter points out no landlord would have one unless they wanted a brick through their window.

  12. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    January 12, 2010 - 11:59 am | Permalink

    From the New York Times obit:

    Mr. Schlei was born in Dayton, Ohio, and worked his way through Ohio State University, where he earned three varsity letters and a commission as a Navy ensign and graduated with honors in 1950. After military service, he received his law degree at Yale magna cum laude in 1956.

    He clerked for Justice John Marshall Harlan of the Supreme Court, in 1956 and 1957 and then practiced law in Los Angeles. In 1962, Kennedy chose him to become an assistant attorney general and put him in charge of the Office of the General Counsel.

    Mr. Schlei was considered one of the department’s foremost intellects. He formulated the ”quarantine” concept in the Cuban crisis and was a principal author of civil rights initiatives pushed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson and immigration reforms that abolished the nation-of-origin quota system.

    Twice divorced, Mr. Schlei is survived by his third wife, Joan Masson Schlei; three daughters, Kit Buczynski of Richmond, Mich., and Blake L. Schlei and Elizabeth Eldridge of Malibu, Calif.; three sons, William K., of Aix-en-Provence, France, Andrew M., of Los Angeles, and Bradford L., of Santa Monica; a brother, David, of Port Charlotte, Fla.; and four grandchildren.

  13. January 12, 2010 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    “Jack Straw was claiming last week there were such signs in sixties Britain but as the commenter points out no landlord would have one unless they wanted a brick through their window.”

    Someday, good point. I’ve heard that no such signs existed in the US either. But this isn’t to say that the Irish were always appreciated. From my understanding they could be a very difficult group to get along with.

    Of course you never hear anything about Irish wrongdoing. It’s always the native group that’s in the wrong, and many people fall for this line despite an incredibly one-dimensional picture.

    Of course, the whole goal of Political Correctness is to bring down the white native cultures. And Jews and others will lie and cheat without compunction to delegitimize us in our own countries. It’s a form of psychological warfare.

  14. January 12, 2010 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

    If we want to get into what makes us vulnerable to Jews, the list should start with these items, in order of importance:

    1) Jews look a hell of a lot like us.
    2) We’re the wealthiest peoples in the world.

    If we weren’t liberal, if we weren’t individualistic, bla bla bla. If we didn’t look like them, if we weren’t far and away the richest pigeons on Earth; both of those “ifs” are far bigger factors than anything to do with esoteric ideological concerns like the enlightenment.

  15. Say the Name's Gravatar Say the Name
    January 12, 2010 - 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Actually pitbullexpress, you’re engaging in exactly what you claim I did. I never stated that ‘we’ were all innocent. But ‘we’ wouldn’t be in our current situation, at all, if it were not for the Jews. Period. We were sold out by some of our own due to their own greed or fear to put it simply. Not due to the Enlightenment, no matter what spine-cracking contortions of logic and reasoning one might engage in to say otherwise. The Jews take advantage of any situation, not “a” situation. That’s the problem with trying to box things up when dealing with them. Their strategies are always group based. Their strategies create the situations for the most part. Trying to fend of those who disagree with you or have different ideas by engaging in elementary, sophomoric psychobabble in a weak attempt to insult is very Jewish. It’s an internet thread. No one’s fate or honor hinges on what happens here.

  16. January 12, 2010 - 1:26 pm | Permalink

    This argument, inter alia, seems to be a bit “strong” for Steve Sailer as he’s censored it repeatedly:

    Strong emphasis on what it is that makes whites vulnerable to Jewish predation is classic “blaming the victim.” Sure, we know that little old ladies are a bit daft, and that’s why they’re so frequently the targets of confidence men. Does the vulnerability of little old ladies in any way mitigate the crime of fraud? Does it suggest leniency for confidence men? No. Then why should white vulnerability mitigate Jewish malfeasance, or suggest leniency for same?

    Sure, we’re vulnerable to Jews. This much should be made obvious by one’s taking a Judeoskeptical view of the Jewish Question. And there’s every motivation to find ways to reduce our vulnerability. But this no more gets Jewry off the hook than the daftness of little old ladies gets confidence men off the hook for fraud. We investigate, prosecute, convict, and punish confidence men for fraud. We don’t wring our hands about how daft little old ladies are, or transfer blame onto them. We should try to wake little old ladies up to the dangers, but in the end we all accept that little old ladies are what they are, and the solution to fraud is not to pretend they shouldn’t be so easy to victimize.

    The other argument Steve seems to hate is when I draw parallels between blacks and Jews (I only use this argument when I detect a parallel being drawn between ethnopatriots and blacks, i.e., the “jealousy” argument). Blacks and Jews are more similar to one another than either group is to whites in general, or ethnopatriots in particular; both depend upon whites, both guilt-trip whites, both bear considerable animus, both criticize whites, and both flip out if you suggest racial divorce. And neither group seems capable of much outside white societies.

  17. Sailer Reader's Gravatar Sailer Reader
    January 12, 2010 - 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Svigor, your analogy of little old ladies and con-men, blaming the victim, and Steve Sailer, was excellent. Sailer’s writings about the “housing crisis” always blame two groups, low IQ NAMs and the “white liberals” who enable them. Goldman Sachs is never discussed.

    So, does Sailer see it, or not? You tell me.

    “If we weren’t liberal, if we weren’t individualistic, bla bla bla.”

    I’m tired hearing about how “liberal” white people are. Perhaps that is one of our good qualities, most of us wouldn’t scam daft little old ladies. If you can’t show the same respect for our daft old grandmothers, then get the hell out.

  18. January 12, 2010 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

    I think Sailer stays well away from what he suspects, and sticks more to what he can show. I have no problem with him, personally. I think he’s a great “gateway” to HBD, race-realism, and the rest. He strikes me as a kindred spirit vis-a-vis free speech. So, I try to play by his rules on his site.

  19. Sailer Reader's Gravatar Sailer Reader
    January 13, 2010 - 1:05 am | Permalink

    Svigor, Goldman Sachs and other financial companies with heavy Jewish presence have been in the mainstream news – Washington Post, New York Times, etc. – for 2 years now.

    Sailer has chosen to focus on NAMs and “white liberals” for the last year or so. I do not recall any focus on Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase, the prominent financial establishment of America, or the Federal Reserve, the key nexus of state-financial power.

    Instead Sailer has chosen to focus on “little old ladies” poor, low IQ mestizos, and the like. His main thesis seems to be that “white liberals” forced the banking establishment into risky loans to NAMs.

    Really?

  20. Pitbullexpress's Gravatar Pitbullexpress
    January 13, 2010 - 7:06 am | Permalink

    Say the Name says:
    January 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    “But ‘we’ wouldn’t be in our current situation, at all, if it were not for the Jews. Period.

    “For white nationalists — whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy — simple explanations tend to be the rule.

    The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.

    There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy…

    To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.”

    The Cold War on Whites, Part 1
    Michael O’Meara

  21. Pitbullexpress's Gravatar Pitbullexpress
    January 13, 2010 - 7:59 am | Permalink

    “Actually pitbullexpress, you’re engaging in exactly what you claim I did. I never stated that ‘we’ were all innocent. But ‘we’ wouldn’t be in our current situation, at all, if it were not for the Jews. Period.”

    In other words, we’re innocent.

    First sentence – Accuse the accuser without offering an example from his comments to prove your point.

    Second sentence – you deny what you implied in your first comment.

    Third sentence – you take back what you said in the second sentence.

    You can’t even keep up with yourself.

    Whatever your posts are the result of they are not the result of any intellectual insight. It’s pretty clear that you could not tell anyone anything about the Enlightenment enough to know what influence it’s had on our culture or race.

    Also, there’s a reason why you did not quote from my comments the way I am with yours. You would discredit your own argument.
    Instead you SIMPLY erect higher and higher defenses which you present as irrefutable truthts.

    This is exactly what the Hostile Elite and their minions do.

    “We were sold out by some of our own due to their own greed or fear to put it simply. ((apparently you’re incapable of putting it any other way)) Not due to the Enlightenment((how do you know?)), no matter what spine-cracking contortions of logic and reasoning one might engage in to say otherwise.”((please provide examples of such logic and reasoning from my comments))

    But here is the grand finale.

    “Trying to fend of those who disagree with you or have different ideas by engaging in elementary, sophomoric psychobabble in a weak attempt to insult is very Jewish.”

    Where is the babble?
    Where are the insults?
    Provide examples.
    Also, “Fend off”? But I’m right here!
    Willing and able to engage in discussion.

    You insult me in the above sentence and defend yourself, indirectly, by accusing me of being insulting, without providing an example of me insulting anyone, because you can’t.
    You’re like the Jew in the Polish proverb who yells “Help me!” while hitting someone.

    Let’s engage in debate and be respectful.
    But you can’t do it.
    If you could we would be engaging in a mature, adult debate, or conversation, even if it ended in disagreement.

    And I am taking the time to point this out now because it’s clear you are going to continue to do it. This way you will know exactly why you are being ignored, with reason. This is exactly the kind of behavior we need to extract from any movement we might be able to put together.

  22. Jason Bates's Gravatar Jason Bates
    January 13, 2010 - 8:59 am | Permalink

    Pitbull, relax. You guys are engaging in exactly what the Jews enjoy. All the infighting among whites trying to sort our problems. My impression is that “Say” is one of those people who’s fed up with aware whites trying to break down every little bit of history in order to explain the what and why of now. On the other hand, Pitbull is one of the aware group who feels that full knowledge will aid us in not making the same mistakes (I’m simplifying things of course). Both of you have info worth reading, both make good points. Stop nitpicking each other. I could see this going on for page after page like we see at other sites. (How do some people find the time to post so often, so much?) Svigor has a good handle on many things – even if he despises the Irish – lol! Actually, being part Irish, I can understand. I have relatives who are in the leftist camp, the brainwashing handed down generation after generation. Then there’s the other Irish camp, fully aware and ready to rumble to fix things. But there are a lot of Irish “liberals”, they don’t realize they’re simply tools of the real people running the show. At least not yet. How’s that for getting off track?

    “Say” is on to something when he says the Jews basically create situations. I don’t think it matters what they run into. They’ll try and change. They’ll also run like Hell if it comes to brass tacks is my take on it. They simply haven’t had to go toe to toe – yet – and gotten popped in the nose. The smartest statement ever uttered by Mike Tyson was “… everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” I doubt that we would be anywhere near our current state without Jews. We might some type of class rivalry or what have you in the US, but it’s doubtful that we would have any of the “liberal” problems we have without Jews causing trouble. And I believe that part of their psychological make-up contains a drive to destroy the creations, the lives of others. It’s an inborn malevolence.

    “The Cold War on Whites” is an interesting read. But Jewish machinations are at the heart of our problems and were part and parcel of a lot of what O’Meara lists. But I guess that view can depend your sources. Jewish tweaking, prodding of US / Western policies has always been geared toward a long or short range goal of weakening their hosts (basic but true). I can’t see blaming whites in general. I can see blaming scheming, political cowards who caved in to or were bought off by the Jews. Even in these cases, it was groups of Jews applying the pressure to lone politicians. Whites don’t have that hive mentality. They are indeed more individualistic in many ways. But not to the extent that Jews encourage. Whites aren’t naturally “liberal” either in the way that the apologists try to make us believe. Whites have to be backed into a corner to engage in a bunker type mentality. I do feel that situation is on the way.

    Svigor is correcting in noting that Sailer is a good “gateway”. Of course he knows the truth. I have to laugh and at the same time get angry at the arrogance of Stix, remarking that he believed Sailer had to be at least partially of the tribe because of the “… intellectual brilliance,” Yep. Only Jews are brilliant.

  23. Quranist's Gravatar Quranist
    January 13, 2010 - 10:13 am | Permalink

    Quran attacks the Talmud:

    2.80 And they say: “The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:” Say: “Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?”

    This is not in the Torah but its refering to the Talmud. The supposed “oral” traditions the Rabbis say was passed down to them. The Talmud are the collections of the traditions of the so called Pharisees talked about in the Gospel who were fierce opponents of Jesus the Messiah.

    The Rabbinic tradition arose from the Pharisaic tradition after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. In general, it moved away from traditional Judaism’s emphasis on an earthly future for Israel toward the concept of reward in the life to come.[4] Gehinom (Gehenna), according to rabbinic literature, is a place or state where the wicked are temporarily punished after death. “Gehenna” is sometimes translated as “hell”, but the Christian view of hell differs from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months.Those who are too wicked to reach paradise are sometimes said to be punished forever.[5] Other accounts reject the idea that a merciful God would punish anyone forever,[6] in which case those too wicked for purification are destroyed (see annihilationism)
    Gehenna – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Also in the Talmud:

    Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work.

    The Koran condemned this:
    3.75. Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, “there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans).” but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.

    Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the “uncensored” text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, “Miriam the hairdresser,” had sex with many men.

    4.156 Quran
    That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

    The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ’s lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord’s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

    Also:

    The Schindler’s List Quote

    The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.

    The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase:

    “Whoever destroys the life of a single human being…it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being …it is as if he had preserved an entire world.”

    However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.

    In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler’s List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

    In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that “whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world” (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.

    The Koran tells us about this and condemns this:

    5.32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land

    “According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

    “The more popular accounts–which were nevertheless taken quite seriously–such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name ‘Jesus’ was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists…

    The koran tells us:

    4.157. That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

    The Talmud then say:

    Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

    Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament (“uncanonical books”) will have no portion in the world to come.

    Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

    The koran responds by:

    And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their (vain) desires. Say: “Produce your proof if ye are truthful.”Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: “The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: “The Jews have naught (To stand) upon.” Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113

    “Non-Jewish property belongs to the Jew who uses it first” – (Babba Bathra 54b)

    “If two Jews have deceived a Non-Jew, they have to split the profit” – (Choschen Ham 183,7)

    “Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin” – (Babha Kama 113a)

    “The Jew is allowed to practice usury on the Non-Jew” – (Talmud IV/2/70b)

    The koran then says:

    4.160. For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from God’s Way;-
    4.161. That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.

    Note: The Torah forbids the Jews from the devouring of Usury (“neshek”).See the Old Testament Ex. 22: 25;
    Le. 25: 36-37; De. 23:19-20; Ne. 5: 7/10; Ps. 15: 5; Pr. 28:8

    The Koran then says:

    4.162. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in God and in the Last Day: To them shall We soon give a great reward.

    Truth About the Talmud: Judaism’s Holiest Book

  24. January 13, 2010 - 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Svigor has a good handle on many things – even if he despises the Irish – lol! Actually, being part Irish, I can understand. I have relatives who are in the leftist camp, the brainwashing handed down generation after generation. Then there’s the other Irish camp, fully aware and ready to rumble to fix things. But there are a lot of Irish “liberals”, they don’t realize they’re simply tools of the real people running the show. At least not yet. How’s that for getting off track?

    I have an Irish grandparent. It’s not like I have anything against the Irish for being born Irish. I just find their behavior all too often far left, and their risible ethno-political self-concept irritating. I love Irish ethnopatriots who ditch these things.

  25. January 13, 2010 - 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I mean, raise your hand if you wouldn’t like to punch Bono in the mouth?

  26. AngryJew's Gravatar AngryJew
    January 14, 2010 - 2:34 am | Permalink

    Italians, Russians, Poles had absolutely nothing to do with immigration reform.

    Of course not!

    All of the “liberal” rot in America is the work of Jews, and their sycophantic allies.

    Coincidentally – the hard-left, always a bastion of Jewish activism has played virtually no part in immigration movements, and has traditionally been on the side of American workers. But don’t let that stop your wet-dreams!

    And oh – all those hareidi Jews lobbying for Amnesties? Tsk tsk tsk.

    That Episcopalians are even more liberal than Jews, and have consistently been pro-immigration starting in the latter half of the 19th century – overrepresented as they remain in the echelons of power – oh – they must be Crypto-Jews. Tsk tsk tsk.

    Again Anti-Semitism is a psychiatric condition when Evil = Jews. Good = Us (in this case Nordics).

    It’s pathological. No really – Jews eat kids, their mommies, and desecrate your graves.

    It’s really mental. I am here to just remind you of that folks – you’re going down the slope – you’ve joined a Cult. Please, please, just a bit of critical thought. Tiny bit.

  27. Barbara Cornett's Gravatar Barbara Cornett
    January 14, 2010 - 5:43 am | Permalink

    Welcome AngryJew, hope you stick around and make a debate out of it. Enjoy the free speech that our forefathers intended for us but which you certainly won’t find on any Jewish or Shabbas Goyim political site.

  28. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    January 14, 2010 - 8:08 am | Permalink

    @ Angry Jew:

    You can’t deny there is a Roman Catholic-Jew Alliance in Congress. The Congressional votes are the proof.

    The question is, who is setting the shared agenda? I agree with Dr. MacDonald, in that most, if not all of the Roman Catholic-Jew agend items are being set by the Jews in Congress.

    My take is that the Roman Catholic politicians need the Jew money & the Jew media. That’s why they go along with Jew agenda items. Even when those issues are counter the expressed Roman Catholic interests. Support of Israel, Hate Crimes legislation, Global anti-Semitism, etc, etc. fall in this category.

    The immigration issue maybe a little more nuanced in that the 30 Million or so Mexicans, Puerto Ricans & other Latin Americans are almost all Roman Catholics. Thus providing a Roman Catholic reason for the alliance with the Jews in Congress.

  29. Fox Firefly's Gravatar Fox Firefly
    January 14, 2010 - 5:02 pm | Permalink

    AJ, the jews are a cult. Of self worship. The Hasbara Playbook tactics, strawman arguments, fake quotes, red herrings and other worn out devices won’t work. It’s doubtful they’ll influence the causal “passerby” either, although that’s what your really shooting for.

  30. Pitbullexpress's Gravatar Pitbullexpress
    January 14, 2010 - 8:23 pm | Permalink

    “Stop nitpicking each other. I could see this going on for page after page like we see at other sites.”

    Thanks for your comments Jason, I appreciate them.

    But I have no intention of allowing it to go on.
    What I did was respond at first to a misrepresentation, and then second to a personal attack.
    I agree it’s not a good idea to engage in an endless tit for tat, and as far as I am concerned the matter is dropped and he can go his way and I’ll go mine and we can at least agree to disagree.

    But my experience has shown me that when you are misrepresented and attacked nip it in the bud right away, then have done with it.
    As long as your civil, clear, and stay on point, then you should stand up for yourself long enough to have your say and then let it drop.
    That’s what I did.

    Also, you raise a very interesting and very important point that I would like to comment on.

    “You guys are engaging in exactly what the Jews enjoy.”

    Now here I would have to tell you to relax Jason. I see what you’re saying and we should be careful not to let things get out of control, and put principles before personalities, to borrow a useful phrase.

    But as I have posted before, Whites need to learn how to talk to each other and that is one of the things we’re doing here.

    This blog, and others like it, are a great tool for Whites learning to break the ice and do what many of us are doing for the first time in our history – when you think about it, ie; talk to each other; and as you well know, we’re not talking to each other about the weather. We are talking to each other about matters of the utmost importance. Namely our future.

    Sometimes the talking, or posting, goes well, probably most of the times in fact, and sometimes it doesn’t.
    It’s a process, not an event. It will take some time and we have to be willing to walk together through some of the sticky moments, when things get heated, awkward, angry, or whatever.

    But I think the ocassional clashes, as long as they don’t drag on, show that we’re human, and willing to stand up for ourselves as individuals, and then put a stop to it in a time-appropriate manner so we can stand together against a common enemy.

    I consider my participation in all of this, especially as it relates to TOO and TOQ where I participate directly via comments (as I can’t as VDARE or Taki, for example, or other sites I like and visit but have no such forum) as an investment of time and a commitment to a transformation.
    A transformation from being alone with no one to talk to about being directly effected by the policies of the hostile elite, to being someone who can come out of hiding, and begin to be a part of at least a small group of like-minded souls, who also are anxious to come out of hiding and rid themselves of the shame that invariably comes with all hiding.

    Speaking for myself, I have to allow myself the opportunity to be imperfect. After all, the only way out is through and sometimes it doesn’t always go so well. So what? We’re human.
    Let other people pretend they’re perfect.
    Like the Hostile Elite, for example.
    Though a glance at the dysfunctional, mal-adaptive society they’ve been building for the past one hundred years, ought to give one an idea of just how profound and irreversible their delusions of granduer are.

    Peter Brimelow likes to say of his site “We’re building an institution.” True, and it’s one of the best there is.
    But I think what the TOO family is making clear is that we’re building an entirely new way of being White in the world.
    It’s helping us see the necessity of mustering the appropriate courgage to stand and deliver, in all of our affairs. Not easy. In some cases, for some of us, it’s not even advised.

    But like I said, it’s a process not an event. It took us a while to get here it’s going to take a while to get out of our dilema. To do that we’ve got to give ourselves the permission to be imperfect, and enough space to trip and fall on ocassion. In short, it’s an opportunity for us to be powers of example.

    If that’s something the Hostile Elite enjoys watching then maybe there’s hope for them.

  31. Irish Bono Puncher's Gravatar Irish Bono Puncher
    January 15, 2010 - 9:51 pm | Permalink

    Svigor says: “I mean, raise your hand if you wouldn’t like to punch Bono in the mouth?”

    I am part Irish and a huge U2 fan, and I would like to punch Bono in the mouth.

  32. WYSIWYG's Gravatar WYSIWYG
    January 19, 2010 - 10:44 am | Permalink

    Tom, at this point we’ll probably never know all of the behind the scenes maneuvering that went on to help get the Immigration Act of 1965 through. Many people have said only half jokingly that ol’ dummy Teddy K was taken into a dark room, showed the Zapruder film and told to lead the way if he didn’t want this to happen to him too. While that’s a bit out there, considering the increasing level of corruption in US politicians over the years, and the fact that LBJ rubber-stamped every bit of Zionist inspired legislation put in front of him, the fact that the knife to the juggler made the final cut in 1965 is no surprise.

    As to Schlei, I’ve read that he was Jewish, other sources don’t mention anything. I will say after watching the video at Vdare that he sure looks and sounds Jewish. Lots of cryptos out there. I’ve been surprised on more than one occasion.

    The Christians backed down on many fronts. The exaggerated claims of what happened in WWII played no small part in that, never mind the rampant corruption, all paid for with our tax money going to the Fed, which then put it right in the Zionist’s pockets for the most part. I can’t tell you how angry I get when I see some televangelist carrying on about protecting Israel and the Chosen. The preachers have been bought off, and the sheeple follow along. Right into the wolf’s lair.

  33. Stan Anagram's Gravatar Stan Anagram
    January 25, 2010 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

    David Schlei is buried at Forest Lawn in Hollywood, not in a Jewish cemetery.

  34. Stan Anagram's Gravatar Stan Anagram
    January 26, 2010 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

    CORRECTION! In my last post I meant NORBERT Schlei is buried at Forest Lawn Hollywood, not a Jewish cemetery.

    I found Norbert Schlei’s bio in a 1970s volume of “Who’s Who in America.” I will send a scan of it to the editors. It says his parents’ names were William Frank Schlei and Norma (Lindsley) Schlei. His first wife was Jane Moore. He was a member of the Order of the Coif, Phi Kappa Sigma, Phi Alpha Delta, Phi Eta Sigma.

    The only thing in the bio that might lead one to think he is Jewish is in 1959 he left the law firm O’Melveny & Myers to start the firm of Greenberg, Shafton & Schlei; however, after leaving government service in 1967, he worked at two non-Jewish firms, Munger, Tolles, Hills & Rickershauser and Hughes Hubbard & Reed.

    Unless he converted to Judaism late in life, I think we have to conclude that Schlei was not Jewish.

  35. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    March 4, 2011 - 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Benedict XVI, while urging justice for migrant laborers, suggests that Church groups, charitable agencies, and other non-profit groups could help governments in “reconciling recognition for the rights of the individual [migrant worker] with the recognition of the rights of the person and the principle of national sovereignty, with specific reference to the exigencies of security, the public order and control of borders.” — Zenit.org, 5/28/2010, Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Travelers (Emphasis mine).

    Thus Catholic universalism, rooted in charity towards all, in no wise conflicts with national sovereignty, public order, and the security of the nation reflected in the obligation for secure borders; in short a rational immigration policy.

    “States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and its national identity.”—Benedict XVI, 97th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, Oct. 2010

Comments are closed.