Jewish Double Standards on Immigration and Multiculturalism in Israel vs. the Diaspora

Chemi Shalev: American Jews must oppose Trump’s immigration policy

/59 Comments/in , , /by

A Haaretz columnist, Chemi Shalev, complains that Jewish organizations have not been up in arms about Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policy. The reason Jewish organizations must act is because over 90 years ago the US passed an immigration restriction bill that shut off the flow of Eastern European Jews to America.

The basic logic here is that the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was the Original Sin of White America. The attempt on the part of Americans to fashion their immigration policy to retain an ethnic status quo as of 1890 was so horrifically evil that Jewish organizations have a duty to once again bring all the pressure they can muster to allow in every last immigrant who wants to come to America. Needless to say, Israel’s immigration policy — clearly engineered to retain Jewish ethnic dominance — is not at issue for Shalev.

I won’t dispute Shalev’s point that the main concern of White America in 1924 was the influx of Jews, but of course he fails to contextualize this concern properly. As I noted elsewhere, there was an

explicit concern about lack of assimilability. Although the bias toward Northern Europeans did indeed discriminate against Southern and Eastern Europeans, it was obvious from the debates that the main concern was Eastern European Jewish immigrants, large percentages of whom were radicals (see here, p. 271 ff) and none of whom identified with the people or culture of Christian, Northern European America. Support for immigration restriction was centered in rural America, particularly in the South and West; as John Higham noted, “Jews, as a result of their intellectual energy and economic resources, constituted an advance guard of the new peoples who had no feeling for the traditions of rural America” (Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984, 168–169). Lack of rapport with the traditional people and culture of America was apparent among the New York Intellectuals and among Jewish radicals who were entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. In the immigration debates of 1924 Representative Knud Wefald of Minnesota emphasized lack of sympathy with traditional American culture:

I for one am not afraid of the radical ideas that some might bring with them. Ideas you cannot keep out anyway, but the leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals nor with those of northern Europe, who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us.

Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories, they compose and dish out to us our jazz music, they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. (Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924, 6272)

Thus a main concern in addition to the very large numbers of radicals among Jewish immigrants and the fact that sympathy for the far left was entirely mainstream within the Jewish community,  was that Jews were fast becoming an intellectual elite with very different attitudes than the traditional people of America. These concerns are more than justified given the subsequent history of the US, and particularly US immigration policy where Jewish organizations led the campaign culminating in the 1965 immigration law that ended the ethnic status quo legislated by the 1924 law and opened up immigration to all the peoples of the world.

Unlike the 1924 law, the 1965 immigration law was not at all in response to public outcry but to prolonged pressure that was organized, funded and led by the organized Jewish community; it also occurred in the context of the ascendancy of Jewish-dominated intellectual movements that undercut the intellectual basis for immigration restriction rooted in the legitimate ethnic interests of the traditional people of America (see here, passim).

Since 1965, the mainstream Jewish community has strongly supported increasing the numbers of immigrants, as for example in their support of the Schumer-Rubio immigration amnesty/surge immigration bill in 2013. During the public debate, Jewish organizations once again flogged the 1924 law as the epitome of evil.

The immigration policy advocated by Jewish organizations for the US has always had two main components:

  • Maximize the total number of immigrants; in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the 1965 law that removed the bias toward Western Europe, Jewish immigration activists switched to focus on maximizing total numbers.  (See here, p. 291)
  • Promote the idea that immigrants not be chosen for their ability to make an economic contribution to the U.S. The assumption is that, apart from those who are “dangerous or a threat to national security,” all immigrants in whatever numbers have a positive impact on the society as a whole  (see previous link, p. 277-278). Family reunification, which has been a bedrock Jewish attitude at least since the 1940s (see previous link, p. 277-278),  is the basis of chain migration which has been one of themain reasons why numbers of immigrants has skyrocketed.

So that leaves us with Shalev’s concerns about the relative silence of Jewish organizations:

The U.S. might desperately need immigration reform but that does not excuse the deathly Jewish silence on Trump’s outrageous statements. … If one wants to be generous, one can ascribe the American Jewish muteness to other preoccupations, ranging from summer vacations to arguments over the Iran deal. Perhaps, like some Republican presidential hopefuls, they are simply afraid of the kind of verbal retribution that Trump might unleash if he is criticized. Others still might be motivated by the kind of deep seated hatred of Obama that has caused many Jews to hear, see or speak no evil of any of his potential adversaries.

The most disconcerting possibility, however, is that Jews are losing their historical support for immigration as a defining value of the American ethos; that they are no longer moved by the plea “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,” written by Emma Lazarus and engraved on the Statue of Liberty.

I rather doubt the latter reason is at all likely, and I won’t comment further on the glaring intellectual blind spot shown by Shalev where it’s morally okay for his people to have an ethnostate but anathema for European Americans.

However, it is interesting that Jewish organizations have remained relatively silent. As noted regarding the 2013 immigration debates, Jewish organizations were not at all shy about advocating the immigration amnesty/surge bill, finding their rationale in a supposed uniquely Jewish morality while making moral condemnations of its opponents.

It makes sense to suppose that since Jewish organizations are very publicly opposing Obama’s Iran deal, it might seem poor strategy to have Jewish organizations taking sides against Trump. One issue at a time. Also, there may well be a strand of Jewish thinking that any Republican would be relatively good for Israel given the unanimity of Republican opposition to the Iran deal. Still, I really can’t believe that Jewish activists would be bothered by a second Clinton presidency given her support among fanatical  Zionists like Haim Saban and her coterie of neocon foreign policy people.

Further, the immigration debate will be with us long after the vote on the Iran deal in September. Plenty enough time to pull out all the heavy artillery for the 2016 election. After all, lots of pundits are still predicting that Trump will be forgotten as a candidate in a few months. And from their point of view, the nomination and then resounding, often-predicted defeat of a Republican populist candidate would be cause for great rejoicing—a resounding defeat for the traditional people and culture of America.

Also, Trump’s policy statement has been roundly criticized in the mainstream media which has long reflected the views on immigration of the organized Jewish community. Here it would be silly not to mention Jews as media owners, media producers, and as able to expunge voices that violate the current racial zeitgeist (see here and here).

In a real sense, much of the mainstream media functions as a proxy for the views of the organized Jewish community; proxies have a similar effect but have the advantage of not calling attention to Jewish identities and interests. As Patrick Cleburne notes in a comment on the thousands that are expected to turn out for a Donald Trump rally in Mobile, Alabama:

 A couple more events like Mobile looks like being and we are going to be deluged with Nuremberg rally comparisons. No one who can stir up the Serfs like this is going to be trusted.

Implicit in this statement is that Jewish concerns about White people turning into Nazis dominate the mainstream media. And although the media’s comparisons will be with Nazi rallies, it will be their proxies in the media making the comparisons, not Jewish organizations — at least for the time being.


This calls attention to the fact that Jewish organizations would do well not to take a public stance on Trump simply because he has touched a public nerve. It’s one thing to ruin careers of people with relatively little power, but certainly Trump is not so easily dealt with given his celebrity status, his wealth, and what increasingly seems to be his political deftness. The weakness of Jewish power is that, despite Jewish influence on the media, it has typically opposed strong trends in traditional American culture (public presence of Christianity, gun control, the public culture of homosexuality) that remain popular with substantial percentages of the public despite Jewish media influence.

This is also true of immigration. Despite the tsunami of positive messages on immigration emanating from the mainstream media, Trump’s policies on immigration are clearly in sync with the views of most Americans. Jewish attitudes on immigration are certainly not deeply rooted in popular attitudes among White Americans. The anti-White revolution has been a top-down phenomenon which has occurred because fundamentally America is now an oligarchy, not a democracy. Trump’s populist appeal is a real threat to our new, hostile elite because it is fundamentally uncontrollable.

In addition, it is quite possible that another reason for the relative silence is that the aura of Jewish moral superiority that has been so important for Jewish success has been slipping noticeably lately. This has occurred particularly on the left with the success of the BDS movement because of the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians, and anyone who is remotely familiar with Israel is quite aware of Jewish double standards and hypocrisy on immigration as a moral imperative.

The loss of the Jewish image of victimhood and moral superiority would indeed be a very large step in the right direction. If and when Jewish organizations feel that it would be counterproductive to issue statements supporting immigration, it would be a great sign that things really are changing. I rather doubt that we are there yet, but their aura of moral superiority has never been so vulnerable.

Attitudes on Immigration: Compassion for Whites; Ethnic Hardball and Crocodile Tears for Jewish Activists

/59 Comments/in , /by

What’s the population of the United States? About 320 million, you think? No, that statistic is both woefully out-of-date and grossly unjust. The actual, ethical population of the US is seven billion and rising. Funnily enough, that’s also the ethical population of the United Kingdom – and of Canada, France, Sweden and Australia. In fact, all European-majority nations have an ethical population of seven billion. Just ask Stosh Cotler, CEO of “Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice”:

Right now, at least 11 million men, women, and children are living in the United States with the real fear that they could be thrown into a detention center, deported, and torn from their families at any time. These are our neighbors, our friends, and our children’s classmates. Even if we don’t have a personal connection to any of the millions of undocumented people in America, they are people whose innate dignity deserves respect.

Today, upwards of 30,000 people are being held in detention centers across the country, many without any way to contact their families. Every day an average of 1,120 people are put on buses and discarded across the border. This is no way to treat people who have worked hard, paid their taxes, and contributed to the country like the rest of us — they are “different” only because they lack the right papers. (Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue, NationalJournal.com, 11th April 2014)

The logic is clear: it is nonsensical and unjust to discriminate between people who have the “right papers” for American citizenship and people who don’t. The difference between those two groups is illusory. This leads to a simple conclusion: that all seven billion people on Earth are actually American citizens. It’s just that most of them don’t have the right papers and don’t currently live there. And the same logic applies to Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, Australia and all other Western nations. Legalistic, petty-minded demands that all potential citizens of those nations have the “right papers” are a gross violation of their innate dignity as human beings. Read more

AIPAC rabbi calls for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ to “racial injustice” in St. Louis

/24 Comments/in /by

A theme around here has been that Jews  have posed as moral paragons while relentlessly pursuing their ethnic interests, resulting in cognitive dissonance among many White liberals. A good example of the resulting hypocrisy is Reform Rabbi Susan Talve who is aiding and abetting the Ferguson protesters masquerading as an exemplar of enlightened liberal morality while also supporting AIPAC and its program of apartheid and ethnic dispossession of the Palestinians  (Philip Weiss: “AIPAC rabbi calls for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ to racial injustice in St. Louis“).

The Ferguson “gentle giant” Michael Brown story continues  to unravel , but of course facts don’t matter, least of all to Rabbi Talve.

Susan Talve is the progressive rabbi in St. Louis who has been active in racial justice issues in Ferguson while supporting Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem and its onslaught on Gaza during her Israel lobby-sponsored trip to the Jewish state last summer.

Now one might suppose that she is simply living in a state of blissful ignorance, but the good news is that she is being confronted with her hypocrisy. Tweeters at one of her talks condemning “racist Whites” focused on her hypocrisy, and there were hecklers who were unimpressed with her sanctimony:

 “What about , Susan?” AIPAC supporter Ravbi Susan Talve gets heckled at her talk about civil rights.”

“Black and brown lives matter,” says rabbi Susan Talve. She forgot to add the disclaimer, “except for in Gaza.”

Pro-AIPAC rabbi Susan Talve now speaking against racism in STL while supporting racism in Israel.

To be sure, Talve claims to oppose the occupation, but, as Weiss notes, “she’s worked with an organization, AIPAC, that supports everything Israel does in the occupied territories.”

This is a common pose of liberal Jews in the Diaspora in the West — maintaining a veneer of moral consistency while doing nothing to change their own ethnic community by trying to change AIPAC, Israel, or the US government on Palestine. All their energies are directed against White America. If they were serious about criticizing Israel, they would spend as much time protesting at the Israeli embassy or at the AIPAC offices as they do in aiding and abetting the Ferguson insanity.

There is a consistency here, of course. Activists like Talve are consistently pursuing their ethnic  interests. It’s just that their interests differ dramatically depending on whether it’s about Israeli actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians, or in promoting the anti-White coalition in the U.S.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

Shocker: Sheldon Adelson Supports Immigration Amnesty (in the U.S.)

/26 Comments/in /by

Sheldon Adelson has finally come out of the closet on immigration, declaring his support for amnesty and “immigration reform.”  We have always known that he is a pro-Israel fanatic who conditions his campaign donations on support for whatever the ethnonationalist right in Israel wants. Indeed, he is a fixture on the ethnonationalist right in Israel that is busy deporting illegal Africans back where they came from. For  example:

Adelson owns an Israeli newspaper that supports PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard right Likud government. And there can be little question of where his loyalties lie. He has stated that he wishes he would have served in the Israeli military rather than in the US Army, and that he wants his son to grow up to “be a sniper for the IDF.”

All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart,” he said toward the end of his talk. (“Sheldon Adelson: Israel and Immigration“)

Netanyahu’s government is now busy deporting African illegals (“Israel African immigrant deportations to send thousands back “).

Patrick Cleburne at VDARE has long suspected Adelson of being pro-immigration in the U.S. Now we know. In his recent op-ed, Adelson displays empathy and compassion as the reasons for why Republicans should support amnesty:

As a Republican, it’s my view that efforts to complete immigration reform should be led by our party. Some on the outer fringes of the GOP may disagree, but the truth is we are humans first and partisans second. Frankly, the Democrats don’t have a monopoly on having hearts. (“Let’s deal with reality and pass immigration reform“)

Read more

Hypocrisy in Action: The Non-Response to Avigdor Lieberman’s speech on an Impending Jewish Demographic “Catastrophe”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and I have something in common: we are both deeply concerned about the future of our respective tribes. Of course, unlike Lieberman’s concerns, mine are regarded, in a Western world dominated by the enemies of my people, as the illegitimate and malevolent product of a sick mind. It seems Lieberman can openly call for all young Jews to be placed in virtual ethnic quarantine to prevent race mixing (Jews call it “intermarriage”) and to be inculcated with a fervent ethnic pride and nationalism (Jews call it “Zionism”). He can also call for the migration of 3.5 million of his ethnic kinsmen to the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel — a state which practices ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians and which deports non-Jewish “enemy infiltrators.”

He can say all of this without raising a murmur of reproach from the media. On the other hand, as someone living in a “diverse” and “multicultural” society largely created, dominated and policed by representatives of Lieberman’s tribe, I am chastised for even identifying as a White person. Such is the perverted, hyper-hypocritical world we now live in.

Last month the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations held its 40th annual meeting in Jerusalem. The four day conference was attended by Jewish leaders from around the world and by prominent figures in the Israeli government including Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was, however, the address by the Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman that gained most attention in the Israeli and Jewish media (all of it laudatory). In his speech, he declared: “I would like to state my firm belief that the biggest threat to us as Jews, both in Israel and the Diaspora, regardless of background, is the demographic problem currently facing world Jewry. It must become the most pressing issue on the global Jewish agenda. More pressing than the Palestinian negotiations or the Iranian nuclear threat.” Lieberman railed against the high rate of assimilation supposedly plaguing North American Jewry, declaring that: “If the current situation continues we will lose another six million Jews within a generation or two.” He warned American Jewish leaders that “You are facing a catastrophe.” Read more

Deluded and Dangerous: Auster’s Insight Ten Years On

/in /by

Christopher Hitchens was a sociable extrovert who worshiped Leon Trotsky and wrote with all the grace, delicacy and intelligence of a bomb-delivery by the neo-cons. Naturally enough, when he died in 2011 he was honoured around the world in the mainstream media. Larry Auster was a prickly introvert who converted to Christianity and wrote with clarity, vigour and insight. Naturally enough, when he died in 2013 he was ignored by the mainstream media. Hitchens devoted his life to the pursuit of fame; Auster devoted his to the pursuit of understanding. Both men found what they sought. This is Auster writing a decade ago on the roots of multi-culturalism and mass immigration:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Front Page Magazine, 22nd June, 2004) Read more

Two Ingroup Morality Items

/4 Comments/in , /by

infiltration_pesach_400As noted ad nauseum at TOO, while Diaspora Jews in the West continue to promote immigration and multiculturalism as intrinsic goods and unquestioned moral ideals, in Israel the whole point of public policy is to retain its Jewish character. The most recent example is shipping to Sweden dozens of African refugees living in Israel. Patrick Cleburne’s account at VDARE says it all:

  • The similar size and ethnic diversity of the two countries means that the only rationale for sending Africans to Sweden is that Sweden cares nothing about retaining a Swedish identity, whereas Israel cares deeply about remaining a Jewish state;
  • While the U.S. government policy on immigration and multiculturalism remains at odds with the interests of the traditional people of the West, especially the working class (so, as Cleburne notes, we can expect many of these African refugees to end up in the U.S.), the Israeli government sticks up for their own people: Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar said he was “not very impressed with all the crying and complaining” by business owners whose employees were on strike. “With all due respect to the restaurant and café owners in crisis, or those whose cleaning staff didn’t show up, this will not determine Israel’s national policy. On the contrary, let’s think about those Israelis who have lost their jobs [to migrant workers].”

Given that immigration and multiculturalism are presented as moral imperatives in the West, this results in a double moral standard—one morality for the ingroup and a quite different morality toward the outgroup; the theme of Jewish moral particularism. Unlike the addiction of the West to moral universalism, Jewish groups behave as a foreign policy realist (or evolutionary psychologist) expects states to behave. They simply pursue their interests with the aim of surviving and prospering.

And that means pursuing radically different strategies depending on whether Jews are a demographic majority or a tiny minority. In the West, the organized Jewish community avidly pursues displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism as tools to render the traditional majorities relatively powerless and incapable of mounting attacks on Jews. In Israel, the goal is to retain Jewish identity and minimize the presence and the influence of non-Jews—goals that are enthusiastically supported by Diaspora Jews and Jewish organizations.

Read more