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

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 No, that statistic is both woefully out-of-date and grossly unjust.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.

Yes, that’s the clear message of the warm-hearted and compassionate Jewish activist Stosh Cotler as she fights for justice in the U.S. Cotler thinks that compassion toward immigrants is a central aspect of Jewish identity, but she clearly also regards compassion toward immigrants as an aspect of Jewish ethnic strategizing. Underneath the masquerade of compassion is some very self-conscious ethnic hardball — a far more compelling reason for why Jews have been in the forefront of pro-immigration movements throughout the West. The compassion is a facade, nothing more than crocodile tears. In Cotler’s view, immigration, legal and illegal, is good for the Jews:

Jews understand that while we may not be the ones on the buses today, we’ve been there before. We know that when one group is threatened, it puts everyone at risk.

One of Judaism’s central teachings is to “welcome the stranger,” to offer shelter to those in need and to accept those who we perceive to be different from us. Contrary to the individualistic, go-it-alone attitude that has prevented our country from making progress on many pressing social issues in recent years, Jews believe that our fates are bound up in one another — that we’re all in this together. Put in a different way, we are responsible for each other, and an injustice against one hurts everybody. It also means we are responsible for correcting the injustices in our world. (Why Immigration Reform Is A Jewish Issue)

It is clearly an injustice that American citizenship should be based on something as trivial as paperwork. If people anywhere on Earth want to become Americans, no decent government should stand in their way. Britain too is full of warm-hearted and compassionate Jews fighting to correct migration injustice. And again their compassion for asylum seekers is intimately linked to their Jewish identity. It comes naturally to all Jews:

Rabbi ‘almost in tears’ over asylum-seekers

A rabbi said that a visit to a detention centre for asylum-seekers yesterday left him “almost in tears”. Rabbi Zvi Solomons, of Reading Synagogue [Reading, pronounced “Redding”, is a town in southern England], was a part of a joint delegation organised by Tzelem, the rabbinical call for social justice, and Jewish human rights charity Rene Cassin to the Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in Middlesex.

Rabbi Solomons said that he was “almost in tears” when hearing of the frustration of one man who had been fighting to remain in Britain for a decade and had been detained for seven months. The man’s stepson was also “suffering from the absence of the only stable father he has known,” Rabbi Solomons said. He criticised the system in which people could be detained indefinitely as “utterly unfair and arbitrary, and hide-bound by bureaucracy”.

Rabbi Alexandra Wright, of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, St John’s Wood, cited the case of another detainee who was due to be deported in weeks after the expiry of his student visa but would be in danger if he returned to his home country.

“After decades of civil war and human rights violations, there is a warrant for his arrest dating back to an anti-government protest in which he was involved,” she said. “From the thick pile of papers in front of us, he pulled out his medical report; a body diagram showed injuries to both his knees where he had probably been beaten up or tortured.”

She said that “the promise of this young man’s life is darkened by unjust imprisonment and a daily diet of uncertainty about his future”.

Liberal Judaism chief executive Rabbi Danny Rich said that “locking up people without any limit on the time – many of whom are vulnerable and will eventually be granted a temporary or a permanent stay here – is particularly poignant at Pesach, when we Jews commemorate freedom for [sic] oppression in Egypt.” He hoped that the visit – co-ordinated with charity Detention Action – would “highlight the plight of these often isolated people who have endured conditions in their own homelands akin to slavery – and give them some assurance that they are not entirely alone.” (Rabbi ‘almost in tears’ over asylum-seekers, The Jewish Chronicle, 9th April 2015; emphasis added)

Jews in Britain have also responded to the current humanitarian crisis at the French port of Calais, where vulnerable migrants dreaming of a better life are being cruelly denied free entry into Britain. The ex-communist David Aaronovitch claimed in the Times that “with proper arrangements, we could take every single person… and hardly notice it. We could turn those rangy, scary young men into electrical engineers” [!!!], while Emma Barnett said “screw British holidaymakers” in the Telegraph and called on us to remember the “real victims” – “the mostly male Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese trying to live in Europe,” who are “real people, with hearts, families and lest we forget it, human rights.”

So that’s the message from the warm-hearted Jewish minority in cold-hearted Western nations: “Welcome the stranger! Liberate the oppressed! Open your borders to the world!” Obviously, then, the Jewish-majority nation of Israel must be following that “central teaching of Judaism” and “Welcoming the stranger,” regardless of colour or creed. As Stosh Stotler so movingly put it: “We are responsible for each other, and an injustice against one hurts everybody.”

But Cotler’s emphasis on why immigration into Western countries is good for Jews gives away the game. Just because it’s good for Jews in Western countries does not mean that it’s good for Jews in Israel. Jewish compassion is co-extensive with their self-interest (see “Is Immigration a Jewish Value?“).

Which explains what happens when unjustly oppressed “Eritreans, Ethiopians, Afghans and Sudanese” try to move to Israel. Red carpets are not rolled out, banners of welcome are not hung across the streets and warm baths are not readied to wash the grime of travel from their weary bodies:

Israel court debates stranded border refugees

Israel’s High Court was on Thursday mulling an urgent appeal on behalf of 20 Eritrean nationals stranded in no-man’s land on the border with Egypt for a week after the Jewish state refused them entry. The appeal was filed by Israeli NGO [Non-Governmental Organization] We Are Refugees in a petition against Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Interior Minister Eli Yishai for refusing to allow the group of Eritreans, who are seeking political asylum, into the country. …

Israel on Wednesday denied it had any legal obligation to let them in. “The attorney general ruled today that there is no legal obligation to take in anyone located beyond the border,” said a statement from the interior ministry.

“According to international practices and binding precedents, the fence is a de facto border, and therefore anyone who is beyond it is not located in Israeli territory and is therefore not eligible for automatic entry,” a government spokesman said on condition of anonymity. “There has been no determination by any international body according to which Sudanese or Eritrean citizens are persecuted in Egypt or that their lives are in danger. Therefore, there is no legal obligation to allow entry into Israel of those who are near the fence.”

Israeli figures indicate there are some 60,000 Africans living illegally in the country, most of them from Sudan and Eritrea. In recent months, Israel has been waging a major campaign to round up and deport illegal African migrants, sparking an outcry from rights groups. (Israel court debates stranded border refugees, Alarabiya.net, 6th September 2012)

There you have it. Israel’s “Welcome for the Stranger” — the same types of strangers that the organized Jewish community enthusiastically welcomes to the UK — consists of a big fence, lots of barbed wire, and a firm refusal to accept any “legal obligation to allow entry into Israel.” That story about Eritreans was published in 2012. Since then, the “major campaign to round up and deport illegal African migrants” has been a major success. If you don’t have the “right papers” in Israel, you don’t have any right to be there and you soon won’t be.

What has been the reaction of Stosh Cotler to Israel’s cruel denial of a better life to those wide-eyed African dreamers? Has she demanded that Israel follow that “central teaching of Judaism” and welcome all Black strangers? Has Rabbi Zvi Solomons visited any detention centres in Israel and choked back tears for the vulnerable migrants trapped there? Have David Aaronovitch and Emma Barnett used their platforms at the Times and Telegraph to excoriate the Israeli government for its abhorrent inhumanity and injustice?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to all those questions is a simple “No.” It seems that open borders are a moral imperative for all White nations in which Jews are a minority, but not at all for the only nation in which Jews are the majority. That’s the clear message from Stosh Cotler, Rabbi Solomons and company.

Furthermore, vast rewards are on offer for non-Jews who echo the Jewish line that immigration is a moral imperative for Whites. The repulsive ex-lawyer Peter Sutherland, an ethnic Irishman, has prospered enormously while being a fanatical supporter of open borders in Europe. No one ever said that the war on Whites wasn’t massively incentivized, so traitors are to be expected.

Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, former or present director of blue-chip companies and permanent member of international think-tanks, is like an ungainly piece of inherited furniture, a teak-oiled trophy cabinet full of meretricious treasures. He holds in his stubby hands an honorary British knighthood – the European Parliament’s Gold Medal – the Grand Cross of Civil Merit (Spain) – the Grand Cross of King Leopold II (Belgium) – Grand Cross of the Order of Infante Dom Henrique (Portugal) – the Legion d’Honneur – the Brazilian Order of Rio Branco – and yet more others, a glinting cascade of gold-coloured base-metal tributes. …

[I]n 1984 he became the youngest ever European Commissioner, one of those bland mini-potentates whose precise purpose is so mysterious that their appointment cannot be entrusted to ignorant voters. …

Central to his grand schemes were, and are, international finance, air and oil – and as good luck would have it, he was soon invited to join the boards of Delta Airlines, BP and Goldman Sachs. His insights were soon being sought by, and all too often delivered to, a plethora of organizations feared by conspiracists – Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, World Economic Forum, Pilgrims Society – although perhaps such groups should be feared more for their narcoleptic than their necromantic powers. …

[H]e [also] has the resounding title of Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. To add to this sacerdotal seal of approval, there have always been plentiful profane rewards – such as the £125 million he reportedly ‘earned’ from Goldman Sachs’ 1999 flotation.

But the money was always incidental to the greater aim of getting rid of all those pesky prehistoric frontiers, traditions and identities which impede the global flows of capital, commodities, human rights lawyers, pictures of celebrities in thongs, and humans in throngs. As he remarked almost angrily in 2007, opposition to greater globalisation is ‘morally indefensible’. …

Migration was a ‘crucial dynamic for economic growth’ in some European countries, ‘however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens’. The declining populations of some EU countries meant that multiculturalism was not only inevitable, but deeply desirable – ‘It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them.’ …

Limiting immigration risked Britain’s reputation for being a ‘tolerant, open society’, he claimed – and he contrasted Euro-intransigence with well-known social paradises like the United States, which ‘…accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others. And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.’

No-one enquired whether existing residents of countries would also have the freedom to choose what kind of country they lived in – nor whether he foresaw any kind of limits on human traffic from Asia or Africa into small countries like his own (pop. 3 million). … Nor was he asked whether he thought it possible that unlimited migration might endanger the ‘tolerant, easy’ characteristics he and most other Europeans value – nor whether his manic métissage [mixing of races] might make the whole world rather less interesting and beautiful. Although he will be leaving the world a very much richer man than he entered it, the world he leaves behind will probably be poorer, in ways he cannot begin to comprehend. (The questions Peter Sutherland, the globe’s grandee, was NOT asked by the Lords, The Daily Mail, 27th June 2012)

One may doubt to what extent the money was “incidental” to Sutherland’s motivation in all this. Sutherland exemplifies the fame, fortune and high status awaiting those who are effective at implementing elite anti-White attitudes on immigration and multiculturalism.

This traitor is still hard at work calling for the destruction of Europe:

Peter Sutherland, the United Nations Secretary General’s special representative on international migration, said demands for economic migrants to be kept out of the UK are “a xenophobic response to the issue of free movement”.

“In my opinion, the debate in the UK is grossly excessive in terms of Calais,” he told BBC2’s Victoria Derbyshire programme. “We are talking here about a number of people – a relatively small number in the context of what other countries are having to do – who are in terrible conditions and have to be dealt with by France and/or Britain.”

The migrants crossing the Mediterranean by boat are “in the main” genuine refugees fleeing violence and persecution, he said. “Germany last year received 175,000 asylum applications. Britain received 24,000,” added Mr Sutherland. “We are talking here about between 5,000 and 10,000 people in Calais who are living in terrible conditions. The first thing we have to do collectively is to deal with their conditions. Instead of talking about sending Gurkhas [a Nepali tribe who serve in the British army] or building fences, we should be thinking of the humanitarian crisis.”

Mr Sutherland urged the UK to join the common European approach to the migrant issue, warning: “Anybody who thinks that by erecting borders or fences in some way a particular state can be protected from alleged ‘floods’ – which are anything but floods – of migrants is living in cloud cuckoo land.” (Calais migrants crisis caused by ‘swarm’ of people trying to reach Britain, says David Cameron, The Daily Telegraph, 30th July 2015)

Sutherland thus uses one of the same tactics noted above as typical of Jewish activists: Cast immigration and multiculturalism as a moral issue to induce guilt in Whites desperate to avoid being labeled xenophobic or lacking in compassion for non-Whites.

But, as ever, Peter Sutherland is lying. You don’t have to live in “cloud cuckoo land” to think that fences are good. You just have to live in Israel, where fences have proved an excellent way of protecting the state and safeguarding the Jewish majority. The Israeli government thinks that open borders are highly toxic. It’s right: they are. A clear majority of Europeans and Americans think the same. And even in Sweden, famous for its suicidal policies on immigration and asylum, opposition to insanity is on the rise:

Ostracised within the Swedish parliament, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats are the country’s fastest-growing political force. Before last September’s general election, one of their candidates had to withdraw when photographs appeared of her wearing a swastika armband. Such reminders of the party’s neo-fascist roots are a regular occurrence, but a substantial swathe of the Swedish electorate does not seem to care. The SD gained 12.9% of the vote at the election, more than doubling its share and making it Sweden’s third-largest political movement. Latest opinion polls put the party above 18%, snapping at the heels of the Social Democrats, who run an enfeebled minority government.

The pitch to voters was summed up by Åkesson in the runup to last autumn’s poll, when he tweeted: “The election is a choice between mass immigration and welfare. You choose.” …

For months the eyes of Europeans have been trained on the travails of Greece. But in these turbulent times a seismic upheaval is also taking place in the normally sedate world of Scandinavian politics. And it is one that, in its own way, is as significant as the emergence of Syriza, or the growing respectability of Marine Le Pen’s Front National in France. In Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, the populist right is on the march – and it is wearing the traditional battle armour of the Nordic left. (How the Nordic far-right has stolen the left’s ground on welfare, The Guardian, 26th July 2015)

Liars like Stosh Cotler and traitors like Peter Sutherland should be getting very worried at what may happen in future. If they aren’t, I suggest that they pay more attention. Their lies and treachery are starting to fail. More and more Whites think that what’s toxic for Israel is also toxic for their nations. Third World immigrants carry with them what they are trying to escape: criminality, tribalism and low average intelligence. That’s precisely why Israel welcomes Black strangers with a big fence and lots of barbed wire. White nations need to follow Israel’s lead. After all, the Prophet Isaiah proclaims that Israel must be a “light to the Gentiles.”