Ann Coulter understands that immigration is the greatest question of the age, not only for America but for the Republican Party. After all, as she tweeted:
If you really think that immigration is the big issue — and it is, you are understandably upset when so many Republican candidates want to make the big issues Israel, abortion, and their worship of Ronald Reagan — even including Israel in visions of what America will be like if elected. Reagan and abortion may indeed tap into the GOP base but, let’s face it, obsessing about Israel is first and foremost an attempt to appease Sheldon Adelson and the rest of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Trump is succeeding precisely because he is not seen as needing to pander to anyone.
And when the pundits say that Carly Fiorina did really well, what they really mean is that she made an impassioned condemnation of Planned Parenthood which they hope will change the focus of the campaign to issues like abortion that are really sideshows.
For those of us who see immigration is the one and only real issue, this is a red herring. The real issues are the political, economic, and cultural effects of immigration that amount to a morally untenable assault on the traditional people and culture of America. It’s no surprise that Republican elites are happy for anything that changes the subject away from Trump’s populist appeal on immigration even if they have nothing but disdain for the attitudes of the Republican base on abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Claiming Coulter is an “anti-Semite” is ridiculous. As John Derbyshire notes, all of the references to Israel in ¡Adios America! praise Israel because Israelis are intent on keeping Israel Jewish, expelling non-Jewish migrants, etc. This is simply a fact, but somehow when one advocates a similar policy aimed at preserving the demographic, political and cultural status of Whites in American and elsewhere, one is subjected to the most vile terms of abuse. If she were really an “anti-Semite,” she would be noting the hypocrisy of American Jews, including the entire organized Jewish community, in favoring Israel as an ethnostate while simultaneously promoting mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the proposition nation idea for the West.
In fact, Ann has studiously avoided discussing the role of Jewish activist organizations, Jewish intellectual movements, Jewish influence in the media and Jewish political clout via financial contributions in the transformation of America that she deplores. Instead she has repeatedly referred to “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act” as the ultimate cause. The demise of America as a European civilization is the result of the evil machinations of a freshman senator?
This is typical analysis of the immigration disaster one gets from mainstream conservatives. Coulter acts as if, despite all the best efforts of Republicans over the years, immigration happened anyway. And if it hadn’t been for that evil liberal Teddy Kennedy, all would be well with the Republic. The fact is that the real force behind the 40-year campaign to overturn the 1924 Immigration Restriction law was the organized Jewish community, not the freshman senator from Massachusetts. And it couldn’t be further from the truth that Republicans aren’t equally to blame. Republican presidents, including the sainted Ronald Reagan, have been complicit in the immigration disaster. Reagan agreed to the huge immigration amnesty of 1986 and did nothing to curb the real problem, legal immigration. Those chickens have come home to roost. “Ann Coulter: The Republican demise is all Teddy Kennedy’s fault”)
In attempting to deflect some of the hostility, she has reaffirmed her support for Israel:
— BI Video (@BI_Video) September 18, 2015
Obviously it is one thing to support Israel and quite another to make it central to presidential politics and the future of America — a simple distinction that her critics seem unable to grasp. She is quite right that, like abortion and Reagan, the focus on Israel detracts from immigration as the central issue which she correctly sees as far more important for the future of America. She has cleverly turned the argument around to argue that immigration is bad for Israel:
Perhaps you forgot that the worst president for Israel would never have been elected w/o post-1970 immigration. https://t.co/z5l9TgwvCs
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015
Coulter is obviously doing her best to remain part of mainstream conservatism where Israel has a sacrosanct place.
One of Coulter’s best tweets implicitly called attention to the irony of the uproar on her comments by outraged Jews:
Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015
Jewish influence is indeed the main issue, but it is a topic that is not supposed to be discussed. This was her real sin. Her complaints about the focus on abortion and Reagan were completely ignored by the media, but there is no end to discussion or comment on the Israel-o-centric bias of so many of the Republican candidates. Her tweet “How many f—king Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” could only call attention to Jewish influence, and that is something the Jewish community is loath to discuss.
As usual, the guardians of this media blackout do not feel any need to actually point to evidence or data to back up their claims:
Exhibit A: Emily Shire in The Daily Beast: “Anti-Semites Flock to Ann Coulter’s Side”
The anti-Semitism in Coulter’s tweet came through loud and clear as she painted American Jews as some all-powerful force manipulating the Republicans. As The Daily Beast’s Tom Sykes wrote, “The whole argument echoes a historic libel against Jews that they hold secret influence.”
Obviously, no one, least of all Coulter, was presenting Jews as all-powerful. And, despite what Sykes claims, Jewish influence can be easily documented and is hardly a secret. My effort to document Jewish involvement in transforming US immigration policy ran to 68 heavily referenced and footnoted pages and has never been seriously challenged. (And if you don’t believe me, take it from Prof. Otis Graham or Prof. Hugh Davis Graham.)
Shire is offended by a claim on Twitter about Jewish media influence:
“#IStandWithAnn because six Jewish companies control 97% of the global media. She will be demonized for speaking out,” tweeted Nick Joseph, a man who describes himself in his Twitter bio as “morally obligated to raise awareness for the increasing racism against white people.”
Shire feels no need to back up a claim about what she thinks is a better estimate of Jewish media ownership. No need to discuss actual media ownership by different ethnic groups and how ethnic identity might influence media messages. No need to even link to a well-researched discussion of media ownership that would support her views.
Whatever the exact percentage, there is no question that Jews have a far larger share of the media than any other identifiable group, and it would be naive to suppose that Jewish attitudes on issues like immigration and Israel are not reflected in the media as a result (my discussion is here, p. xlvi). Hence the huge uproar about Ann’s comments on Israel and next to nothing on abortion or Reagan.
But instead of making a real argument, Shire falls back on the assurance that her audience is in complete agreement that such claims are outrageous and the product of a diseased mind: “It’s dangerous to dismiss their anti-Semitism because it seems almost laughably outrageous to anyone with the slightest sense of human history or decency.” Somehow “decency” should preclude finding out what is really going on. The “argument” is that it’s so obviously wrong-headed and crackpot that it doesn’t need a rational rebuttal. Nutcase stuff.
Instead of arguments and evidence, we have simple assertions. And for good measure, she throws in a guilt-by-association “argument” that depends on producing a knee-jerk reaction to David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.
The reality is, of course, that people in a position of power do not have to defend their statements rationally. They can simply rely on decades of conditioning and propaganda combined with the threat of job loss and social ostracism to do the job. As a Mel Brooks character famously said, “It’s good to be king.”
Exhibit B: “How Ann Coulter Made It Kosher to Hate Jews” (yes, that’s really the title!) by Karol Markowicz in the Forward.
Whether or not Ann meant to be insulting to Jews — the Anti-Defamation League called her comments “borderline anti-Semitic” — the fact is that Jews in America always have to straddle the line between wanting Israel to be mentioned a lot by politicians and hoping they won’t mention it too much.
Anti-Semites already believe that Jews have too much influence in American politics. A so-called friend to Israel like Ann Coulter pointing out the importance of Israel to the candidates in a presidential debate isn’t a positive thing. Her tweet implied the long-running canard that while Jews represent a small percentage of the population, their role in influencing policy is outsized. And, of course, why is it outsized? The dark undercurrent in the answer is that it’s due to money.
Again, there is no attempt to present or link to a rational discussion of the role of Jews in American politics that successfully argues that Jewish influence is not in fact “out-sized.” Just considering the Republicans, the amount of money Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition are willing to contribute to pro-Israel candidates is staggering — $100 million in the last election cycle alone by Sheldon Adelson. Shouldn’t Markowicz be discussing why all this money isn’t important and that candidates who are bringing up Israel in the hopes of tapping into this money are delusional? One need only recall the parade of Republican candidates who grovel before Sheldon Adelson’s billions and the angst among the RJC donors that, alone among the candidates, Trump is not subject to their influence.
The fact is that anyone not living under a rock or prone to pathological self-deception is quite aware that Jewish influence is indeed out-sized and, yes, it has to do with Jews being willing and able to make huge donations to candidates that support the policies they favor, particularly, in the case of the Republicans, Israel and neocon war mongering combined with liberal social positions on immigration, gay marriage, etc. Their ideal candidate is Jeb Bush, the consummate cuckservative.
* * *
I suggest that Ann Coulter be viewed in much the same way as Donald Trump. They have both said things that are right on the money on the most important issue confronting White America, immigration. But like politicians, writers who want to remain in the mainstream have to pull their punches and can’t always say what they really think. We who have been relegated to the fringes don’t have a lot of other choices. It’s not like one can just change the channel from MSNBC to Fox News to get sound patriotic discussions of immigration — unless Ann Coulter happens to be on Fox. And there is simply no other candidate besides Trump that presents any hope at all on immigration.
At this point, we have to be thankful for Ann Coulter and hope that this latest affair will not get her banned from the mainstream. Beggars can’t be choosers. We remain in an incredibly weak position compared to the power arrayed against us.
It’s important that rational thinking about Jewish influence continues on the internet even though it has been banished from mainstream discourse (yes, Virginia, it’s because of Jewish influence!). And deep down we can even hope that Coulter and Trump really know the score — that their real thoughts would be entirely at home at American Renaissance or even The Occidental Observer.