Featured Articles

Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in the Dispossession of White, Christian America

/5 Comments/in , , , /by

Lawrence Auster is one of those rare Jews (Paul Gottfried is another) who seems to have an appreciation for the traditional people and culture of America and an understanding of the role of Jews in White dispossession — not that Auster and I haven’t had our disagreements (“Lawrence Auster gets unhinged”). 

Auster recently posted a chapter originally written in 1998 on the role of Jews in the multicultural transformation of the U.S. and the decline of White America (“Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists”). He hits pretty much all the right notes. Auster often has a way of phrasing things and choosing quotations from prominent Jews that cut to the heart of the matter—almost like painting pictures that are worth a thousand words.

His dissection of Alan Dershowitz is classic—the supreme arrogance and hypocrisy of Dershowitz’s fanatic ethnocentrism that is entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Dershowitz unabashedly gives Jews the right to alter America in the direction of multiculturalism to suit their interests, as well as to disregard the Constitution and the attitudes and interests of White America; Dershowitz simultaneously condemns the ethnocentrism and group feelings of non-Jewish Whites while supporting Jewish ethnocentrism, endogamy, and sense of group interests in America as well as the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. To say that Jews like Dershowitz have no respect for the traditional people and culture of America is a gross understatement; they see the world from a completely Jewish perspective in which the rights, culture, and traditions of non-Jews at best count for nothing. At worst, they are the appropriate target of hatred, scorn, and ultimately, one fears, far worse; indeed, Auster describes Dershowitz as “openly hostile to America’s historic civilization.”

Dershowitz is an example of extreme ethnocentrism where it is impossible to see the world except in terms of Jewish interests. Here’s Auster on  Dershowitz excoriating WASP law firms for not hiring ethnically obsessed Jews like Desrhowitz:

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this!” [Auster’s emphasis]

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America. And because of the elite status of American Jews, this is very important indeed. Jews matter. Read more

Review of Kerry Bolton’s “Revolution from Above”

/3 Comments/in /by

Revolution from Above
by Kerry Bolton
Arktos Media 2011, 258 pages, $27
Available from Arktos Media and Amazon

Why is it that the ”Left” in its various guises — Communists, anti-fascists, feminists, advocates of multiculturalism and other enemies of traditional European civilization — have, as a rule, considerable resources at their disposal? Why are such people constantly awarded influential and prestigious posts in the media and in academia?

The answer is quite simple: the generic Left is the creature and protégé of the real power — “Big Money” — and the dissolution of the Western, Christian nations has been a primary goal for the cosmopolitan financial elite for a long time.

Hence the title of Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above. The author mainly focuses on the last century’s destruction of traditional values and social institutions, especially the family, through politics, academia and the mass media. The book also contains valuable chapters on Wall Street’s role behind many revolutions, from the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917 to the heavily-subsidized and widely-covered coups of recent years, such as the “color revolutions” in the various former Soviet republics or the Arab Spring.

With this very well-documented work, New Zealander Bolton places himself in a proud Anglo-Saxon tradition of genuine contemporary history writing, in the line of Nesta Webster, Douglas Reed, A. K. Chesterton and Ivor Benson.

Bolton traces the beginning of the end of Western civilization back several centuries, when merchants and bankers started replacing the land-owning aristocracy as the ruling class, bringing about the birth of usury, industrialization, urbanization and social misery. The apparent paradox is that essentially the same forces created and nurtured socialism. As Bolton shows, however, socialism was never the actual enemy of Big Money — even if the vast majority of socialists have lived and died believing in that illusion.

Bolton notes that this development can be documented as far back as the French Revolution, but begins his narrative with the Russian Revolution of 1917. That the Communist takeover in Russia was heavily financed by Wall Street is an indisputable historical fact, but still systematically ignored in history textbooks and television documentaries. Read more

Napoleon Chagnon and the Struggle for Scientific Anthropology

/in , /by
Yanaomamo club fight scars

Yanaomamo club fight scars

Evolutionary anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon’s new book, Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes—The Yanomamö and the Anthropologists, is creating a considerable stir because it (gasp!) reiterates his findings that the behavior of the Yanomamö tribe  of the Amazon basin was a good fit with an evolutionary model. In his review, Nick Romeo summarizes the central findings:

To a Darwinian anthropologist, it comes as no surprise that genetically related kin would form coalitions to wield power. And indeed, nearly all Yanomamö headmen have a greater number of male kin in their village than potential rivals do.  But earlier anthropological models often downplayed natural selection and rejected the idea that hierarchies might be innate features of human society. Where these models assumed that individuals of the same age and gender would have roughly equal status in a village, Chagnon documented extensive kin-based hierarchies.  He explained their presence in Darwinian terms: individuals who promote the survival of genetic kin are promoting the survival of their own genes. He also observed that power in Yanomamö villages was primarily defined by access to reproductive resources, not material ones. Powerful males had more wives and more offspring than less powerful males, and they were able to use their influence to provide close male relatives with wives. Power was both cause and effect of producing many genetically related kin in a village. A more disturbing finding was the correlation he noticed between violence and reproductive success: Yanomamö men who had killed other men were statistically more likely to have more offspring than those who had not.

Or, more colorfully, as Chagnon (who is nothing if not colorful) phrased it in his Skeptic interview with Frank Miele,

I was threatening the general attitude within anthropology that all native peoples are pacific and live an angelic kind of life, gliding through the jungle with lithe, scented bodies, being altruistic, sharing their food, and willing to cooperate with the stranger that comes in and wants to learn about them and their culture, and anxious to share their knowledge and life histories with that stranger.

Chagnon’s work quickly became a standard ethnological account among evolutionary anthropologists, but he was “effectively blacklisted” by the wider field. The second part of Chagnon’s book recounts his war with the anthropological establishment clinging to romantic views of the human past populated by peaceful gift givers living in harmony with nature. Based on the main combatants arrayed against Chagnon over the years (Marshall Sahlins [an early ideological opponent of sociobiology who recently resigned from the National Academy of  Science to protest Chagnon’s election to the NAS], Nancy Scheper-Hughes, the notorious Ashley Montagu [whose given name, as Chagnon notes in a footnote, is Israel Ehrenberg], Marvin Harris, and now yet another anti-evolutionary crusader, Jonathan Marks), the entire controversy might be a good addition to the material on the decline of Darwinism in anthropology (Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique; Montagu is discussed on p. 26). Read more

Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza — A Postscript on the Acceptance of “Jewish Genius” by Non-Jews

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Go to Part 1.

It’s interesting that the emphasis on Jewish identity and origins in the case of Spinoza is quite the opposite of that found among the intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique, doubtless because the theories were promoted within a scientific framework in which ethnic interests and identifications would be seen as illegitimate.—

Although these theories were directed at achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they “could not tell their name”; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or Jewish group interests were involved. … Because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in [Separation and  Its Discontents] (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism. In the case of the Frankfurt School, “What strikes the current observer is the intensity with which many of the Institute’s members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities” (Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. (Chapter 6, p. 239)

For Freud, this cultivated invisibility is exemplified by his keen desire to have non-Jews in psychoanalysis in order to obscure its evidently Jewish nature. But he also made little secret in his works (particularly Moses and Monotheism; see here, p. 111 ff) of his opinion that Judaism was superior to Christianity. In a similar sense, while Boas, Adorno, et al. were pushing a cultural/social/political agenda in scientific form, their Jewishness was not explicitly expressed. However, they strongly implied that Judaism was/is morally superior to Christianity/Western culture; Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment is a classic in that regard (see here, p. 159 ff). There is an implicit chauvinism here, with the only difference being that it was more explicitly and aggressively asserted in the case of Spinoza, Mahler and other subjects of recent efforts to perpetuate the notion of ‘Jewish Genius.’

Moreover, while Popkin, Israel et al. are keen to point out Spinoza’s Jewishness, they do not make much (or anything) of their own Jewishness; indeed, they would strenuously deny that their high opinion of Spinoza has anything to do with their own Jewishness, and they would be extremely uncomfortable with anyone pointing out that the movement to exaggerate Spinoza is an entirely Jewish one. I can only imagine how horrified Popkin was when Hubbeling pointed out that exaggeration was coming exclusively from Jewish sources.

Finally and more generally, it appears that Jews are becoming more and more flamboyant and confident (or aggressive) in asserting their dominance; the efforts of Popkin, Goldstein, and Israel should be seen in this context. While the ADL would like us not to think of Jewish power and influence at all, there are recurrent examples where Jews unabashedly assert their influence:

  • Joel Stein’s op-ed on Jewish power in Hollywood;
  • Lee Siegel’s triumphalism on Jewish  displacement of WASPs as an elite;
  • similar triumphalism on the victory of Jews over the WASPs by Robert Frank in his Wall Street Journal article, “That Bright, Dying Star, the American WASP”);
  • Manny Freidman’s comment in The Times of Israel that “Jews own a whole freaking country” (including the media);
  •   this article in YNET about the extent of Jewish wealth;
  • an academic book by a Jewish professor on the role of Jews in getting celebration of Christmas out of the public square;
  • the predominant role of Jews and Jewish organizations in the gun control movement;
  • sociologist Earl Raab’s well-known comment from 1993 that Jews have taken the lead in altering American immigration policy against the bias in favor of Northwestern Europe  (see here, p. 246);
  • comments by Jewish social scientists and journalists on the vast overrepresentation of Jews in financial contributions to federal elections (e.g., in the 1990s Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab estimated that Jews provide 50% of the funding for the Democratic Party and J. J. Goldberg in his book Jewish Power estimated Jews contribute a third to a half of all money in federal elections);
  • the widely acknowledged power of the Israel Lobby over U.S. foreign policy.

Jews see their future in a world where their claims of Jewish superiority are met with mere acceptance or apathy from the White population. This is neatly summed up in the 1979 ADL-sponsored book Anti-Semitism in America (by Harold Quinley and Charles Glock; New York: The Free Press). The authors state (p. 2) in relation to accusations that Jews are a moneyed elite that “a majority of Jews are in fact moneyed in the sense of having above-average incomes.” The writer added (p. 2) that 97% of American respondents to a survey on this fact said they weren’t bothered by it because they attributed it to individual merit, rather than seeing Jews as a group. This is precisely the goal sought by organizations like the ADL. The ADL’s enmity is aroused when, as Quinley and Glock put it (p. 3), discussion of such facts goes “beyond a simple recognition.”

Indeed, this perspective on Jewish accomplishment was clearly articulated by the Frankfurt School’s Theodor Adorno in his discussion of the “Genuine Liberal” in The Authoritarian Personality.

The epitome of psychological health for the authors of The Authoritarian Personality is the individualist who is completely detached from all ingroups, including his or her family. … For Adorno the most laudable type … is “The Genuine Liberal,” whose “views regarding minorities are guided by the idea of the individual” (p. 782). The exemplar of a genuine liberal discussed in the text … believes that anti-Semitism is due to jealousy because Jews are smarter. This person is quite willing to allow completely free competition between Jews and gentiles: “We don’t want any competition. If they [Jews] want it they should have it. I don’t know if they are more intelligent, but if they are they should have it” (p. 782).

According to Adorno, then, psychologically healthy gentiles are unconcerned about being outcompeted by Jews and declining in social status. (See here, p. 187)

In the wake of The Authoritarian Personality, intellectuals such as Richard Hofstadter analyzed illiberal thought as a psychopathological expression of “status anxiety” by people who were overly concerned about being eclipsed socially and economically (see above link, p. 195). Concerns about Jewish ascendancy emanate from diseased minds.

In other words: It’s permissible to recognize above-average Jewish wealth and Jewish over-representation in the media, politics, etc. But accept it. If you question it, discuss it, debate it—and most especially if you discuss how Jewish power conflicts with the interests of other groups, you’ll be labeled an extremist and an anti-Semite. Whites are simply expected to recognize this fact and then ignore it and its implications.

The fact that we now live in a ‘liquid’ society, in which bonds between Whites are less solid than at any time in history, has had the knock-on effect of inhibiting the ability of Whites to perceive group strategies in others. The ‘default’ setting of White attitudes to outgroups has thus been fundamentally altered. In 1950, a White student reading Israel’s books may well have been instantly suspicious that Israel’s opinion of Spinoza was strongly colored by his own background and origins.

Today, on the other hand, White students are much more likely to view the Jewish background of all these scholars as merely incidental. Jews have come a long way in achieving one of their oldest goals – the invisibility of their group status. This can only be described as a remarkable achievement given the visible prevalence of Jewish lobbies, intellectual movements, and activist groups. Despite increasingly vocal and visible assertions of Jewish influence and wealth, the majority of Whites are now seemingly incapable of moving “beyond a simple recognition” of these facts. Of course, one cannot make sense of atomized facts without a corresponding appreciation of their place in a bigger picture, in which underlying principles, patterns, and relationships contextualize and explain them. From their youth, however, modern Whites have been educated to believe that probing patterns and contexts in relation to Jewish influence is at best esoteric and the result of obsession, and at worst the result of pathology and murderous hatred.

Jewish confidence is also rooted in the belief of leading Jewish intellectuals that the changes wrought in society, by critical theory in particular, are permanent. In some cases, these intellectuals have given accounts of Jewish motivations and influence which are only thinly veiled. For example, Zygmunt Bauman writing on the impact of Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno and Fromm in his Liquid Modernity (Blackwell; New York, 2000; p. 22) crowed that: “What has been cut apart cannot be glued back together. Abandon all hope of totality, future as well as past. … Neither the rerooting of the uprooted nor the ‘awakening of the people’ to the unfulfilled task of liberation is on the cards.”

Bauman can barely contain his delight that a cohesive ‘solid’ world has passed away—a world in which he believes (p.26) “all those presumed not to be or found to be malleable enough were doomed to perish of exhaustion or sent to gas chambers and crematoria.” He writes (p. 3) that due to critical theory “the first solids to be melted away and the first sacreds to be profaned were traditional loyalties, customary rights and obligations.” This was followed (p. 6) by a ‘melting’ of “family, class and neighborhood.” In one section which obviously refers to the Jewish interest in ‘open borders,’ Bauman writes (p.13) that “We are witnessing the revenge of nomadism over the principle of territoriality and settlement. In the fluid stage of modernity, the settled majority is ruled by the nomadic and exterritorial elite. Keeping the roads free for nomadic traffic and phasing out the remaining check-points has now become the meta-purpose of politics … which as Clausewitz originally declared, are but ‘extension of war by other means.'”

The media has played its part in providing the foundations for White acceptance of Jewish assertions of dominance, with portrayals of smart Jews saving the world etc. (e.g., Edmund Connolly’s article on Independence Day, as well as positive portrayals of Jews and Judaism and portrayals of people who have anti-Jewish attitudes as deranged and mentally inferior (see here, p. 53ff).

Whites are increasingly inclined to unthinkingly accept this narrative. Contrast this with attitudes in the 1950s: Jews simply wouldn’t have be able to get away with it; they had a lot less confidence in publicly expressing their dominance. Although crypsis as a strategy has not disappeared entirely, it has changed substantially from the pre-1960s period. The change in our social context is key to understanding the upsurge in Jewish confidence in asserting their dominance.

To sum up, a Jewish chauvinism is present in all of these movements, with the difference in modern efforts being a subtle change in emphasis brought about by a radically different social context. Only in a modern world which has in large part accepted “tolerance” “pluralism” and “secularity”, and in which Whites are fed daily the image of “Jewish genius” can the Spinoza advanced by Israel et al. acquire anything approaching a hero status. To a homogenous society, Spinoza would have appeared deplorable — as he did in his own lifetime, to Jew and non-Jew alike.

The difference in strategy employed by Freud/Boas and Popkin/Israel really illustrates just how radically our world has changed.

Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza, Part 3 of 3

/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

The Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza

Influenced by the sentiments of their own people, the majority of Jewish academics have long held and advanced a view of Spinoza strikingly at odds with that held by non-Jewish academics. Over time, however, the internal intellectual consistency and dedication of a core of Jewish academics has steadily worn away academic resistance to its objective of elevating Spinoza to a level of supreme importance, and the group is now closer than ever to achieving its goal of making Spinoza not merely a messianic figure for Jews, but a Jewish icon for non-Jews. Beginning in the 1930s with Harry Wolfson’s two-volume The Philosophy of Spinoza,[1] through the 1950s with Joseph Dunner’s Baruch Spinoza and Western Democracy[2] and Lewis Feuer’s Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism ,[3] the 1960s with Leon Roth’s Spinoza, Descartes, and Maimonides,[4] the 1970s with the many works of Richard Popkin,[5] the 1980s with Margaret Jacob’s The Radical Enlightenment  and Marjorie Glicksman Grene’s Spinoza and the Sciences,[6] and the early 2000s with Steven Nadler’s Spinoza: A Life[7] and his Spinoza’s Heresy: Immortality and the Jewish Mind,[8] there has been a concerted and persistent Jewish effort to reframe Spinoza as a product of purely Jewish thought, and to raise him to the summit of Enlightenment significance. Maurice Mandelbaum, Professor of Philosophy at The Johns Hopkins University, wrote in 1975 that he hoped to one day see the recognition of Spinoza as a major Enlightenment figure “flourish in the English-speaking world.”[9]

More recently, the pace of the effort has quickened and has been pushed with even greater intensity, bringing Mandelbaum’s dream ever closer to fruition. In the past four years alone we have seen the publication of  Jonathan Israel’s Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750,[10] Michael Mack’s Spinoza and the Specters of Modernity: The Hidden Enlightenment of Diversity from Spinoza to Freud,[11] Steven Nadler’s A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age,[12] and Rebecca Goldstein’s Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.[13] These books have been in addition to a huge number of academic articles. Nadler, Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, has been one of the most prolific activists in pushing Spinoza in scholarly journals.[14] There is a high level of consensus and intellectual consistency within this group, and its influence and success can be said to derive substantially from this solidarity and cohesion, the consistency of its message, the access the group has had to elite publishing outlets, and sympathetic reviews in influential journals and media channels. These are precisely the characteristics of all Jewish intellectual movements, including Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, radical political ideology, the Frankfurt School, the New York Intellectuals and neoconservatism.[15]
Read more

Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza, Part 2 of 3

/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

The Jewish Reclamation of Spinoza

To understand the shift in Jewish attitudes to Spinoza, one must take into account the birth of the concept of the ‘secular Jew,’ and the corresponding development of surrogate intellectual and cultural movements in which ‘Jewishness’ was divorced from Judaism and yet survived and thrived post partum. Prior to and throughout the Enlightenment, Jewry in the West remained separate and distinct in patterns of settlement, custom, language and dress. Judaism remained the only avenue for the expression of ‘Jewishness.’ Only at the end of the eighteenth century, as modernity began to encroach upon them, and “to remedy the inferiority of the Jews,” did Jewish intellectuals in Germany begin to make attempts to represent Judaism as an entirely rational belief system, and to justify the continued existence of Jews as a separate people.[1]

The earliest proponents of this attempt to reframe Judaism were a group of German Jewish intellectuals known as the maskilim, and they first began to rise to prominence, both inside and outside Jewry, in the 1780s. It is noteworthy that some of the earliest works produced by the maskilim, the most famous of whom was Moses Mendelssohn, were built around the reclamation of Spinoza. Mendelssohn was the author of Jerusalem (1783), probably the most important 18th-century text arguing the case for pluralism, and putting forth the contention that Judaism was compatible with the precepts of the Enlightenment.[2] Daniel Schwartz writes that Mendelssohn was also a “watershed figure”[3] in softening Spinoza’s image both for Jews and for non-Jews. He played a major role in overturning the prevailing apathy towards Spinoza’s works in the German Academy, and was pivotal in aiding Spinoza’s “integration into the canon of modern Western philosophy.”[4]

Although outwardly, Jewry appeared to be undergoing great change, at heart the real change it sought was in the non-Jewish world. Rather than adapt to modernity and wider society, Jewry sought a means of justifying its continued isolation. At first, the case that Judaism was inherently rational was argued by the maskilim, but it increasingly failed to convince non-Jewish intellectuals or the non-Jewish society as a whole. At the beginning of the 19th century, Jews were coming under intense scrutiny for their seeming unwillingness to enter the modern age. In the French Republic, Napoleon had halted moves towards the political emancipation of the Jews after hearing about extensive Jewish usury in the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Napoleon subsequently convened a ‘Grand Sanhedrin’ of notable Jews at Hotel de Ville in Paris in July 1806.[5] All of the twelve questions posed by Napoleon to the notables cut to the heart of Jewish group cohesion as being incompatible with the Enlightenment. They concerned, “Jewish clannishness, divided loyalties, intermarriage, and usury.”[6] Napoleon asked: “Has the law ordered that the Jews should only intermarry among themselves?” and “In the eyes of Jews are Frenchmen considered as brethren or strangers?”[7] Rather than tell the truth and abandon the push for political power for their group, the notables believed they could succeed through crypsis and resorted to evasion and lies, telling Napoleon among other things that “the law does not say that a Jewess cannot marry a Christian, nor a Jew a Christian woman; nor does it state that the Jews can only marry among themselves.”[8]

Napoleon took them at their word, even trusting the notables with the writing of reforms necessary to bring about the political emancipation of the Jews. As Esther Benbassa noted in her The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present, while the notables were willing to tinker slightly with religious organization, they utterly refused to move “on the questions of usury and exogamous marriage.”[9] Emancipation proceeded regardless.

In Germany too, the pressure was increasing. Schwartz writes: “Within German Idealism, it was more or less a consensus that while a reformed Christianity could serve as a basis, or at least a vehicle, for a modern religion of reason, Judaism could not provide such a foundation. As the religion of a single people, it was seen as intractably chauvinist and exclusive, and with its strict legal character, it seemed totally at odds with a modern ethos stressing human autonomy.”[10] For Hegel and others, there was a belief that Jews could be granted civil rights, but there was real doubt about whether Jews could long survive an encounter with modernity. Read more

The Misplaced Minister: Ireland and Israel’s Alan Shatter

/2 Comments/in , /by

For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims. 

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years. Read more