Immigration

Ted Sallis on Jewish genetics

/52 Comments/in , , , , /by

Ted Sallis’s current TOO article makes a number of important points.

First, the fact that Jews are most closely related to Northern Italians does not imply that this was due to conversion in the ancient world. He points out that “the relatively greater similarity of Jews to southern rather than central/eastern Europeans may also to some extent reflect the greater Neolithic ancestry in the southern European groups that is shared by various Jewish groups as one component of their ancestry.”

In other words, the similarity may be due to simple geographic closeness. The similarity may be due to similarities that long pre-date the Jewish Diaspora in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity. This then suggests that my doubts about large-scale conversions to Judaism in the ancient world may be well-founded after all.

Further, the fact that there is very little similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Eastern and Central Europeans indicates that Ashkenazi Jews remained separate from these populations for hundreds of years.

Sallis also points out that there are technical problems with the PCA analysis — the analysis with the pretty picture showing genetic distances. Such pictures are beguiling and doubtless represent the take-home message for most people. The picture suggests that Ashkenazi Jews (ASH) are more closely related to Northern Italians than to Iranian or Iraqi Jews. But this is not actually the case. In fact, Gil Atzmon explicitly denies it here.

But the IBD (Identical By Descent) analysis provides a very clear picture indicating very close relatedness among Jewish groups. IBD analysis compares gene sequences that are similar or completely identical because they descend from a common ancestor.

As Sallis notes, “this is a strong demonstration of the common origins and very close genetic connections among these groups.” Indeed, twelve of the thirteen comparisons with the highest degree of sharing are between Jewish groups. (The red bars in Part A of the figure represent comparisons of  Jews with other Jewish groups.) This analysis shows that Ashkenazi Jews (ASH in the figure) are substantially more closely related to all other Jewish groups than to any non-Jewish group, including the Northern Italians.

Finally, Sallis makes the important point that

when it comes to Jewish populations and the relatively small genetic distance separating Jews from both Europeans and Middle Easterners, “academics” (particularly Jewish scientists) and the media (as well as Jewish ethnic organizations) have no problem in stressing the genetic uniqueness of Jews and that this uniqueness stamps them as a separate and distinct biological/ethnic entity.However, when it comes to the objectively larger genetic gulf that separates Europeans from, say, Africans or Asians, why, that’s only an “illusion,” there is “no biological basis for race,” “we are all the same,” and “there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.”The contrast in attitude could not be greater.

Indeed, the Forward has an editorial based on the Atzmon et al. article titled “We are one genetically.” They clearly see the data as a wake-up call for Jews to preserve their genetic heritage:

In an age when exclusivity is frowned upon and multiculturalism prized, some Jews may celebrate if the genetic distinctions fade away and are replaced by a more pluralistic definition of who we are — or at least, who our genes say we are. But breaking down the cultural and religious isolation that has characterized Jewish life since ancient times also contains risks. Science tells us that we have, indeed, been one people. Will we remain so?

Well, the only people whose exclusivity is frowned on are White Europeans. But the sad reality is that Jews will continue to attempt to have their cake and eat it too on the issue of concern for genetic continuity as they have on all the other issues related to multiculturalism and Israel: Support for massive non-White immigration and opposition to White identity and interests in America and other Western societies while supporting an ethnonationalist, apartheid state in Israel and taking steps to ensure Jewish genetic continuity in the Diaspora.

Again, it’s worth remembering that a major motivation of the Jabotinsky faction of racial Zionists that now rules Israel was to prevent genetic assimilation that they saw going on the Diaspora. (See Ch. 5 of Separation and Its Discontents, p. 152ff.) They succeeded in their aims.

The ethnonationalist aspirations of Europeans are no less legitimate.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Spinning Illegal Immigration: How the Anti-White Media Does It

/24 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: ABC News’ report on Arizona’s latest illegal immigration legislation is juicy example of extreme anti-white bias in the MSM. Correspondent “Huma Khan” loads up five — count ’em, five — anti-legislation sources:  two Hispanic women who feel aggrieved, a spokesman for MALDEF, another spokesman whose group is described as seeking “comprehensive immigration reform”, and no less than Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles.

Were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter busy?  Mark Potok taking a cigarette break?
 
Against this phalanx is the lonely state rep who wrote the bill.
 
Khan’s description of a “national uproar” against the bill is based on calls to the governor’s office, though it’s doubtful how well this reflects America’ mood.
 
Khan does not seek out the opinion of any “man on the street” who’s for the bill.  She does not speak to any (real) immigration reform spokespeople.  She does not speak to the family of the murdered rancher.  She doesn’t talk to Peter Brimelow.  She doesn’t talk to the Pinal County Sheriff.  She doesn’t talk to Dan Stein or Julie Kirchner.  No recent poll data on America’s opinions of illegal immigration.

Bookmark and Share

 
But she gives Cardinal Mahony a platform to call the bill a “Nazi” law.
 
Let me note the obvious.  “Huma Khan”  is outraged by efforts to restrict immigration.  She personally hopes there’s a “national uproar” against the bill, which sets the template for her account.  She can’t imagine anyone but evil White racists supporting the bill.  As a non-White woman, she feels a particularly acute duty to save the legions of Hispanics illegally in Arizona from detection.  She imagines herself winning journalism awards for her sensitive hand-holding of the poor illegals.  And she’ll do what she can from her MSM post to kill the bill.
 
Huma Khan’s presence in this country and her writing for ABC News are yet another example of Whites’ worsening prospects in multi-racial America.  As Huma Khan’s vision becomes reality, more police die.  More ranchers are shot.  More White-earned tax dollars are handed over to illegals.
 
And she will not be telling that story.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him

Bookmark and Share

Bill Clinton hints at desire to see anti-government speech restricted

/26 Comments/in , , /by

Political elites, especially among the liberals, are beginning to be quite worried about the White rage they see all around them. A good indication of the hysteria is that Joe Klein of TIME wants Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin indicted for inciting sedition, and John Heilemann of New York magazine adds Rush Limbaugh to the list.

Bill Clinton is doing his part. In an interview with CNN pundit and former AIPAC lobbyist Wolf Blitzer, Clinton was not shy about expressing his dislike of the Tea Parties, and he hinted at his desire for tougher speech restrictions. Referring to the Oklahoma City bombing, Blitzer said “the hatred that Timothy McVeigh … had … , there are plenty of people like that right now” — to which Clinton replied “lot’s of them.” Blitzer said that there were many websites advocating “hate” and Clinton replied with silly platitudes about how the Internet can be used to learn how to make a bomb. The former president added that “websites are easily accessible and you can be highly selective and spend all of your time with people that are, you know, kind of out there with you” (emphasis mine).

Clinton noted that the Tea Party debate had to be kept “within the limits that the framers [of the Constitution] intended.” These kinds of mantras are designed to appeal to the attachment of Americans to the Constitution, even though the country has evolved in ways that would have been unthinkable to the framers. Needless to say, Clinton couldn’t care less about the original framers of the Constitution.

He added that “beyond the law there is no freedom, we can’t have violence or the advocacy of violence and we got to be careful when we get close to that, particularly if we’re in positions of influence.” Translation: The nightmare of the current regime is that respected, intelligent, influential people would begin questioning the legitimacy of the government.

Clinton tries to conflate the Tea Party movement with the Oklahoma City bombing:

By and large in the last fifty years, well at least since the early 70s, […] by and large these [problems] have been systematically coming out of the far right. Again I think that all those folks have a place in our political debate, we just have to know where to draw the line, and we have enough threats against the president, enough threats against the Congress that we should be sensitive to it. The 15th anniversary of Oklahoma City, I’m not trying to draw a total parallel, I’m just saying that we should be aware of this.  This is a vast echo chamber this internet, [in which] some are serious, some are delirious, some are connected, some are unhinged.

He then worried about “what certain words might do to people who are less stable.”

Of course, we know full well that politically-motivated violence is overwhelmingly committed by the Left. Exhibit A is the cancellation of the recent American Renaissance conference due to heavy harassment by leftist fanatics, which included death threats and led to cancellations by four different hotels. As Jared Taylor lamented, the story received no coverage from the mainstream American media, and law enforcement yawned. Leftist and minority activists are never prevented from meeting by conservatives.

In another interview with the New York Times, Clinton referred to Rep. Michele Bachmann who called the Obama administration “the gangster government” at a Tea Party rally. He said: “They are not gangsters, they were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

Clinton and the rest of the liberal elites who control the media want business as usual:  polite political debate and wait for the next election. But for many of the tea partiers it’s beyond all that. They feel themselves abused and dispossessed. There is a desperation and intensity in the air.

This is an administration that crammed health care down the nation’s throat despite majority opposition. It is now poised to once again flout the majority by making citizens of the millions of non-White illegal immigrants and their relatives. In a situation like this, is it any wonder that people are questioning its legitimacy? Gangsters indeed!

Clinton is carefully and implicitly voicing his support for the banning of certain forms of speech that he sees as threatening the legitimacy of the ruling regime. Of course he feels personally threatened by the recent outbursts of rage coming from a large segment of the population. He knows he has contributed greatly to transforming the country and alienating them. He is a sought-after speaker — paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech and drawing thousands who buy their hundred-dollar tickets to see him deliver one platitude after another. The media paints him as a brilliant, warm-hearted guy who was a good and fair president. He obviously has a lot to lose in any movement that strongly criticizes a ruling regime that lavishes money and glory upon him. He is clever in dropping here and there a catch phrase like “you can attack the politics, criticize their policies [but] don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

The reason he carefully weighs his views is that he knows a majority of Americans are still deeply attached to the First Amendment and opposing it too directly and without nuances would be ill-perceived by many. Between the lines, he is advocating eventual hate speech legislation and considerable extension of government powers to muzzle people who challenge them.

William Davis (email him) is a freelance writer.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: The Mohawk Settlement: Some Justice For Whites

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Christoper Donovan: At VDare.com, I see that the class action plaintiffs in the Mohawk RICO suit have settled for $18 million.  Attorney Howard Foster’s idea was that by hiring so many illegal aliens, carpet giant Mohawk depressed the wages of American citizens working for the company.  This was a creative legal strategy, a nice victory, and the type of suit that benefits Whites (for the most part — one plaintiff was herself a legal Hispanic).  With a recovery of $250 per worker, the suit was largely symbolic, but it should make big companies think twice about brazen mass hiring of illegals.

In reading the account, I was surprised at what had happened to a Mohawk employee who made complaints while the suit was pending.  Norman Carpenter (not sure if he’s White, but I assume so) went to management about the number of illegal aliens working for the company.  In response, a Hispanic lawyer for the company was dispatched to meet with him — and allegedly threatened him with termination if he kept complaining about illegals.  But Carpenter kept talking, and he was fired.  That turned into a wrongful termination claim, in which Foster sought the deposition of the lawyer, Juan Morillo.  Interestingly, new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has let stand a decision that Morillo be deposed (perhaps she angled for the opinion in the hopes that it would cast her in an independent light).

I would be interested to see what happens to Morillo, whose career got a nice boost from networking with co-ethnics and clerking for a Hispanic judge.  No doubt he felt tingly flexing his prestigious legal muscles in defense of his race, but he’s run into a bit of a problem:  the whistleblower laws.

If Hollywood weren’t run by Jews, a character like Morillo would make for a great movie villain:  a self-satisfied minority fat cat whose trajectory screams “affirmative action” and who makes big bucks representing huge companies and bullying work-a-day Whites who toil in carpet factories, only to be brought low by a scrappy attorney who had justice on his side.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Jerry Kammer: The SPLC depends on Jewish donors

/26 Comments/in , , /by

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a report by Jerry Kammer on the $PLC’s involvement in pro-immigration activism, its ties to La Raza, and its financial dependence on Jewish donors. Because the SPLC is able to get it’s messages into the media, its claim that FAIR is a “hate group” has been endlessly repeated in the media and touted by pro-immigration activists. Advocates then note that other groups on the SPLC hate list include the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the Aryan Nations.

The point, of course, is to remove all restrictionist arguments from having any public credibility — whatever their factual basis. Journalist Laird Wilcox is quoted “The SPLC has exploited the patina of the old civil rights movement. And this has a mesmerizing effect on people, especially reporters who are naturally attracted to heroic images of racial struggles and stark contrasts of good vs. evil. I’ve been astounded at how many of the SPLC’s claims have gone unchallenged.”

Kammer is careful to oppose any hint that ethnically based arguments have any validity. He notes that the pro-immigration group America’s Voice features a quote from FAIR founder John Tanton in its ads: “As WHITES see their POWER and CONTROL over their lives DECLINING, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an EXPLOSION” (emphasis from America’s Voice). Such a statement does appear on the face of it to be a claim that there is a huge ethnic angle to the immigration debate — not that there is anything wrong with that. This indeed is the big issue. Pro-immigration forces have been running roughshod over the interests and feelings of the White majority for decades, and I do believe that eventually there will be an explosion if the legitimate interests of Whites continue to be trampled on.

Kammer contextualizes Tanton’s statement as questioning the ability of non-Whites to assimilate into America and therefore absolves him of “racism.” And he notes that FAIR has tended to frame its arguments in economic terms — that immigration hurts American workers, while the SPLC, despite its supposed championing of Black causes, is remarkably unconcerned about the effects of immigration on American Blacks. In my view, that’s because the SPLC is heavily allied with and funded by Jewish ethnic interests in maximizing non-White immigration from all non-White groups. Indeed, Kammer notes that “A former SPLC employee told the Montgomery Advertiser that the donor base was ‘anchored by wealthy Jewish contributors on the East and West coasts’ ”

As I have said before, until White ethnic interests are legitimized, we are fighting this race war against Whites without our most potent weapon. As Kammer shows, activists like Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok have no trouble at all denying fact-based arguments on the economic effects of immigration. It’s just like the IQ debate in the media. Facts are always trumped by politics, non-White ethnic interests, and propaganda.

Until people can openly talk about the fact that the SPLC is a de facto Jewish activist organization promoting Jewish ethnic interests and that individual SPLC activists like Beirich and Potok have an ethnic interest in non-White immigration and work overtime to demonize White expressions of their ethnic interest, we can’t win the fight on immigration.

Kammer also does a great job on the slimy,sociopathic Morris Dees. Dees is not Jewish, but he has often acted as if he is Jewish — what one might term a “crypto-gentile”:

While Dees was raised a Southern Baptist, he suggested to some donors that he had a more diverse background. For example, in a 1985 fundraising pitch for funds to protect SPLC staff from threats of Klan violence, Dees made conspicuous use of his middle name — Seligman, which he received in honor of a family friend. A former SPLC attorney told The Progressive magazine that Dees signed letters with his middle name in mailings to zip codes that had many Jewish residents.

For Dees, it’s all about the money, and when it comes to donations to the SPLC, Dees is quite obviously aware that (falsely) advertizing his Jewish connections and hiring highly visible Jews like Beirich and Potok are excellent strategies.

Because the Jewish donor base is so critical, the SPLC appeals to “hate” rather than trying to make life better for poor people:

Ripping the SPLC as “puffed up crusaders,” [JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in The Nation]: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s. Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.”

Jews fund the left in America, and that certainly includes the SPLC. Jews who contribute to leftist causes do so for typically Jewish motives — fear and loathing of the White majority, not compassion for poor people. The rhetoric of  helping poor people may be used if it aids in the larger anti-White agenda but is completely ignored when, as in the case of immigration policy, it does not. What’s good for the Jews and all that.

Kammer does a great job showing the ethnic commitments of La Raza — its rhetoric of anti-White hatred, quoting a La Raza honoree as having said “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”Kammer notes, “If FAIR adopted the SPLC’s diversionary tactics — probing for sinister motives rather than debating policy concerns — it would steer every conversation and refer every reporter to such statements, and it would demand to know why La Raza continues to cling to a name that derives from the ‘raza cosmica’ concept, which is explicitly based in the racist and eugenicist theories of its author.”

Of course, La Raza’s motives are not really sinister, but plain old ethnic competition suffused with hatred over historical grievances. The problem is that White people have not yet awakened to the reality that this is a race war.

Finally, Kammer does seem to acknowledge that it is legitimate for Whites to ponder the effects of immigration on them as Whites:

In her accusatory video for the “Stop the Hate” campaign, Beirich explains that the SPLC has also branded [FAIR’s magazine The Social Contract] as a hate group “because it puts out things like an issue on Europhobia and how white people are being destroyed by immigrants coming here.”142

This is another example of the SPLC’s habitual descent into hysteria and distortion. The allegedly hateful issue is actually a complaint against the hostility that multiculturalism is alleged to be fomenting against Americans of European descent. The offending essay expressed the fear that as the hostility spreads, “European-Americans will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps physical danger.”143

This fear may be unreasonable, but it should certainly be open to consideration and discussion. It is precisely the sort of fear that — when expressed by minority groups who relate their own experiences with bigotry — occupies much of the attention of the SPLC’s “Teaching Tolerance” project. To put it kindly, it seems strange for Beirich to put the “hate group” tag on a publication that provides a forum for people to express their fear of being hated as they ponder demographic trends that are moving them toward minority status by mid-century.

Of course, the fear is not at all unreasonable, especially when so many non-White ethnic activists — Jews, Latinos, and Blacks — have not been at all shy about their hatred. Any ethnic group that voluntarily agrees to its own demise is foolish, but hugely more so when the people that are displacing them harbor such hatreds.

Bookmark and Share

Thomas Dalton on Carrying Capacity

/38 Comments/in , /by

Thomas Dalton’s current TOO article “Environment, Immigration, and Population Reduction“ reflects an intellectual movement that was for some time centered around the academic journal Population and Environment, especially when it was edited by Virginia Abernethy and later by me. The basic idea is that in the long run the human population will have to be scaled back in order to come into line with Earth’s carrying capacity.

An immediate implication of this perspective is that countries like the United States would have to institute an immigration moratorium. As things stand now, all predictions are for a massive increase in US population by 2050, almost entirely due to immigration. The figure accompanying the article, from a paper by two academics, David Pimentel of Cornell and Mario Giampiettro of the University of Rome, projects a US population of 520 million by 2050 if current increases of 1.1% per year are maintained.

Recently Lindsey Grant, another major figure in this movement, has distributed a new paper on this topic. He notes that the population restriction movement gained some traction in the 1970s but declined thereafter, and that recently the US State Department commented that “The U.S. does not endorse population ‘stabilization’ or ‘control.’” There is absolutely no discussion of reduction of legal immigration despite high levels of unemployment and wages that have been stagnant for a generation. Instead, as the LA Times reports today, the Obama administration and its Congressional allies are gearing up to legalize illegal immigrants, a policy that will hugely inflate US population as these people bring their relatives here.

Grant also points to economic realities: “The past 35 years have been a period of soaring incomes for the wealthy, stagnant hourly wages for most people, income differentials rising to levels that a humane observer would call obscene.” Rising commodity prices of the last few years are a harbinger of scarcity. Unemployment is increasing: “To keep up with population growth in those two years, we should have added about 1.2 million jobs, rather than losing nearly nine million. The “good” months are those when the job loss slows down. January was a ‘good’ month; only 22,000 jobs disappeared. What kind of recovery is that?” (For February, the loss was 36,000, a report that was greeted as encouraging by the Obama administration.) On the basis of US Labor Department statistics, he points out that the real unemployment level is 16.8 percent of the labor force, and much higher for minorities and youth.

One could say much else about the economic irrationality of current immigration policy.  In attempting to explain why there are no attempts to have a population policy, he points to five reasons:

First, the national addiction to growth and the dream of rising prosperity. Second, the political fears of alienating Hispanic voters, business, and their allies by tackling immigration levels. Third, the increased assertiveness of interest groups that oppose governmental population policies on principle (such as the Vatican) or, like the feminists at Cairo, do not want population policy advocates diverting attention from their priorities, or who oppose governmental involvement in women’s decisions about child bearing. Fourth, the defection of most of the U.S. environmental movement from population advocacy, for fear of losing support from the people I have just described, or from immigration advocates. Fifth, the present confrontational climate in Washington, which dictates that politicians avoid any positions that might lose votes.

I think this is basically right. A population policy that included an immigration moratorium flies in the face powerful ethnic and economic interests, as well as a deeply embedded view of perpetual expansion that is very common across the political spectrum.

Of course, I would add a prominent role for Jewish ethnic interests in leading and funding the pro-immigration movement as well as providing support for immigration among media and academic elites. (It’s amazing that it’s okay to mention Catholics, Latinos, feminists and business interests but would never mention the role of Jewish ethnic interests.) A notorious example related to environmental and population policy is David Gelbaum’s $100 million donation to the Sierra Club on condition that they not oppose immigration. As Gelbaum famously said to the president of the Sierra Club, “”I did tell [Sierra Club President] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

It’s interesting that the global warming hysteria did manage to recruit the backing of elites in government and business without offending the coalition of interests promoting a head-in-the-sands policy on population. (Headline you won’t see: Al Gore Proposes Immigration Moratorium To Combat Global Warming.) After all, one could argue that a good way for the US to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to lower its population, especially since, as Dalton points out, the US has such a large ecological footprint. Immigrants coming to the US will typically have a larger footprint than if they had stayed at home, and, as Virginia Abernethy has point out many times, this increase in prosperity is typically accompanied by increased fertility — Life is good compared to what you grew up with. Have babies. At present, Latino fertility is 50% higher than White, non-Latino fertility.

Nevertheless, global warming became a pillar of the left — even though the data supporting it are iffy at best and even though dealing with global warming requires the same sort of long range planning and drastic social changes also entailed by taking carrying capacity seriously. All told, it’s a nice comment on where the power is.

As a result, as things stand now, in 2050, not only will the US have a minority White population, it will have a population that is well beyond sustainability. Ethnic conflict will increase in multicultural, White-minority America even in the absence of sustainability issues. But the conflict will be even more intense as resources diminish and humans are forced to find ways to reduce population. As always, conflict will center around ethnic identities. It’s not going to be pretty.

Bookmark and Share

The Kvetcher, the ADL, and David Duke

/55 Comments/in , , , , /by

Patrick Cleburne over at VDARE.com has done a great job publicizing the Kvetcher’s comments on the enthusiasm of the organized Jewish community for displacing Whites. The oddity here is that Kvetcher is not only Jewish but rather blatantly Jewish.  Kvetcher gets it — he understands that people who advocate for Whites have absolutely normal human concerns about their future and that the ADL and the HIAS are pushing a hostile and aggressive Jewish ethnic agenda that should be abhorrent to every White person in America.

The ADL advertizes this quote from Duke as symptomatic of Duke’s vicious hatred:

As America is transformed from a 90 percent European American nation, as it was in the 1960s, to one where we will soon be a minority, should we not ask some pertinent questions? Is this racial diversity enriching, or will it be damaging to our social fabric?

The Kvetcher writes:

How is this not a good question? What does this say about the ADL and its donors that they cite this as a proof of how evil David Duke is?

Is this about “fighting anti-semitism,” or is this about the ADL’s attempt to smear anyone who questions the ADL’s fanatical goal of a white minority (as soon as possible) as a white supremacist?

Exactly. For the ADL, David Duke is the supreme bogeyman. The very first move that Jewish activists (including the ADL’s Abe Foxman) made in their campaign to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt was to solicit Duke’s approval of their writing — and Duke’s approval was then dutifully published throughout the mainstream media, from the Washington Post to the New York Sun and the Wall Street Journal.

It’s simply ridiculous to go after Duke because he deplores the fact that a powerful set of interests like the organized Jewish community has a fanatical goal of displacing Whites. But using Duke is doubtless very effective as a fundraising tool for the ADL and the $PLC.

The pathetic thing is that we get excited when we find a Jew who has the temerity to stand up to his own community on an issue like immigration, much less race. Non-Jews are well aware of the very powerful forces that will come down on them if they advocate for the interests of Whites or defend anything that Duke has ever said. The vast majority of Whites tremble at the very thought of challenging anything the ADL says for fear of being branded a racist or anti-Semite and then having to wonder if they will have a job next week. Kvetcher presumably doesn’t have to worry about that.

It’s good that the Kvetcher is writing like this, but he obviously has a very long way to go to really change things in the organized Jewish community.

Bookmark and Share