Immigration
Kevin MacDonald: I was going to blog on the recent news reports of Latino-Jewish ties, but I really can’t improve on Patrick Cleburne’s blog over at Vdare.com. A must read. Cleburne agrees with the Kvetcher that the real motivation is “the mutual goal of making the majority population a minority population. We need to all be ‘The Stranger.'” It’s obviously a goal that is radically opposed to the interests of White Americans.
Kevin MacDonald: The story of Bob Kellar, a city councilman in Santa Clarita, has been getting a lot of attention in Southern California. The LA Times (“’Proud racist’comment roils Santa Clarita”) describes the context:
The controversy stems from a Jan. 16 anti-immigration rally in Santa Clarita; Kellar spoke and referred to a statement by former President Theodore Roosevelt that the United States has a place for only one flag and one language.
Kellar said those remarks caused some people to accuse him of being racist to which he replied: If believing in America causes people to think he’s a racist, “then I’m a proud racist.”
What this really shows is that the left has a very low threshold for what constitutes racism among Whites. Advocating one flag and one language is not going to be enough to stave off White dispossession and is certainly not racist by any reasonable definition of the term. In this video interview, Kellar says “of course, I am not a racist. I am anything else but,” and then says he will continue to “do what’s right for all the people of this great nation.” Of course, the LA Time gets right in line by labeling Answer Coalition, the organization protesting Kellar, as “anti-racist.”
As the newspaper article makes clear, the focus is on illegal immigration, not immigration in general. Even opposition to illegal immigration becomes politically risky and likely to bring out aggressive protestors waving signs and pointing fingers. Advocating cultural assimilation becomes “racism” — the most deadly charge in contemporary American public life.
But of course, this tactic works. Politicians who value a peaceful life and good media coverage will certainly avoid talking like Bob Kellar.
What strikes me is the sheer aggression of the open borders crowd. In the past week my classes have been disrupted by student activists calling me a Nazi, claiming that I advocate genocide, and generally making life unpleasant. The reason for this renewed activism is my association with the American Third Position. This is a recording of Gustavo Arellano’s show on KPFK, January, 28. (KPFK-Radio Pacifica is a self-described “Progressive and Independent” station. Ironically, KPFK portrays itself as a staunch advocate of free speech.)
Arellano begins by baldly asserting that A3P and I advocate deportation of all non-Whites, including African Americans and every other group, legal or illegal, no matter how long they or their ancestors have been here. Not only that, he claims that A3P advocates suppression of all LBGT’s (lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender, for those not in the loop of leftist acronyms). (For the record, my position is that gays and other sexual minorities have ethnic interests just like everyone else). For these supposed crimes, he advocates that I be fired from my academic position.
This is the summary A3P statement on immigration:
To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands.
This reflects my views. Pretty clearly, it does not advocate a blanket deportation of non-Whites. There is nothing in it that can reasonably be labeled as racist. Deporting illegal aliens is the official policy of the US government and I really don’t know why anyone would oppose deporting criminal aliens. Further, I have no doubt that this statement reflects the views of a strong majority of White Americans — even though they and their political representatives are terrified to say so publicly.
It’s obvious that the activist left cares nothing for the truth or accurate depictions of the ideas of those who disagree with them. But as long as it is effective, they will doubtless continue to do it.
I can’t help but point out the obvious: people like Arellano are ethnic activists for their own people but they would deny me the right to act on my ethnic interests or even to identify as a European-American. He has a strong ethnic identity as a Mexican. (His column “Ask a Mexican” runs in the Orange County Weekly.)
I am not at all surprised that he wants the best for his people, including getting as many of them as possible to become US citizens and to pursue political power here.
But people like me have ethnic interests too. It’s not about hate. It’s about conflicts of interest over the ethnic composition of the country. And even though politicians like Bob Kellar shy away from explicitly asserting their ethnic interests, they are tapping into a growing rage among White Americans that their country is being taken away from them. At this point it’s not possible to see where this rage will lead, but it will certainly make for interesting times.
Kevin MacDonald: Charles Dodgson’s current TOO article “Stratfor’s Global Forecast: Myopia or Neoconservative Manipulation?” is a real eye-opener. I have often seen Stratfor’s forecasts distributed on email lists and other venues as representing objective, hardheaded analysis. Now it turns out that Stratfor is run by a strongly identified Jew who sees the world through a typical neoconservative Jewish lens — biased toward Israel. And, by emphasizing the benefits of immigration into Western countries but not the ethnic costs to Whites, Stratfor is an effective cheerleader for White dispossession in Europe and America.
Because they are tiny minority in Western societies, all successful Jewish intellectual and political movements must appeal to non-Jews. This has certainly been true of the Jewish movements of the left that dominate so much of contemporary thinking in the West. This is also true of neoconservative movements, and Dodgson’s analysis shows that Stratfor appeals to non-Jewish conservatives because it emphasizes national sovereignty and other hot button conservative issues. But, in the end, Stratfor is yet another illustration of neoconservative Jews reinforcing the fundamentally leftist, multicultural, anti-White status quo in the West while simultaneously advocating Jewish ethnic nationalism in Israel.
Ted Sallis: The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a new political party that purports to represent the interests of the white American majority. As such, it is a refreshing change from the standard Republicrat/Democan one-party system and gives hope that, finally, the political system can be used to further our specific group interests.
These are early days and one cannot make any definitive conclusions about A3P at this point. However, some progress has been made, and the party has put forth some initial positions on major issues, so it is worthwhile to examine these. Readers are urged to look at A3P’s program and policies. I have no major disagreement with their stance on crime, economy, education, etc. Instead, I would like to take a closer look at two of their major policy initiatives. Emphasis added to all quotes.
The following summarizes the party’s key positions on immigration:
To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands.
This is good – stopping the influx, deportation of illegals, and an end to the concept of “anything goes” birthright citizenship. Even more impressively, the possibility of repatriation of “recent, legal immigrants” is brought up – the only instance of an American political party raising the “R” issue. I would like even more – a more comprehensive repatriation program for example, but this is a good start. Also:
Immigration affects our culture. It affects the way we feel, act, and operate within a community. It affects whether or not we can have actual communities at all. It affects our welfare and livelihood in ways that are immeasurable, aside from the efforts we go to in protecting against it. Immigration erodes our culture and sense of identity. In cities where many cultures meet, there is an atmosphere of hostility. Neighborhoods become atomized, and a true community is never established.
True and good, but it’s not only culture. Not surprisingly, I would like to have seen a more explicitly Salterian mention of the actual physical, demographic, biological effects of immigration. They add:
While we accept that ethnic minorities are, and will always be, part of America, we want our will to be observed and exercised as it should be, and as it should have been. We have a right to sovereignty and to exercise our will as a people. We want an America that is recognizable to us, one that we can feel comfortable in. We believe that this desire is not unique to our nation or our own people, and we believe that all people’s have a right to sovereignty. Accordingly, we will stop all immigration into America, except in special cases. To help restore our national identity, we will offer generous grants to recent immigrants who have a desire to return to their countries of origin. While this can be easily repositioned by a media who is hostile to our people or to a political establishment who relies on recent immigrants for votes, we only mean to create a system of mutual benefit, where the wills of both parties are observed and respected, as they should be. Wherever a recent immigrant has a need to get back home but is without the resources to do as much, we will lend a helping hand.
I don’t know about the first set of phrases, but I understand that this party needs to navigate within the streams of the politically possible – for now – and that a too radical program at first may be difficult. A contrasting argument would be that it’s a mistake to start off too moderate. An initial moderate stance may “lock in” this moderation and prevent future shifts toward more radical positions since, having attracted a mass of more moderate supporters at the beginning, the party would be loathe to lose that support by shifting towards more radical solutions to the pressing problems of race, culture, and nation. Truth be told, I’m more supportive of the latter mindset – that it is better to lay your cards on the table at the beginning and build in depth with more revolutionary support. Of course, the assumption here is that the A3P leadership and I actually agree on these more radical ideals. It may be that our vision is not congruent, and that the party program is what it is because that’s what the party leaders want it to be. And, of course, A3P leadership has the right to formulate their own party’s positions as they see fit. I merely make suggestions and offer some contrary views.
The A3P also has an excellent position on space exploration.
This is important; I am a very strong supporter of space exploration (both manned and unmanned). This is part of Western Man’s Faustian soul, will yield important information and discoveries, and, hopefully, eventually lead to Western Man’s expansion into, and colonization of, space (assuming of course we are not first Third Worldized out of existence). That the A3P has included space exploration as a key part of their program is therefore encouraging and demonstrates a willingness to look at long-term objectives, and also the ability to look beyond the standard “right-wing fare” (immigration, economy, crime, etc.).
One point though is that they should go beyond space exploration and put together a broader position on overall science and Technology. In other words they should also: encourage the development of alternative and novel sources of energy, promote advances in biomedical research (which should include not only basic research and that aimed at disease therapeutics, but also research on race and eugenics), stimulate development of advanced computing, and encourage continued and expanded research into the fabric of the universe and of reality itself (e.g., astronomy and, especially, both theoretical and applied advanced physics, cosmology, etc). Further, Americans need to be in the lead of what can be called “global disaster abatement” – research aimed at investigating and, if possible, preventing asteroid strikes, super volcano eruptions, pandemics, environmental degradation, etc. While some of the latter may seem like “science fiction,” that is more a function of our limited knowledge and imagination than it is to any real limitation of the possibilities.
The A3P can also state an interest in Western cultural artifacts – an interest in opposing the current “Winter” of our High Culture, and its sewer-like degraded atmosphere, with a contrasting encouragement of Western cultural rebirth and the creation of a civilization that can make us, our ancestors, and our posterity proud.
In summary, there is some more work to be done and I hope that a bit of constructive criticism will be appreciated. However, all in all, A3P seems at this point to be a very positive development, and I wish them well.
A major concern is that the landscape of “movement” history is littered with the scattered remnants of past projects that, initially, looked promising and generated enthusiasm, but quickly petered out due to lack of progress and direction, infighting, the action of infiltrators and agent provocateurs, diminished interest of activists with short attention spans, and the ability of the establishment to use a variety of methods to thwart nationalist progress. We can hope that things will be different this time.
In doing some reading of Tom Watson’s writing on the Leo Frank case I came across an interesting comment on Haiti from 1915. (Watson was the only media figure who argued for Frank’s guilt and for the justice of Frank’s lynching.) Watson quotes a passage from a New Republic article on Frank’s lynching that illustrates the common perception of Haiti at the time. Like the rest of the mainstream media of the time, The New Republic was condemning the lynching of Leo Frank, comparing Georgia with Haiti, which is pretty much the worst thing you could say about a society:
A people which cannot preserve its legal fabric from violence is unfit for self-government. It belongs in the category of communities like Haiti, comunities which have to be supervised and protected by more civilized powers. Georgia is in that humiliating position today. If the Frank case is evidence of Georgia’s political development, then Georgia deserves to be known as the black sheep of the American Union.
In short, nothing much has changed in Haiti in 100 years. The only exception is the attitudes of the liberal media: The New Republic‘s liberal politics didn’t prevent it from attributing Haiti’s troubles to its lack of civilization.
The US occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see a de facto occupation again. Haiti is already on welfare — a “Republic of NGOs” where half the budget comes from foreign aid and 3000 NGOs operate most government services, including education and health care. (A search on Haiti and NGOs turns up lot of articles blaming Haiti’s problems on poorly managed charity or as a modern form of imperialism! See, e.g., here, here, and here.)
The other thing that has changed in 100 years is that now there is a very real danger is that Haitians will now be allowed to immigrate in huge numbers to the US. VDARE.com’s blog is an indispensable source of information on this. As Rob Sanchez writes, Haiti is about to become our Camp of the Saints. There are sure to be hundreds of thousands of orphaned children and others pulling at America’s heart strings. And as Patrick Cleburne notes, their neighbors in the Dominican Republic are not so stupid, but already there are calls for mass airlifts of Haitian children to the US. Will the first Black president in American history stop it. I rather doubt it.
But if there is a huge influx of Haitians, I do think that the great majority of Whites (apart from the Angelina Jolie types and professors in the humanities and social sciences) will recoil against it. It would be a politically risky move for an administration that already has little support among White Americans.
A friend sent along Steve Sailer’s review of historian Otis L. Graham’s Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future. Misleading title. American immigration policy was chosen. It just wasn’t chosen by the vast majority of the American people, and this is Graham’s point. As I have tried to show, it was chosen by the organized Jewish community and put into action as a result of Jewish political pressure and financial wherewithal. Graham notes that the successful immigration restriction of 1924 was seen by historians as one of the reforms of the Progressive Era’s campaign against the excesses of capitalism, since immigration lowered wages.
It’s fair to say, however, that Jews never saw it that way and there’s at least a fair amount of truth in the idea that the 1924 law was enacted to achieve an ethnic status quo that Jews saw as unfair to them. (Jewish immigrants were correctly seen by restrictionists as disproportionately involved in political radicalism, and it was generally a period of ethnic defense of White America.)
As Sailer’s review shows, Jews have not ceased seeing the 1924 law as exclusion of Jews. Graham points out that Jews live in the past when it comes to thinking about immigration: “the “filiopietistic” urge (“of or relating to an often excessive veneration of ancestors …”) is particularly strong among Jewish media figures. Italian-Americans, in contrast, tend to approach the immigration policy question by thinking about the future rather than by obsessing over the past. This anti-rational emotional reflex about immigration contributes to the kitschy quality of MSM discourse on the topic.”
In other words, Jews see the 1924 immigration law as part of their lachrymose history among Europeans, It’s just another example of irrational anti-Semitism — an example that warrants the evil nature of the people and culture who created it. Since, as Sailer notes, Jews constitute half of the most influential media figures, and since the other half are rigorously vetted to exclude anyone who opposes what amounts to the Jewish consensus on immigration, there really isn’t much real debate in the above-ground media.
Of course, there is a lot of self-censorship. Graham recounts the example of Theodore White, then the most influential journalist in America (and a Jew), refusing to publish his views on immigration. “‘My New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right [on immigration], but I can’t go public on this.’ ” Sailer quotes Graham:
Hearing White’s agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo [against immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public with his worries about the state of immigration. …
I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons. They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public policy in America.
In a nutshell, that’s the problem with Jews: They get what they want and what they want is not necessarily what others want (leading to conflicts of interest) or what is good for the country as a whole. It really wouldn’t matter if the only group that wanted open borders was African Americans. But it matters greatly that Jews do.
Incidentally, Otis Graham’s brother Hugh Davis Graham, agrees with me on the forces behind the 1965 law. He wrote in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):
Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
The TOO article on right-wing culturism reminds us once again that race and ethnicity are the true bogeymen of political discourse in the West. Stephen Pollard’s statement is particularly striking: “Mainstream Islam … is no more of a threat to Western society than the Quakers.”
This is nothing more than a gratuitous wave-of-the-hand gesture aimed at preempting all debate. No need to discuss whether a predominately Muslim England would compromise the interests of native Brits, whether it would lead to a society hopelessly fractured along ethnic and cultural lines, increased social alienation, chronic friction and jockeying for position by the different groups, etc.
According to Pollard, who is the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, England’s leading Jewish publication, anti-Muslim groups like the English Defense League “are racists who would expunge all who do not fit their supposedly native White Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of English society.”
“Supposedly native”? No one has a problem identifying indigenous peoples in any other culture in the world. No one would talk about the “supposedly native” Koreans or the “supposedly native” Native Americans. What is it about White people that they can’t be indigenous–even in Europe where they have existed for thousands of years? The mindset that questions whether Whites can be indigenous is the same mindset that questions the reality of race and ethnicity as biological realities — while nevertheless behaving as an ethnic activist within his ethnic group.
What animates someone like Pollard is a fear of any expression of White solidarity. The EDL is clearly doing its best to fit into the politically correct zeitgeist. It admits Blacks and it has shown no hostility toward Jews or Hindus. It’s pro-Israel stance is clearly an attempt to ingratiate itself with the powers that be — to no avail. The politically correct posturings of the EDL are not enough for Jewish activists like Pollard. The ideology of Western suicide is that Whites — and no one else, least of all Jews among whom the idea of Israel as a Jewish state is sacrosanct — must give up any attempt to defend themselves or their culture.
Pollard’s article is another example of how the organized Jewish community is attempting to manage White rage at their dispossession. As I noted previously in a comment on the American context, Jewish interests may suffer with the influx of masses of Muslims and other groups who are hostile to Israel or do not have any history of philo-Semitism. Nevertheless, Jews overwhelmingly continue to favor mass immigration because they “may well have a reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore.”
Similarly, the image of all those White people in the EDL protesting against Islam (even with a sprinkling of Blacks and waving Israeli flags) is troubling for Jews because such White people are not far from adopting an explicitly White racialist viewpoint. And when they do, they may well see that historically the organized Jewish community has indeed been a major force acting against White people and their interests. Based on its historical experience in Europe, what Jews fear most is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous White society with a confident sense of its identity and its interests.
The strategy is to continue to suppress and demonize any expression of White solidarity and opposition to White dispossession — even by organizations like the EDL who do everthing they can to ingratiate themselves with Jews.
So far it’s working. But the game is far from over.
