The Special Jewish Role in Passage of the 1965 Immigration Law: A Reply to Abraham Miller

I seem to be up to my eyeballs lately defending my writing on Jewish issues. In the wake of Nathan Cofnas’s attack on The Culture of Critique  (to which I responded here and here; note Cofnas does not dispute my scholarship on immigration), the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Abraham Miller, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. Miller:

Mr. MacDonald characterizes Jewish behavior in terms of the theory of group evolutionary psychology, based on competition among groups for resources and survival. Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions. White nationalists and supremacists embrace him, and he returns their affection. …

Mr. MacDonald claims that Jewish traits, such as high verbal intelligence and ethnocentrism, have evolved to the point that Jews, as a group, outcompete non-Jews at the expense of Christian majorities. He further argues that Jews are genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization. Intellectual movements such as multiculturalism and liberalism serve, in his view, to heighten Jewish advantage because a Christian majority mired in a multicultural society is less likely to foster anti-Semitism.

First, it’s not the case that “most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions.” It would be far more accurate to claim that my work is simply ignored, as I describe in my first reply to Cofnas. Secondly, I never claim that Jews are “genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization.” My view of group conflict is shaped by social identity theory in psychology, as described in my book Separation and Its Discontents. Social identity theory emphasizes the general human tendency to have positive attitudes toward ingroups and negative attitudes toward outgroups. Jewish attitudes toward Western civilization have been shaped in large part by their perceptions of persecution and, since the Enlightenment, their perception that they have been wrongfully excluded from positions of wealth and political power (e.g., the numerus clausus at Ivy League universities in the early twentieth century). Beginning with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, extending to medieval and post-medieval pogroms by Christians, and culminating in the Holocaust, the Jewish perception of their history in the West is one of persecution and exclusion. Individual Jews and Jewish organizations could change their attitudes at any time. For example, Jews could begin to realize that the contemporary liberal culture of the West is a better bet for their interests than importing millions of Muslims and Africans to the West. Obviously, there is no guarantee that the liberal culture of the West will survive this onslaught when the native peoples of the West become minorities in the the lands they have dominated for centuries and, in the case of Western Europe, for thousands of years.

It is true that Jewish communal organizations are major supporters of multiculturalism. Then again, so are most mainstream churches, on both sides of the papal divide. Christian communal groups loudly extol their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

But Jewish leadership was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the passage of the 1965 immigration law. Rather, a liberalizing wave had already swept the West in the decades after World War II, bringing an end to colonialism and informing U.S. competition with the Soviet Union. In this context, America’s 1924 immigration law, which favored Western European immigration, had become an international embarrassment.

My view is that Jewish organizations and Jewish academic activism were a necessary condition for passage of the 1965 immigration law, as discussed in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. The data I bring to bear on this issue leaves little doubt that Jewish organizations as well as restrictionists and anti-restrictionists in Congress understood that Jewish organizations had spearheaded the movement against the national origins provisions of the 1924 law and for opening up immigration to all the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations maintained their pressure over the 40 years since the passage of the 1924 law, often combating public apathy on the issue—in particular during the 1950s. Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, organized, funded, and performed most of the work of a variety of umbrella organizations aimed at combating restrictions on immigration (e.g., the National Liberal Immigration League; the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons; the National Commission on Immigration and Citizenship; the American Immigration Conference). The 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism. Finally, the “liberalizing wave” that resulted in the 1965 law was critically influenced by the other Jewish movements that are the focus of The Culture of Critique, as discussed below.

Miller mentions the role of Rep. Michael A. Feighan, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and a strong opponent of changing the 1924 law until he capitulated shortly before the 1965 law was passed. Miller implies that Feighan wanted an immigration policy that he knew would ultimately make the U.S. into a multi-racial, White minority society. As chairman of the subcommittee, Feighan did have a role in crafting the family-based immigration mechanism that has resulted in chain migration. However, it’s obvious that Feighan would not have advocated such a measure if he realized how such a policy would turn out after the national origins provisions were gutted and the numbers of non-European immigrants were dramatically increased by later legislation —  especially given his long record of opposing any changes in the 1924 law (see NPR: “In 1965 A Conservative Tried to Keep America White. His Plan Backfired“). Rep. Feighan could not foresee a future in which large numbers became the reality; this is quite likely due to the fact that the 1965 law was advertised by its proponents as not changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. by dramatically increasing the numbers of non-European immigrants. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 7, family-based immigration rather than skills-based immigration had always been promoted by Jewish activists in the immigration battles, at least since the 1920s.

Finally, since my chapter appeared, other scholars of the 1965 law have noted the critical role of Jewish organizations.

This is how Vanderbilt historian Hugh Davis Graham summarized it in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform, 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.

University of California-Santa Barbara historian Otis L. Graham, Jr., writing in 2005:

But American immigration policy in the postwar years attracted a small but growing body of opponents. The political core of a coalition pressing for a new, more “liberalized” policy regime was composed of ethnic lobbyists (“professional immigrant-handlers,” Rep. Francis Walter called them) claiming to speak for nationalities migrating prior to the National Origins Act of 1924, the most effective being Jews from central and eastern Europe who were deeply concerned with the rise of fascism and anti-semitism on the continent and eternally interested in haven. Unable by themselves to interest many politicians or the media in the settled issue of America’s immigration law, these groups hoped for new circumstances in which restrictions could be discredited and the old regime of open doors restored. The arrival of the Civil Rights Movement thrust (racial) “discrimination” into the center of national self-examination. The enemy everywhere at the bottom of virtually every national blemish seemed to be Discrimination, the historic, now intolerable subordinating classification of groups on the basis of inherited characteristics. The nation’s national origins-grounded immigration laws could not escape an assault by these reformist passions, and critics of the national origins system found the liberal wing of the Democratic Party receptive to their demand that immigration reform should be a part of the civil rights agenda.

Who would lead, and formulate what alternatives? Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on the issue in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was A Nation of Immigrants, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the racist, morally embarrassing national origins system. The little book was initially ignored, but its arguments would dominate the emerging debate.3 The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.4 John F. Kennedy was no crusader on immigration (or anything else), but he was an activist young President by 1961, comfortable with immigration reform as part of his agenda, elected on a party platform that pledged elimination of the national origins system.

The entire article is well worth reading. Notice in particular that he describes the motive for Jewish activism in the same way I did in my 1998 chapter: “The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.” Despite the high-flown rhetoric stemming from Jewish organizations, it was really all about ethnic defense by promoting a policy that would inevitably reduce the demographic, political, and cultural power of European-Americans.

Graham also notes that the passage of the 1965 law was greatly facilitated by the sea change in intellectual attitudes on race which stemmed ultimately from the academic activism of Boas and his followers as well as the other movements of the left discussed in previous chapters of The Culture of Critique. This is why in the beginning of my chapter I discuss the ideology of racial equality as being critical. From Chapter 7:

The ideology of racial equality was an important weapon on behalf of opening immigration up to all human groups. For example, in a 1951 statement to Congress, the AJCongress stated, “The findings of science must force even the most prejudiced among us to accept, as unqualifiedly as we do the law of gravity, that intelligence, morality and character, bear no relationship whatever to geography or place of birth.”[i] The statement went on to cite some of Boas’s popular writings on the subject as well as the writings of Boas’s protégé Ashley Montagu, perhaps the most visible opponent of the concept of race during this period.[ii] Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, theorized in the period immediately following World War II that humans are innately cooperative, but not innately aggressive, and there is a universal brotherhood among humans (see Shipman 1994, 159ff). In 1952 another Boas protégé, Margaret Mead, testified before the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953, 92) that “all human beings from all groups of people have the same potentialities. . . . Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that the people of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities.” Another witness stated that the executive board of the American Anthropological Association had unanimously endorsed the proposition that “[a]ll scientific evidence indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of acquiring or adapting to our civilization” (PCIN 1953, 93) (see Ch. 2 for a discussion of the success of the political efforts of the Boasians to dominate the American Anthropological Association). By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits (Cong. Rec., 111, 1965, 24469) could confidently announce to the Senate during the debate on the immigration bill that “both the dictates of our consciences as well as the precepts of sociologists tell us that immigration, as it exists in the national origins quota system, is wrong and without any basis in reason or fact for we know better than to say that one man is better than another because of the color of his skin.” The intellectual revolution and its translation into public policy had been completed.

My emphasis on the special, critical role of Jews and Jewish organizations in the passage of the 1965 law stands.

[i]. Statement of the American Jewish Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. March 6–April 9, 1951, 391.

[ii]. Statement of the American Jewish Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. March 6–April 9, 1951, 402–403.

Securing Our Future: The Wall & Border Security

One of the most foundational and principal tasks governments have had for over 2,000 years has been to secure and maintain its borders. The once great Western Roman Empire, spanning centuries, fell not because of a superior rival or total through war as so many others have. Rome fell as a result of barbarians slowly encroaching upon her borders. Border security has been discussed in the US for decades, and has seen even more feverish discussion since Donald Trump threw his hat into the political arena, bringing the issue to the forefront of the political landscape.

Something about the discussion of border policy and security always seemed somewhat disingenuous to me. There is an almost absurdity that creeps around the topic. A sort of dramatic irony lurking in the shadows, an irony I was never able to put into words. That is until I happened to stumble upon a documentary about strife in Africa where I saw something incredible — African warlords, with 60-year-old AK-47s, that are able to secure territorial borders, while the most well-funded military in human history cannot stop low-skilled Mexicans from invading the USA. This is, of course, a deliberate policy decision.

The US government as well as the governments of Europe are choosing not to enforce our borders. They are choosing to instead use our tax dollars to help fund the invasion. This raises several questions, what does our military actually defend, other than the government’s ability to replace the founding stock of the nation? How would a foreign occupation look any different? Men storming the gates, securing territory, installing their own people as government officials, murdering and raping the native population, and looting coffers. Every aspect of our lack of borders and immigration policy is far more akin to a nation being invaded by a hostile army, and less of a rational policy choice made by people with the concerns of their citizens in mind.

US citizens spend a little over $600 billion on the military, or an average of $12,000 per tax-paying household.[1] For that $600 billion what do we get? Around 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, 15% of which, about 193,000 are deployed overseas.[2] None of those people are protecting US borders, or the borders of our European cousins, for that matter.

I believe I have a plan that will actually work. The United States-Mexico border is less than 2,000 miles long. There are 1,760 yards in a mile. If we were to deploy an armed member of the US military every 100 yards along the border, it would take 35,200 people to line the border. Having soldiers take 8-hour shifts, it would require 105,600 soldiers to cover every 100 yards of the entire length of the US-Mexico border, just over half the number of military personnel that are actively deployed overseas right now. Read more

Review: The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglas Murray

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
Douglas Murray
Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017

I finished reading Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe just 24 hours before a Libyan Muslim detonated an explosive device at the exit of an arena in Manchester, sending arrows of shrapnel into dozens of concert-goers and confirming, in an instant, every one of Murray’s arguments. Timely, erudite, and needed, The Strange Death of Europe is the story of European cultural and racial ‘assisted suicide,’ with a focus on the effects of ongoing mass immigration from Africa, the Indian sub-continent, and the Middle East. This is a book that, in terms of its central arguments and pool of facts, will say nothing new to those on the Alt Right. In this movement we live our lives with the burden of truly painful knowledge. We know that our current course will lead only to dispossession and destruction. Everything about the contemporary world suggests that we are a generation born either to witness the end of our great race, or to orchestrate its most stunning and earth-shattering rebirth. This book offers nothing in terms of assisting the latter, but in terms of its contribution to an understanding of the former, its unique strength may be said to lie in the concise, compelling, and clear-headed manner in which it advances the thesis that multiculturalism is a death sentence on Europe. Murray’s book is a forceful refutation of the lie that we are ‘progressing’ to a better European future, taking the theme of impending European death to a mass audience, particularly in Britain where the book climbed to number three in both the Sunday Times and UK Amazon bestseller lists, and sold out in numerous branches of the country’s largest high street book merchant. Despite ubiquitous socio-political conditioning, there is clearly a hunger for dissenting speech.

Murray opens with the stark statement: “Europe is committing suicide,” soon refined into the more nuanced argument that Europe’s political leaders, together with a complicit media, are in the process of taking their populations down the road of ethnic and cultural annihilation. The apparent acquiescence of European populations in this diabolical journey is ascribed by Murray to a number of factors. Europe has lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy. It is in the midst of an “existential tiredness.” At the heart of this loss of direction and sense of self is the imposition of a cult of guilt — a cult that has grown weed-like from the fertile soil of Holocaust and slavery narratives advanced by the enemies of our people. Murray remarks that “More than any other continent or culture in the world today, Europe is now deeply weighed down with guilt for its past.” Read more

Two Cheers For Trump Advisor Mike Anton—He Has The Right Enemies

A major London bookmaker, Ladbrokes, has given odds of 11–10 that Trump will resign or be impeached — almost even money. Of course, this is not in the least surprising given that Trump is loathed by the entire Establishment, Left to Right and is now being victimized by “Deep State” operatives in the intelligence community installed by previous administrations.

In the grand scheme of things, Trump is something of a miracle. In his case, an oligarchic system designed to pick candidates who would continue what is in effect a bipartisan campaign against the Historic American Nation failed, spectacularly.

Much of the recent hysteria has focused on three high-level Presidential advisers to the president: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Mike Anton.

Anton, now the senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, has given the clearest indication of his attitudes. Written under the pseudonym of “Publius Decius Mus” (a Roman consul who sacrificed his life for the success of his troops) his September 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election” is in tune with Alt Right themes—with some important exceptions,.

Anton’s essay caused a stir on the Right, but it was pretty much ignored by the Left until he was unmasked by The Weekly Standard on February 2 [Decius Mus Unmasked] because of his usefulness in smearing the Trump administration. Since then, it’s been hysterical condemnation.

beautifullosersFundamentally, Anton claimed that Conservatism Inc. had completely failed because it refused to acknowledge that the long-term effects of importing a Third World population would be the end of conservatism. Conservatives Inc. types are “beautiful losers,” as Sam Francis described them — garnering huge sums of money but quite content with their sinecures while the movement as a whole is “headed off a cliff…The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation.”

Conservatives, according to Anton, are

the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Neocon and Conservative Inc. hostility toward Trump was that it was obvious to everyone what a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean—as Anton said, it would be

pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”

Read more

Claremont’s Codevilla On The Coming Revolution: “Americans Will Be Nostalgic For Donald Trump’s Moderation.”


Posted on Vdare, October 11, 2016, 11:06 pm

We are nearing the climax of a watershed election. The Ruling Class understands that Donald Trump represents a counter-revolution to all they have built up over the last 50 years. That emphatically includes GOP leaders like Speaker Paul Ryan, who hastened not merely to step on Trump’s bounce back in the second debate by announcing he was suspending support, but is signaling he will continue to damage Trump as much as possible [Inside Ryan’s decision to (almost) dump Trump| The speaker might still fully rescind his endorsement before Nov. 8, sources told POLITICO, by Jakee Sherman and John Bresnahan, Politico, October 11, 2016]

This phenomenon has inspired an important essay from Angelo M. Codevilla, a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute and emeritus professor of International Relations at Boston University, After the Republic. [Claremont Review,September 27, 2016]. Codevilla’s basic idea: the cultural revolution of the last 50 years has destroyed America as a constitutional republic. As many on the Alt Right have noted, there is nothing left to conserve. The question now is where our post-republic period will take us. Codevilla [Email him] writes

Because Republicans largely agree with Democrats that they need not take seriously the founders’ Constitution, today’s American regime is now what Max Weber had called the Tsarist regime on the eve of the Revolution: “fake constitutionalism.” Because such fakery is self-discrediting and removes anyone’s obligation to restrain his passions, it is a harbinger of revolution and of imperial power. [Emphasis added]

This is why we see repeated crazy comparisons of Trump to Hitler—most recently, This New York Times ‘Hitler’ review sure reads like a thinly disguised Trump comparison. [By Aaron Blake, Washington Post, September 28, 2016] Despite absolutely no statements from Trump suggesting that he would suspend the Constitution and assume dictatorial powers, the concern is lurking that, like Hitler, he would do just that.

Read more

Rape Jihad: Dark Days for Europe (Part 1 of 2)


Consider these questions:

Do you help to solve the migrant rape crisis in Europe by eating pork, growing beards, and parading round the streets in miniskirts when you’re a man? Does it make sense to give “flirtation lessons” to the same migrants who are sexually assaulting European women in ever increasing numbers? Is it wise to help hostile migrants to “integrate” by giving them target-practice training, turning them into first-class snipers?

These are some of the more surrealistic aspects of the migrant rape crisis in Europe which I hope to cover in this 2-part essay.


ANGELA MERKEL, dressed in a Muslim headscarf — the woman most often blamed for the migrant crisis in Europe

Consumed with Holocaust guilt and possessed by the demons of pathological altruism, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has handed over her country to the endless hordes of the Third World. “Let them come . . . we can look after them all,” she murmurs serenely, echoing the words of the altruists all over Europe bearing placards that scream: “REFUGEES WELCOME!”

Merkel is an interesting case history: the guilt-ridden, traumatized leader of a deeply traumatized nation. Her way of handling the migrant crisis in Germany is not so much a stupendous example of pathological altruism at work as a symbolic act of self-flagellation on behalf of the German people, all of them engaged in varying degrees of self-flagellation over the Holocaust.

“The culture of the Holocaust is destroying Germany, ” Brenton Sanderson notes in a thought-provoking 3-part article in the Occidental Observer. “Endlessly reinforced over decades by the intellectual and media elite, the notion that Germans and their descendants are responsible for “the single most evil event in human history” has had such a demoralizing effect that millions fully support Angela Merkel’s current attempt to destroy the ethnic basis of their nation.”

To understand  these words is to grasp the root cause of Germany’s suicidal approach to the migrant crisis. Letting Germany be destroyed, the entire ethnic basis of the nation expunged, can be seen for what it is: a collective act of atonement for the Holocaust. Read more

White Births Matter

All births matter — and White births are holding steady. While the end game is anyone’s guess, new data makes mincemeat of the old propaganda narrative that Whites in the United States face inevitable demise in the near future.  This particular propaganda line–churned out by our brutal anti-White elite on a daily basis — is increasingly untenable.

The final data for the year 2014 has just been published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Births: Final Data for 2014.” [1] It shows a continuation of trends that have tracked falling total fertility rates for Black, Hispanic and Native Americans. The demographic data for these groups continue to show a steady erosion. White and Asian total fertility rates are up, with the Asian total fertility rate showing remarkable volatility, but still showing significant decline over a multi-year period.

Keep in mind that total fertility rates estimate the number of children per women over a woman’s lifetime. A total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 is considered replacement rate. Also keep in mind that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) includes the peoples of the Middle East and the Subcontinent as White.  This will not greatly affect the figures for non-Hispanic White because — while data are difficult to attain for these groups — Indians in the United States are known to have a birthrate significantly below Whites and East Asians, and the birth rate of Middle Eastern peoples in Europe and North America is only slightly above replacement.  Given the modest numbers of both these groups in the United States (though growing), and the lower Indian total fertility rate, the data amalgamated under the Non-Hispanic White category is an largely accurate measure of European-American TFR. Read more