Jewish Double Standards on Immigration and Multiculturalism in Israel vs. the Diaspora

Roche Trap: A Tribalist Lets Slip the Truth

A Spectre is haunting the Unz Review — the spectre of a highly ethnocentric Jewish commenter called Tyrion 2. He possesses all of Kevin MacDonald’s “background traits for Jewish activism,” from ethnocentrism and intelligence to aggressiveness and psychological intensity. With shameless disregard for facts and logic, he assails any criticism of Jews at the Unz Review, arguing aggressively and incessantly that no Jew anywhere has ever done or said anything harmful to non-Jewish interests.

Trap for a Tribalist

As you might expect, Tyrion 2 has been busy on re-prints of my own articles at the Unz Review. For example, he denies that the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche had any true responsibility for the massive increase in Third-World immigration under Tony Blair’s New Labour government. Here is his defence of Roche: “She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years. As to her motivations in upholding the party line of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott, I don’t know (upholding the party line as a junior minister? keeping her job?).”

Anyone who reads my article “Roche Motel Revisited: The Comfort of an Atomized Society” will learn how far Tyrion 2’s assertions are from the truth. However, I thought that he wouldn’t bother attacking the re-print of my article “Liberals vs. Mother Nature” at the Unz Review. After all, the article is about India, Freddie Mercury and AIDS, not about the Jewish corruption of Western politics. I was wrong. Tyrion 2 seized on one small reference to Jews in the article – and entered a Roche trap:

Yes, both Jews and Parsis have been overachievers and yes, as you point out, Parsis were not as singled out for dislike as Jews [were] but Parsis lived in super diverse India and Jews lived in much more homogenous [sic] Europe. (Comment of 8th December 2018 on the re-print of “Liberals vs. Mother Nature” at the Unz Review)

Diversity is Good for Jews

Tyrion 2 is making the classic Jewish argument that racially and religiously mixed societies are safer for Jews than homogeneous ones. According to him, in “super diverse India” (in fact, not-so diverse Gujarat), Parsis didn’t stand out and so didn’t suffer persecution and expulsions as Jews did in “much more homogenous Europe.” And guess what? Tyrion 2 is thinking exactly like Barbara Roche:

Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche wasn’t acting on her own when she became immigration minister and opened Britain’s borders to Somalis and other low-IQ, high-criminality Third-Worlders. She was collaborating with other Jews to make Britain a more “comfortable” place for Jews. And since she left office, she has continued to campaign for open borders and for more anti-White bureaucracy:

Tony Blair should promote the benefits of legal immigration to Britain, and “not back off” from plans to create a super equalities commission, Barbara Roche, the former equalities minister, has urged. … The child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother, Ms Roche has reason for her feelings on immigration. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.” (Roche urges Labour to promote the benefits of legal migration, The Independent, 24th June 2003)

Migration maniac Barbara Roche

In fact, Barbara Roche is neither English nor British. How could she be, when “being Jewish informs [her] totally”? For her and for other powerful Jews in the West, a term like “British” or “French” or “American” is merely geographic. That’s why she was so eager to flood Britain with low-IQ Third-Worlders, re-shaping its demographics in a way that, while inflicting huge harm and expense on native British Whites, allowed her to “feel comfortable” while sipping “her cup of Americano coffee” at Euston station. Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: Colin Tatz and the Genocide Charge—PART TWO

Professor Colin Tatz

Go to Part 1

Colin Tatz is a stereotypical Jewish intellectual activist whose mindset is characterized by an intense ethnocentrism and an equally intense hostility to the traditional people and culture of the West. He reflexively subjects White people and Western societies to radical critique while exempting Jews from any equivalent evaluation. Identifying with, and taking great pride in the Jewish penchant for critiquing Western societies, Tatz claims that “Whatever else, I am a ‘product’ of Lasswell, of Cecil Roth and his notion that Jews (or some Jews) are the eternal protest-ants, of the doctrine of the Jewish Sages about tikkun olam. It is a synonym for social action, a conscious manipulating of skills to be proactive rather than reflective or contemplative.”[1]

Cecil Roth, a Jewish historian, had argued “Jewish intellectualism” was primarily about “protesting at the insufficiency of the status quo.” Tatz agrees, and points to “a Jewish existential value which asserts that history has taught us that whatever is, no matter what it is, it is not good enough—hence the moral dictate of tikkun olam, that one is compelled to try to repair a flawed world.”[2] Of course, for “fiercely argumentative” Jews like Tatz, a “flawed world” is any world where Jewish interests are not forever prioritized. Tatz claims that “My activism is motivated by both personal and societal alienation,” and the “inner dynamic of my life, the foremost factor, is my version and interpretation of my Jewishness.” He notes that a “related if not conjoined propulsion” is “a lifelong devotion to matters of race and racism.”[3]

Tatz makes no pretense of Jewishness being anything but an essentially biological phenomenon. Despite being an avowed atheist he remains a proud Jew, declaring his “unshakeable admiration, even a veneration for what I call Jewishness,” observing how “I remain within even while lacking faith, ritual, observance or any sense of Covenant.”[4] For Tatz, Jews comprise an easily identifiable ethnic type characterized by “body mannerisms, the shrugs, distains, the ever-present deprecatory and interrogative tenses of body and voice.”[5]

Tatz is a descendent of the Litvaks, the Jews from Lithuania who, prior to their recent mass exodus from post-Apartheid South Africa to countries like Britain and Australia, made up ninety per cent of that country’s 120,000 Jews. According to Tatz, Lithuanian Jews were “economically forlorn and politically intimidated” and left Lithuania in “hordes” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the majority landing in England, the United States and South Africa. He notes that “In South Africa I learned to live in a Lithuanian communitas, a transposed shtetl world of like-minded, like-speaking, like-behaving people. It was a society in transition from Tsarist oppression to a semi-welcomed ethnic minority moving into modernity.”[6] The hyper-ethnocentric mentality of South Africa’s Lithuanian Jews was encapsulated in “daily pontification about the Jewish-goyishe divide” and his grandfather’s refrain that “The worst of ours are better than the best of theirs.”[7]

During World War II the South African government officially supported the Allies, with Prime Minister Jan Smuts appointed to Britain’s war cabinet. Despite this, most Afrikaners backed the Germans, and Tatz claims his childhood in South Africa in the 1940s was dominated by awareness of “a raging world war, civil strife between the pro- and anti-war forces, between English- and Afrikaans-speakers for political power, violent anti-Semitism in a country rife with fascist movements, the seeming calamity for Jews when the Nationalist Party came to power in the late 1940s, the fear of rising racial tensions of the 1940s, 1950s and beyond.”[8] Tatz claims to still be haunted by “domains that are oppressively black and cruelly white; and me, not quite a crowd—Jewish, alienated, migratory, and deeply troubled by food.” Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 1 of 4


The Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is the Australian equivalent of America’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations fall under the umbrella of B’nai B’rith International which holds NGO status at the United Nations. The stated mission of the ADC is to make Australia “a better place” by fighting “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” and combatting “the defamation of the Jewish people and Israel.” Describing itself as a “harm prevention charity,” the ADC claims to be dedicated to “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism.” But despite its pious pretentions to universal benevolence, the ADC, like countless other Jewish activist organizations around the world, exists to promote the ethnic interests of Jews. The “harm” this organization is determined to prevent is any harm to these perceived interests.

Regarding the plethora of Jewish activist organizations in the United States, the Jewish academic and journalist Adam Garfinkle has observed:

The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.

We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests. … In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from the broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added][1]

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the ADC for non-Jewish consumption, the interests of Jews are not the same as those of the broader Australian community, particularly the White Australian community. While the ADC — whose motto is “Promoting Diversity” — pretends that all conflicting group interests can be reconciled through “education” and “mutual understanding,” the interests of different racial and religious groups are often fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. The group evolutionary interests of White Australians are absolutely harmed by the mass importation of non-Whites into the country — compounded by ideological commitments by state and federal governments to “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Read more

Jews and Immigration: Time for Change

Our country and its Jewish intelligentsia are currently torn by a debate about immigration. On one side the Trump administration is trying to pass executive orders limiting immigration from particular, though certainly not all, Muslim-majority countries while also deporting people — largely from Mexico or Central America — who are in the US illegally.

On the other side are activist judges shutting down these executive orders and what seems like the entire constellation of journalists, pundits and activists in the country decrying these moves. From looking at the writers of many op-ed pieces or from looking through Jewish publications such as Forward, it is clear that Jews are disproportionately lobbying in favor of immigration and against deportation or immigration restrictions. Jewish organizations ostensibly formed to lobby for Jewish interests are on the side of resettling more Muslim refugees. Some voices on this side go so far as to call for “open borders” as in a recent piece in Salon. Most of the left has long decried the idea of White interests or White rights as being inherently racist in a way that Black rights or Latino interests aren’t. See for instance David Aaronovitch’s recent op-ed “Defending ‘white interests’ can never be right” in the Financial Times.

I think Jews are on the wrong side of this debate, and have been for decades. Countries are not arbitrary designations on a map; and borders are not imaginary lines. Countries are defined by their people, and borders generally demarcate necessary walls between peoples. Good fences make good neighbors, as the saying goes. Globalization and mass immigration result in what amounts to demographic invasion. It is natural for host populations to resist this being forced upon them.

The Jewish support for so-called “immigrant rights” is supposed to be rooted in the Jewish experience of diaspora and constant movement. Being exiled from our home in ancient times, we should feel sympathy with others who need to leave their homes in modern times. Jews have prospered in America because it is a multicultural society with such a rainbow of peoples that no true majority exists, or will soon, if current demographic trends continue.

I think Jews should be looking at this in another way. Read more

How to Cure a White Zombie: Ants, Crabbs and Societal Control

If grovelling ever becomes an Olympic sport, Britain has a potential world-beater ready and waiting. He’s called Stephen Crabb, and he was a minister in David Cameron’s Tory government. Here he is displaying his skills before an appreciative audience at Finchley Synagogue in London:

Israeli Independence Day: Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb leads UK celebrations

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions addressed over 1000 people at the service at Finchley Synagogue, organised by youth organisation Bnei Akiva, as Israel’s Remembrance Day (Yom Hazikaron) led into Israeli Independence Day (Yom Haatzmaut). Mr Crabb began: “The remarkable sense of fellowship and unity felt in Israel, and in Jewish communities all around the world, as we remember those who have given their lives in the defence of Israel, is something truly beautiful and inspirational.”

He went on to describe Israel on Remembrance Day as “a country united as one to remember their fallen.” The former Wales Secretary said that “the need for a Jewish state remains as crucial now as it was in 1948”, and that the British Government “does not take the safety of the Jewish people for granted.” He said that on Israel’s 68th birthday, “we recall that this relatively young country – young but with deep ancient roots – has endured so much. It has also achieved so much.” …

The Minister, who visited Israel for the first time in 2007 with CFI, said that, as a Christian, he has “always felt a very close affinity with the Holy Land”. “At a time when the Christian population of the Middle East is in steep decline due to systematic and sustained persecution, Israel continues to be a place where Christians are welcomed and feel safe,” he said. …

Mr Crabb referred to the “repugnant rise in anti-Semitism both in Europe and here in the UK”, describing it as representing “a stain on our nation”. He said: “I want to reassure you that this government has an unequivocal zero-tolerance approach to this racist ideology. We need to make it clear that anti-Semitism, whether it is expressed through the pernicious illiberal boycotts and sanctions bandwagon; through pouring out hate on twitter; or through any other means, is totally unacceptable.”

He emphasised that “we should in particular hold those in public life to the highest standards on this.” The UK’s Jewish community, Mr Crabb said, “is, unquestionably, part of the fabric of our society and the contribution of Jewish people in business, in media, in politics, in culture, in all parts of our national life, has been truly immense.”  (Israeli Independence Day: Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb leads UK celebrations, Conservative Friends of Israel website, 12th May 2016)

Read more

Jewish activists urge aid to refugees: Is it good for the Jews?

Because of the executive order by President Trump (what a great feeling to write that!) closing down the refugee industry from seven predominantly Muslim countries, there is an entirely expected outcry from the usual suspects. Quite often the argument reverts to events in the 1930s in which Jewish refugees were prevented from entering the U.S. This article, originally posted in September, 2015, provides some context on those events. The fact that he signed the EO on Holocaust Remembrance Day was particularly galling.

Make no mistake. Pres. Trump is embarking on a revolutionary path here. By banning several (but not all) predominantly Muslim countries, the order avoids the accusation that it is discriminating against a religion. But that will count for exactly zero in how this is perceived by the media and the left generally. In fact, this is about Muslim immigration and that is enough to send the establishment into absolute hysteria.  The idea of any limitation on immigration to the West by a particular racial/ethnic or religious group is completely at odds with the ideology of multiculturalism and diversity, the “we’re all the same” mantra, and the ideology that Western countries are “proposition nations” committed only to abstract ideas like “freedom” and “democracy,” with no ethnic or religious content. This ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectual movements at least since World War II—a theme of The Culture of Critique. It has been internalized across the elite spectrum—by Republicans and Democrats, Jews and non-Jews alike — so much so that political figures like Chuck Schumer can confidently assert that the executive order goes against the entire grain of American history: “a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon.”

Either Sen. Schumer failed American History 101 or he is lying through his teeth, probably the latter. The idea that “American values” include importing tens of millions of people from different cultures, many with values hostile to America and the West, is a post-1965 creation of the media intent on redefining what it is to be American, nothing more. Until then, U.S. immigration law clearly and unapologetically favored the traditional European majority. Like every non-European country, we were intent on preserving our people and culture.

From the Left’s point of view, this is the beginning of the Battle of Armageddon. I think that a lot of the anger and frustration following Trump’s victory was that the endgame was in sight. Another presidency, either by Hillary or by one of the many Republican cuckservatives who ran against Trump, would have pretty much sealed the deal. The much hoped-for Hillary landslide would have ensured the passage of “Gang of Eight”-type immigration legislation, amnesty for illegals, and endless “refugees.” And a Republican Jeb Bush-type presidency would likely have overcome GOP resistance to the same. The demographic transformation would have been solidified yet further.

It’s very late in the day for a complete turnaround. But Trump’s first week has exceeded expectations. And he is unlikely to be dissuaded by the moral chorus from the media condemning his actions. He’s already well aware that the media is the “opposition party,” as Steve Bannon phrased it.

To be sure, there is much unfinished business, beginning with ending birthright citizenship (probably best put off until after another Supreme Court appointment or two), ending DACA. And the Holy Grail: Repealing the 1965 immigration act.


There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees. One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the US and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.

Indeed, there is no question that Jews were under intense pressure during the 1930s that went well beyond the U.S. In 1936 Chaim Weizmann observed that “the world seems to be divided into two parts—those places where the Jew cannot live, and those where they cannot enter” [1]. Anti-Semitism was pervasive. Jewish pressure groups acknowledged the role of anti-Semitism in motivating the rejection of Jews by, for example, couching pro-refugee advertising in universalist terms and not mentioning that the refugees would be Jews. Read more

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (5): Would Trump’s Defeat Be Blamed On Jews?

donaldtrumpataipac

Posted at Vdare.com

See previous articles in this series.

Almost exactly a year ago, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow raised the question of whether America’s Jewish groups would turn on Donald Trump (who after all has Jewish grandchildren and a lifetime of Jewish business associates) with the hysteria they employed against Patrick J. Buchanan. I have been tracking the matter ever since and the answer is now in: yes—clearly triggered by visceral reaction against Trump’s nationalist acceptance speech in Cleveland and outright panic at his subsequent poll lead (July 25-29 according to the Real Clear Politics average). I suspect, however, that we have crossed a watershed and that, regardless of the results of this election, this will not end well for them.

Before the convention, Wall Street Journal Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens [Email him] said with astonishing arrogance: “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents—this kind of ethnic quote, ‘conservatism,’ or populism be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson…” WSJs Bret Stephens: Trump Must Lose So Badly That the GOP Voters ‘Learn Their Lesson’, by Sam Reisman, Mediaite, May 29 2016.

Just on Friday, Paul Krugman [Email him] writing in the New York Times continued the now-widespread theme: any expression of ethnic identity by America’s whites, no matter how implicit, was “bigoted” and “white nationalist”:

Recently Avik Roy, a leading Republican health-policy expert, had the personal and moral courage to admit what liberals (and political scientists) have been saying for years: “In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that top Republicans were or are personally bigoted—but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they were willing to curry favor with bigots in the service of tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation. Remember, Mitt Romney eagerly accepted a Trump endorsement in 2012, knowing full well that he was welcoming a racist conspiracy theorist into his camp.

All that has happened this year is a move of those white nationalists from part of the supporting cast to a starring role.

Pieces of Silver, August 12, 2016 (links in original)

Read more