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

Jewish hypocrisy on immigration — again

/2 Comments/in /by

A theme at TOO is Jewish hypocrisy and double standards on various issues, particularly immigration (43 articles and counting). So it’s nice to see others noticing this rather large 800 lb. gorilla. The Irish Savant, “Ethics for me but not for thee”:

The heading and sub-heading from The Jewish Forward say it all.
‘Jews Unite Behind Push for Immigration Reform*: Ethics and Self-Interest Drive Unusual Nationwide Effort’

Well whatever about ethics, self-interest certainly.

The Savant suggests that immigration will improve the competitive position of Jews. I agree. I  would also add fear and loathing of White, European, Christian civilization, but there’s no question that Jewish activism has ultimately been about replacement of elites. For example, from “Memories of Madison” on VDARE:

But it was more than [fear and loathing]. It’s about displacement and domination. The displacement of the genteel white Protestant culture at Columbia that [Mark] Rudd hated is part of the general displacement of non-Jewish whites. Rudd doesn’t consider the fate of that other very influential group of leftist Jews—the Jewish radicals who fled the shtetls of Eastern Europe and, instead of going to Ellis Island, became dominant elite in the USSR after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. These Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors” mentioned above. Harvey Goldberg’s wet dream.

This group of Jewish radicals became an integral part of the machinery of mass murder and oppression in the USSR. In doing so, they displaced the older non-Jewish elites of Russians and Germans.

The Savant is quite aware of the hypocrisy:

Meanwhile half way across the globe lies a country closer than the USA to the hearts of those same ‘united Jews’. Here they have a dramatically different approach to ‘immigration reform’. Israel, according to the Interior Minister‘belongs to the white man’.  The horror! The horror! In fact  it’s a land reserved for an even more specific race.   They’re now bringing in DNA testing to ensure the Jewish racial purity of would-be Russian immigrants. Having already herded their black Untermenchen into concentration camps before turfing them back to the Dark Continent.

Yet those ‘united Jews’  seem to have no problem ‘ethically’ supporting immigration to the US while supporting Israel as it does the polar opposite.  The hypocrisy and chutzpah take the breath away. Which brings me back to the question above:  Will they get away with it? It seems incredible that they could – that anyone, in fact, could pull off such a blatant scam.  But they seem, as of now, to be doing just that.

It’s so obvious a 4-year old can figure it out. But the vast majority of well-informed Whites pretend not to know. And that is a real testimony to Jewish power in the media, the academic and the political world.

Large majority of Jews favor abortion—for non-Jews

/8 Comments/in , /by

In a footnote to Chapter 5 of Separation and Its Discontents, I  describe the work of Felix Theilhaber, a racial Zionist working in Germany in the early twentieth century. Like all racial Zionists, Thielhaber wanted to end Jewish intermarriage, increase Jewish fertility, and preserve Jewish racial purity. Theilhaber was very concerned about the declining Jewish birth rate and was politically active in attempting to increase Jewish fertility (going so far as to propose to tax “child-poor” families to support “child-rich” families). At the same time, he was also instrumental in creation of the Gesellschaft für Sexualreform, whose aims were to legalize abortion and make contraceptives available to the German public. (On the other hand, because they were ethnic nationalists, the National Socialists encouraged fertility and enacted laws that restricted abortion and discouraged birth control.)

Now an article on Mondoweiss by Allison Deger points out the hypocrisy of American Jews who simultaneously are staunch supporters of abortion in America but also support anti-abortion organizations in Israel (“‘Pro-Life? Pro-Israel?’: Israeli anti-abortion organization reaches out for US support to fight demographic war in the Jewish state“).

American Friends of Efrat, the U.S.-based fundraising arm of Efrat …, is an Israeli anti-abortion group with hundreds of volunteers that counsel Jewish women against abortion and provide support for the first year of the child’s life. While in the U.S. pro-life discourse focuses on morality, the American Friends of Efrat looks at abortion from a demographics perspective. Their advertisement for the Committee to Rescue Israeli Babies (C.R.I.B.) program … markets what they call an “inner aliyah,” or increasing Israel’s Jewish population not by flying in new immigrants, but by pumping up the birthrate via anti-abortion counseling and subsidies.

Though Efrat only assists women in Israel, the group has garnered support from inside the beltway through its American partner. Senator Chuck Schumer, a noted pro-choice champion who has used the issue of abortion to secure his New York Senate, attended a 30th anniversary gala for Efrat. Schumer has been lauded by Planned Parenthood who called him a “hero,” with “a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning voting record,” but in 2007 Schumer put his pro-choice position aside and joined his anti-abortion foes at the celebration. …

According to IRS 990 tax reports, the American Friends of Efrat pulls from mainstream foundations including matching donations from Deutsche Bank, The Goldman Sachs Foundation and the Prudential Foundation. But the heftiest sums come from the Jewish community. Despite the fact that 89% of American Jews support abortion rights, the Federation Foundation of Greater Philadelphia sent the group $100,000 in 2004 and 2006, while the Jewish Community Foundation of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles gave C.R.I.B. just over $5,000 in 2007 and $10,000 in 2008. In addition, the Madav IX Foundation, a charitable organization funded by Jewish family foundations but administered by the Jewish Federation of Cleveland, gave the C.R.I.B. program $10,000 in 2008. The Madav IX Foundation shares the same Ohio address of the Bennet and Donna Yanowitz Family Foundation that gave the C.R.I.B. program $2,000 in 2004 and $1,000 in 2007.am

To repeat: Chuck Schumer and 89% of American Jews support abortion rights in the U.S., but an anti-abortion rights organization in Israel has no problem attracting money from broad-based mainstream Jewish organizations as well as support from a Jewish politician like Schumer. An ad put out by the group illustrates the mindset:

Israel is currently fighting a demographic war for her survival. As we go to print Israel’s borders are in jeopardy. The Arab birthright [sic] is about double the Jewish birthrate. General Uzi Dayan speaking as the Director for the Council of National security announced: ‘Demographic projections forecast an Arab majority in Israel by the year 2020 less than 15 years from now.’

This feeds into a prominent theme on TOO: Jews in the West behave as a Diaspora group that sees its interests as opposed to the continued demographic dominance of the West’s traditional peoples and cultures. That means that the organized Jewish community and the great majority of Jews embrace the multicultural, pro-immigration, anti-White left in America and elsewhere while also embracing Israel as a Jewish ethnostate. And it means supporting policies like abortion on demand in the Diaspora, but not in an Israel intent on retaining its Jewish ethnic majority.

After posting this blog (and retracting it for further thought), a correspondent sent me the  following two points, which further  nail down the point that  in Israel, birth control all about ethnic interests, not religious belief or individual freedom. Then in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West, Jewish organizations and the vast majority of Jews favor abortion.

1. In Israel abortion is illegal for married woman of childbearing age (17 years to 40 years old). All abortions must be approved by a five member “Termination committee”.

“Abortion in Israel” Wikipedia article:

Circumstances under which abortion is legal
A termination committee approves abortions, under sub-section 316a,[1] in the following circumstances:

1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older than forty.
2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
3. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
4. Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

Thus Jewish organizations actively work for and support laws legalizing abortions in Christian European ethnic countries and societies but do not oppose or publicize the fact that Israeli law outlaws abortion for woman of childbearing age.

2. Ethiopian Jewish women were told that in order to be allowed on the plane to Israel they had to agree to take Depo Provera birth control shots, though they were not told that this is long term birth control. This got some publicity in the Israeli press (as an exposé) but was ignored by the Western media. Imagine if any White country had done this what a firestorm of publicity this would have gotten.

Here is a video about it:

As the correspondent implies, one story here is the double standard and hypocrisy involved in birth control issues in Israel vs. the Diaspora. The other  is the media silence in the U.S. reflecting Jewish power in the media. It’s easy enough to find articles on the Depo Provera scandal like the article in Haaretz linked above, but a search of the New York Times will come up with nothing. “All the  news that’s fit to print” and all that.

Eugene Girin on “The Evil Hypocrisy of the Jewish Establishment” in Australia

/2 Comments/in , /by
Leibler

Mark Leibler, Chairman of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council, Australia’s premier pro-Israel lobbying group

Eugene Girin (with whom I had an exchange on VDARE over my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century) has a nice column on “The Evil Hypocrisy of the Jewish Establishment” in Australia. It’s a theme that we have explored often at TOO—the gap between Jewish attitudes on immigration and multiculturalism in the Diaspora and Israel. A new government policy aimed at combating illegal immigration resulted in anguished cries of public Jews on the sufferings of illegal immigrants who would be barred from Australia. Girin highlights comments of Mark Leibler, a Zionist leader who has nothing but heartfelt sympathy for non-Whites who want to come to Australia:

Down this path lie vulnerable refugees fleeing persecution and, while deserving of our empathy, they are instead left degraded and dehumanized. As a person of Jewish faith, I have long understood what racism does to people.” sobbed Mark Leibler, the chairman of Australia’s pro-Israel lobbying group “Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council”
Note the implicit invocation of the Holocaust as resulting in a moral imperative to swamp Australia—a common Jewish tactic throughout the West. Girin gets it exactly right:

But what about Israel’s hardline policies on illegal immigrants, most of them from sub-Saharan Africa? The Netanyahu government, on whose behalf Leibler’s outfit so vociferously lobbies, banned remittances, sealed Israel’s border with Egypt, and started deporting the troublesome migrants.

Why aren’t the same Jewish leftists who wring their hands and go into hysterics about the policies of gentile leaders are either silent about or openly sympathetic to Bibi’s policies? Why can Israel adopt admirably strict measures against mass immigration, but predominantly gentile western societies have to swing open their doors and allow their nations to be flooded by Third World invaders?

The answer is that Jews do not have a universalist, principled sense of morality—another perennial topic at TOO. It’s about what is good for the Jews. Freed from a need for moral consistency, Jews simply adopt moral postures that suit their interests, conveyed with truly breathtaking displays of empathic concern for all immigrants — except non-Jews who want to go to Israel.

I mention Leibler because he has appeared several times in TOO. In  Brenton Sanderson’s “The War on White Australia, Part IV“, Leibler is discussed as an important leader against Pauline Hanson’s One Nation movement. And in Part V, he also notes that Leibler has been an activist on behalf of the Aborigines, again with the link to Jewish history: ““We’ve suffered 2,000 years of persecution and we understand what it is to be the underdog and to suffer from disadvantage.”
Then there’s my article “Mark Leibler: An exemplar of Jewish hypocrisy and self-deception” which discusses Leibler’s anti-White activism and his strong Zionist commitment, quoting from his biography:
Mark served for ten years as President of the Zionist Federation of Australia and for six years as the President of the United Israel Appeal of Australia. Internationally, Mark recently completed his term as Chairman of the World Board of Trustees of Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal, serves on the executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel, and holds office as a Governor of both Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa in Israel.
Israel’s immigration policies are never criticized. Just lots of crocodile tears for anyone in the world who wants to immigrate to Australia.

The Toughest job in Washington: Explaining U.S. policy toward Israel

/1 Comment/in , /by

I had to feel sorry for State Department spokesperson Marie Harf trying to explain U.S. reaction toward Israel’s in-your-face announcement of thousands of new housing units on the West Bank on the eve of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. The U.S. expressed its “serious concerns” and labeled the settlements “illegitimate” — at the same time claiming that Israel was negotiating in good faith.

In the first 20 minutes of this video Herf does her best to dodge the difficult questions and promises to get more information on issues like whether the U.S. considers settlements since 1967 illegitimate or just the recent ones.

The good news is that the atmosphere of the briefing was definitely hostile to Israel and to U.S. complicity in the ongoing dispossession of the Palestinians. Matthew Lee of the Associated Press was particularly incisive in his questioning.  Another reporter, Rosalind Jordan of Al Jazeera mentioned proposed train lines between Israeli settlements that would be closed to the Palestinians.

When you have talk of train lines being brought through to connect one settlement with another and not allowing people who live in between to board them, it… makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to say to their side you have to be patient, we’re trying to make this work– (see Philip Weiss, “Palestinians have to suck it up for segregated train lines and 4000 new settlements –reporters grill State Dep’t“

Apartheid by any other name, but not at all the first example of Israeli apartheid. Read more

The new immigration assault on White America: The hostile elite on steroids

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of  Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority. Read more

Review of Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy

/3 Comments/in , , , /by

Gottfried

War and Democracy
Paul Gottfried
London: Arktos Media, 2012; 167pp.
Available at Arktos Media and Amazon.

Paul Gottfried is an important voice on the right. War and Democracy, a collection of his essays published between 1975 and 2012, bears that out.

Dissident History

Perhaps what struck me the most is his grasp of history and his ability to use his knowledge to illuminate present issues and, especially to argue against currently fashionable interpretations that reinforce the hegemony of the left (including within the left everything from the radical left to the neoconservative right). For example, a review from 1975 of Fritz Stern’s The Failure of Illiberalism, describes the “refugee historical tradition” (presumably a reference to Jewish refugees from National Socialism) on German history as “bad theology”; its purposes are “to be an object lesson to foreigners and to serve as a means of contrition for Germans. … Any interpretation of the past that puts the Germans in a particularly bad light can expect an enthusiastic hearing among large segments of the American academic community”  (“History or Hysteria”).

Gottfried rejects much of the received wisdom on issues related to the German past. In “Germany’s War Wounds” he notes the hypocrisy of framing World War II as a moral crusade while ignoring the crimes against the German people. While England suffered around 21,000 civilian deaths from German bombing, over 600,000 German civilians died as their cities were bombed, with much of the carnage occurring after the war was effectively won and the cities were defenseless. Yet we have intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens stating that Germans who complain show “a combination of arrogance and self-pity tinged with anti-Semitism.” And politicians like former foreign minister Joschka Fischer, “an ostentatiously self-hating German who has published ten booklets to express his revulsion for his own country and his hope that it will soon disappear.” Read more

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

/5 Comments/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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