Jewish Support for Multiculturalism

Jews Are Rewarding Black Criminality

“Seeking justice for these serious offenses was complicated by violations to the Racial Justice Act.”
D.A. Diana Becton

 “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” Thus spoke Brandi Griffin, the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins, 22, who was shot dead on March 9, 2021, in what police allege was a gang-related drive-by shooting in Contra Costa, California. Hawkins was Black, as were the four defendants charged with his murder — Keyshawn McGee, Trent Allen, Eric Windom and Terryonn Pugh. The shooting, during which over 40 shots were fired from one vehicle into another, was allegedly part of a long-running feud between two East Bay gangs, and the arrests of the men were heralded by East Bay law enforcement as a meaningful step toward reducing gun and gang violence in the area. The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. Evidence was overwhelming and everything about the case seemed straightforward. That is, until California’s new Racial Justice Act and accusations of institutional racism became the centerpiece of the entire investigation, prompting the outburst that opens this essay.

The Racial Justice Act 2020

On February 5, Judge David Goldstein, a former public defender and past chair of the Diversity/Bench-Bar Outreach committee, removed all gang enhancements that could have resulted in life without parole sentences for the four men charged with the murder on the basis that the case was tainted by racism.  It was the second time Goldstein ruled that anti-Black bias had shaped elements of the case, and by the time it was concluded, he’d also removed special circumstance allegations and firearm enhancements. Facing radically reduced sentences and charges, all four defendants quickly made no contest to the charges and the case was brought to a sudden end. Goldstein’s actions, which follow the introduction of California’s Racial Justice Act, essentially set a precedent for a two-tiered justice system in which non-Whites can have aggravating factors in their criminal behavior, often the defining factor of the crime itself (e.g. gang motivation), ignored in court. The very concept of justice is therefore made subservient to a new need to protect non-White criminals and, in the longer term, to ensure they spend less time behind bars.

The idea for a Racial Justice Act was first introduced in 2019 by California state assembly member Marc Levine, former Chairman of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and current Regional Director of ADL Central Pacific. In 2015, Levine already exhibited his Jewish activist credentials when he contributed to a legislative package titled “Immigrants Shape California.” He drafted legislation providing $3 million in legal aid for undocumented immigrants, and publicly announced “immigrants are welcome and we will do everything we can to help them achieve legal status.” In 2019, with “AB 1798, the California Racial Justice Act,” Levine proposed that death penalty sentences on non-White criminals be postponed until it was determined “if race resulted in a sentence of capital punishment.” Levine’s bill failed, but he re-emerged as co-author of a more expansive proposal a year later, along with Jewish assembly members Scott Weiner and Laura Friedman, and several non-White assembly members.

Marc Levine

The new bill, which was later signed into law as the Racial Justice Act 2020, marked a radical departure from legal precedent set by McClesky vs Kemp (1986), in which it was established that in order to challenge a charge or conviction, a defendant must “prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose” and cannot for example rely solely on statistical studies that he alleges show “institutional racism” or discrimination more broadly. In 1978, Warren McCleskey, a Black man, was convicted of armed robbery and murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Following the jury’s recommendation, the court sentenced McCleskey to death. His appeal eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. His primary claim was that “the Georgia capital sentencing process is administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” To support his claim, McCleskey offered a statistical study that showed racial disparities in death penalty sentencing in Georgia (but without any qualitative evidence that may have shown the presence of more aggravating factors in the murders committed by Blacks).

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and rejected his claim, holding that a criminal defendant alleging an equal protection violation must not only prove there was purposeful discrimination, but that the purposeful discrimination had a discriminatory effect on him. The Court found that McCleskey offered “no evidence specific to his own case that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence.” This decision effectively denied a defendant’s ability to use statistical evidence of racial disparities related to but not directly involving their case to establish an equal protection violation. The decision in McClesky vs Kemp, for example, meant that although statistical evidence could show Blacks to be incarcerated for gang violence at a higher rate than Whites, this was irrelevant to whether the individual in a given case was a gang member and certainly not grounds for a more lenient sentence.

One of the most prominent legal critics of McClesky vs Kemp is Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and founding member of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. Chemerinsky, who provided much of the intellectual basis for the revision of McClesky, has accused the Supreme Court of a “dismal record on issues of race throughout American history. The Court enforced the institution of slavery, upheld “separate but equal,” and consistently failed to deal with systemic racism and racial inequalities.” Chemerinsky alleged that McClesky set an almost impossible evidential standard for a defendant to prove racism was involved in his prosecution, and called for a much wider basis for challenging a case in which racism “may” have played a part.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Borrowing from the initial activism of Marc Levine, and incorporating the critique devised by Erwin Chemerinsky, the Racial Justice Act 2020, allowed racial data, and related concepts of “institutional racism” and unconscious bias, to be brought into the criminal justice arena. As one commentary describes it, the RJA “dramatically expand the ways a defendant can show discrimination. Under the RJA, defendants in California no longer need to prove intentional discrimination in their case to bring a claim of racial bias, as McCleskey required. Instead, defendants can now establish racial bias by relying on statistical data showing racial disparities in the charging, conviction, or sentencing process of other defendants who share their race.”

It allows judges to discount any evidence if it appears to be based on racial bias. In Contra Costa, David Goldstein said there was a “significant statistical disparity,” which shows “gang charges are more often filed against Black people.” He said he used data from prosecutors and defense attorneys “largely agreed upon that showed that Black people were from six to eight percent more likely to be charged with ‘special circumstance gang enhancements’ than people who weren’t Black. Those enhancements, alleging gang membership and added on top of the underlying criminal charges at issue in a case, can greatly increase the sentence a defendant receives.” As well as removing these enhancements in this particular case, Goldstein said his decision clears the way for “any Black person who has faced or is facing those charges in Contra Costa over the past decade to challenge them in court.” In other words, every convicted Black gang criminal in the area can now apply to have his sentence radically reduced. In fact, $2 million has been granted by the legislature to fund precisely that course of action for any non-White criminal who wishes to allege that he was the victim of a racist legal system.

Judge David Goldstein 

Goldstein’s actions, and the case in general, are now seen as a primer for what will soon unfold across the entire criminal justice system in California. Several other cases involving the RJA are already pending. For example, in 2022, a San Diego police officer stopped Tommy Bonds III, a Black man, and cited him for misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon. In San Diego Superior Court, Bonds invoked the RJA, believing he was pulled over because of his race. However, the judge ruled that the officer did not show bias in his interaction with Bonds. Bonds appealed, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court judge “fail(ed) to address the abundant evidence suggesting that the traffic stop may have been the product of unintended racial bias.” Although the officer had previously testified that he did not see the driver’s race before deciding to stop him, he did say that “the person was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up.” The appeals court said “it was not necessary that [the officer] had verified the occupants were Black before he stopped their vehicle, because he may well have subconsciously assumed they were based on their clothing, their presence in the neighborhood, or other subtle factors.” This extremely broad level of evidential consideration is precisely in line with that advocated by Chemerinsky as a ‘corrective’ to McClesky vs Kemp.

One of the major sponsors and lobbyists for the Act was the League of Women Voters of California, the prominent member in relation to the RJA being its Jewish Deputy Director, Dora Rose. Rose greeted the passing of the RJA by saying

The bottom line is that we can’t keep having trials with all white juries. We can’t continue to allow racially coded language that triggers bias in the courtroom. And we must stop the systemically disproportionate arrest and sentencing that is tearing up our Black communities. The Racial Justice Act will help us accomplish those ends.

Dora Rose 

Unequal Justice for Victims and Discrimination Against Whites

Ironically, while the Racial Justice Act is being touted as a major leap forward for the Black population, it is likely to compound its misery. This is more than abundant in the blunt but apt protest from the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins: “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” What we are really seeing play out here is not a crusade on behalf of innocent Blacks, but a crusade by Jews and a motley of non-White politico-intellectuals in the service of diminishing White safety and achieving the further demoralization and decay of stable White societies. Ultimately, Blacks are unconcerned with contrived and, to them, often complex theories of institutional racism unless it appears to immediately benefit them in form of a lesser prison sentence or the granting of immediate material benefits. Like any mother, Brandi Griffin wants the four men who killed her son to go to prison for the longest possible term, even if I am certain that if she were the mother of one of the defendants she would most definitely “give a shit about the racist shit.” Blacks will be individualist opportunists in such scenarios, while the intellectual and political heavy lifting is done “on their behalf” by Jews who pose as their saviours.

Those looking at the statistical data with honesty reach the similar conclusions. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has argued that the RJA “will produce unequal justice for victims as well as offenders.” MacDonald points out that racial disparities in incarceration reflect disparities in who is more likely to commit criminal offenses. Citing police department data, MacDonald said, “In Los Angeles, Blacks are 21 times as likely as Whites to commit a violent crime, 36 times as likely to commit a robbery, and 57 times as likely to commit a homicide.” She further argued that the RJA will have a disproportionate impact on Black victims, stating that the victims and witnesses who contribute to police department data are “themselves disproportionately Black . . . [and] are 17 times as likely to be homicide victims as Whites.” One of the primary impacts of the RJA will therefore be that a lot of Black victims will not see the justice they expect to be served. Dora Rose claims she is preventing the “tearing up of our Black communities,” but that’s exactly what she is going to worsen — for Blacks and everyone around them. Blacks are being fed a fantasy by Jewish intellectuals that their liberation will be found in the reduction of incarcerations, but as one legal commentator has argued:

The Reparations Task Force in California, a state that fought on the side of the Union in the Civil War and in which no person lives today who was either slave or master when the practice was still legal in parts of the U.S., has also recommended that the state shutter 10 prisons in five years, repurposing the facilities to benefit African Americans. But it’s clear that California’s prisons do benefit its Black citizens – by protecting them and all the state’s residents from violent criminals. Black Americans number just under 14% of the population but suffered 53% of homicides in 2020, up 32% from the year before the advent of defund-the-police, Black Lives Matter, and widespread urban unrest – with 2,457 more murder victims compared to the year before. In a typical year, 9 in 10 people who murder a Black American are themselves Black, meaning going even easier on violent felons in California will most likely end up resulting in more dead Black Californians.

Whites will be massively disadvantaged under the new system. Chuck DeVore, the Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has argued the RJA gives preferential treatment to individuals of certain races and “extending preferential treatment to a criminal based on their race wrongly punishes individuals not benefiting from that leniency.” Black and Latino defendants, because their groups are disproportionately prosecuted and incarcerated, may be able to bring claims under the RJA that would be unavailable to White defendants. As a thought experiment, we could assume a Black and White person who together commit the same crime, and are charged exactly the same—both with more serious offenses than others who commit a similar crime. Under the RJA, the Black defendant may be able to use statistical data to argue that the prosecution more frequently sought these types of convictions against other Black defendants, while that argument might be unavailable for the White defendant if the same disparity doesn’t exist for other White defendants. In this scenario, although the Black defendant would be entitled to remedies under the RJA, the White defendant would not—even though they were both charged with the same crime. In other words, Black criminals will benefit from the fact their race commits disproportionately more crimes — Black criminality is thus rewarded, at the expense of victims of all ethnic backgrounds.

As well as being an ethical disaster, the Racial Justice Act will be a drain on taxpayers and public finance. Millions of dollars have already been allocated to reassessing historical cases for hints of racism. More serious, however, will be the future cost. An entire industry will essentially be built upon the probes and investigations that will now take place every time an RJA protest is lodged at the outset of a criminal case. Everything from text messages sent between police officers, to passing comments by prosecutors, will be assessed and reassessed to see if they in any way constitute something that could vaguely be construed as racial. As seen above, every mention of a hooded sweatshirt or other “subtle factors” will now be brought into play to ensure that even the most appalling and obvious murderers are not seen through a racial lens. Lisa Romo, an attorney at the Office of the State Public Defender, complained, “There’s not enough money; we have defenders who are overwhelmed and not enough staff to process all the requests coming in. We desperately need more resources. The legislature just appropriated $2 million just for retroactive RJA claims, which is appreciated, but that’s just a drop in the bucket.”


Chuck DeVore points out at the conclusion of his remarks on the RJA that “when logic and reason die, people soon after get robbed, raped and murdered.” These are certain outcomes, along with the death of justice and the bankrupting of the public purse at the behest of stunning and brave “racial allies” like Levine, Friedman, Weiner, Goldstein, Chemerinsky, Rose and so many others working behind the scenes on initiatives like the RJA in California and beyond.


Barbara’s Barbarians: How Jews Import Third-Worlders to Harm Whites, Then Play the Innocent Victim

What is CFI? And who is Ehud Sheleg? Those are two very important questions about British politics, but I doubt that even one in fifty voters could answer them. Which is just the way that CFI and Mr Sheleg like it. They don’t want their activities discussed or their influence analysed. Like all sensible criminals, they want to work away from the light and enjoy their booty without scrutiny.

Democracies In Name Only

And what is their booty? Control of British politics, that’s what. CFI are Conservative Friends of Israel and Ehud Sheleg was the Israeli treasurer of the Conservative party from 2019 to 2021. Sheleg has openly admitted that Britain takes “second [place] to my homeland” of Israel, yet he oversaw the finances of Britain’s governing party (the current Tory treasurer is the even more shadowy Graham Edwards, who appears to also be treasurer of the charity Jewish Care). Once you see the control Jews have over British politics, you understand why White voters never get what they want on the all-important issues of mass immigration and border control. The Tories entered government loudly promising to cut the horrifically high levels of immigration bequeathed to them by the Labour party. They then quietly proceeded to increase immigration even further. If you want to know why that happened, you have to understand that Britain is a DINO — a Democracy In Name Only. In harsh reality, it’s a Judeocracy, a state controlled by Jewish money and the Israel lobby.

Hugely powerful and almost unknown: Ehud Sheleg, former Israeli treasurer of Britain’s ruling party (image from Guido Fawkes)

America, France and other Western nations are Judeocratic DINOs too. That’s why the public desire to reduce mass immigration and control the borders never translates into political action. Jews don’t like homogeneous White societies. They don’t like standing out and they’re paranoid about gentile retribution for their financial crimes and cultural subversion. That’s why New Labour opened Britain’s borders to the Third World. Tony Blair was a narcissistic gentile frontman for a Jewish project to alter Britain’s demographics forever. As a New Labour apparatchik called Andrew Neather once put it: Labour “wanted to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

The sadism of open borders

That’s an interesting metaphor Neather used there. It’s a reference to a crude old pet-training technique: you rub a dog’s or cat’s nose in its own feces when it fouls the floor. And that’s supposed to teach it not to do it again. In other words, Neather was equating “diversity” — all those wonderfully enriching Black and Brown folk — with feces and foulness. Of course, he supposedly meant that the wicked right regards diversity as foul, but I think he was secretly admitting the sadism of open borders. Rich leftists inflict diversity on others, but make very sure to insulate themselves from the crime and chaos that it inevitably spawns. Do you think Andrew Neather himself lives in an enriched district, surrounded by Somalis, Pakistanis, and Jamaicans?

Barbarian-booster Barbara Roche

To ask the question is to answer it. But I don’t know where to confirm the answer: Andrew Neather is a little-known figure and details of his life and background are not available online. Patrick Cleburne dog-whistled at VDare that Neather may be Jewish. I could easily believe it. His ministerial superior Barbara Roche was certainly Jewish. And not just Jewish, but very happy to confirm that her Jewishness powered her passion for Third-World migration. In 2001, Roche told the Guardian that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In 2003, while urging her party “to promote the benefits of legal migration,” she told the Independent that “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics.” After all, she’s the “child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother.” And when she surveyed the fruit of her labors in 2011, she sighed with pleasure:

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)

Like CFI and Ehud Sheleg, Barbara Roche is nowhere near as famous as she should be in Britain. She was central to the opening of the migration flood-gates under New Labour, but few voters noticed her at the time and even fewer remember her now. That isn’t because she shunned the light the way CFI and Mr Sheleg have always done. On the contrary, she was happy to campaign in public for increased immigration and to promote the ridiculous lie that “Britain is a nation of migrants.” But British goyim didn’t understand the significance of what she was saying or connect her Jewishness with her highly successful efforts to dilute the Whiteness of Britain.

And to harm the White working-class. Too many British voters still take the Labour party at face value and think that its name reflects its purpose. But Labour long ago abandoned its commitment to champion the downtrodden workers against the oppressive bosses. No, for many decades it has championed the downtrodden bosses against the oppressive workers, with their greedy, selfish demands for higher wages and better working conditions. Open borders benefit the capitalist class in all manner of ways, from increasing the supply of labor to inflating demand for housing to boosting the profits of supermarkets and Big Pharma. Open borders also mean more non-White clients for the leftist managerial state. Last but by no means least, they mean that Jews like Barbara Roche can feel “comfortable” in an atomized society. After all, as many Jews have said down the decades, Jews and other minorities are “natural allies.” Against whom? They leave that part unspoken, but the answer is obvious: Jews and other minorities are natural allies against the White Christian majority.

Importing barbarians

That’s why Jews have been so enthusiastic about Muslim immigration. Muslims are both non-White and non-Christian. What’s not to like for a White-hating, Christophobic Jew like Barbara Roche? Third-World migrants are a huge and ever-growing burden in welfare and crime on any Western nation that accepts them, but that’s a feature, not a bug of Jewish enthusiasm for Third-World migration. For example, Roche oversaw the explosive growth in the number of Black Muslim Somalis on British soil. She knew she was importing barbarians, but she thought those barbarians would target Whites, not Jews:

One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. [Et cetera ad nauseam] (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)

Alas for Barbara’s barbarian-boosterism! Since the Hamas atrocities committed in Israel on 7th October 2023, it has become apparent that Jews and Muslims aren’t natural allies after all. No, they’re natural enemies. Hamas-fans have flooded onto the streets of cities across the Western world, condemning the Israelis and condoling the Palestinians. In Australia, non-White Muslims have chanted “Gas the Jews!” outside the Sydney Opera House, that great White architectural achievement and symbol of White artistic genius. Barbara’s barbarians have turned on the very people that imported them into the West.

Pollock’s bollocks

But have Jews admitted their own responsibility for these horrific outbreaks of “anti-Semitism” and “Israelophobia”? Of course not. Instead, they have once again played the victim. Karen Pollock CBE, the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET), has lamented her people’s plight like this in the Guardian:

Antisemitism has risen year on year but the events of recent months have shaken many of us to our core. It is unbelievable that today, 90 years after Hitler rose to power and almost 80 years since his antisemitic crimes were exposed to the world, we are seeing antisemitism reach levels that I have never witnessed before in my lifetime. At the same time we have seen a stark rise in Islamophobia, and many people are feeling isolated and frightened. … Anti-Jewish hate is on the march, and this time the world must not turn its back. Let us all make it our new year resolution to finally stamp out antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate. Let’s make 2024 the year when we finally find a cure for this poison.(Antisemitism and Holocaust denial are rife, just look at Stephen Fry’s X trolls, The Guardian, 24th December 2023)

Karen Pollock emits bollocks (image from Vimeo)

I would call that Pollock’s bollocks (British slang for  “testicles” and used to mean “nonsense”). How on earth is it “unbelievable” that importing millions of Muslims into the West has increased hostility to Jews and to Israel? It isn’t “unbelievable”: it’s entirely predictable. And note how Pollock slyly includes references to “Islamophobia,” as though Jews and Muslims are shared victims of the wicked White majority. In fact, the “antisemitism” is overwhelmingly coming from the Muslims whom Jews have imported into the West for so long, fondly imagining that they would be “natural allies” against that wicked White majority.

Pollock also has the chutzpah to claim that “History and facts are being replaced by emotion and a sense of righteousness.” As the late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks admitted in 2007, that “replacement” took place long ago and was initiated by the group to which Pollock herself belongs:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book. … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

The subversive sliminess of Stephen Fry

If Karen Pollock really wanted to combat “anti-Jewish hate,” she would look at her own dishonesty and ethnocentrism. And at the sliminess of the “national treasure” she praises in her article: the Jewish comedian Stephen Fry. He has campaigned assiduously throughout his career on behalf of two great causes: homosexuality and atheism. Pollock said how pleased she was that Fry would be “addressing the nation” in the “alternative Christmas message” broadcast by Channel 4. It’s the alternative to the Christmas message traditionally delivered by the British monarch — Queen Elizabeth the Evil began the tradition and it’s now maintained by her son Chuck the Cuck. I didn’t want to watch Fry’s Christmas message, because I can’t abide his appearance or his mannerisms. And I especially can’t abide his voice, which always gives me the impression that my ears are filling with an unpleasantly warm mixture of treacle and pig-slurry.

The Slimy Stephen Fry, attempting to present himself as trustworthy, avuncular, and harmless, addresses the nation (image from Channel 4 and Youtube)

But I forced myself to watch and listen all the way through. And I’m glad that I did, because something highly significant happened right at the end. Before that, Fry had claimed to love Christmas and had echoed Pollock’s bollocks, condemning the shocking rise in antisemitism and “anti-Jewish racism” without admitting that Jews themselves have been directly responsible for it. He appealed to the British values of “fairness” and “decency,” which is a futile exercise given that Muslims aren’t British and don’t believe in British values. And then, to sign off, he mocked the central figure of the festival he was supposedly so fond of:

And so this mad quintessential queer English Jew wishes you, whatever your race or creed, however you identify yourself, all peace, joy and a very Merry X-mas [eks-muss], formerly known as Twittermas. (See Stephen Fry’s Alternative Christmas Message at Youtube)

He couldn’t help himself. After all, he’s Jewish. Once again I’m reminded of the old story about the scorpion and the frog. But Fry’s propaganda-video also revealed that the Jews behind it do not understand the dilemma they have created for themselves. Like so many generals down history, they’re trying to fight a new war with the tactics of the previous war. Fry’s smarmy slogans about British “fairness” and “decency” will not work on Muslims and the other non-Whites who support them. Non-Whites aren’t British, don’t believe in fairness or decency, and don’t see Fry as a “national treasure.” On the contrary, they see him as an elderly white oppressor, physically weak and sexually perverted. They’re repelled by him, not beguiled.

They’re right to be repelled. But they don’t see the fullness of Fry’s foulness. Muslims and other non-Whites have been preying on the White majority ever since Jews and their traitorous gentile allies began importing them into the West. They’ve murdered and raped, robbed and defrauded us decade after decade after decade. Meanwhile, Jews like Fry have condemned all White attempts to resist the Third-World predators as “racism,” “xenophobia,” and “hate.” But now that their natural allies have turned on their importers, Fry and his tribe have begun bewailing barbarism. Yet again Jews have gone too far, carried away by their own arrogance and hatred of Christ, Whites, and Western civilization. They have sown the wind and are about to reap the whirlwind. As Jewish Bible also puts it: “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it shall return upon him.”

“The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence”

Nathan Cofnas published a paper in the Israel-based academic journal Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel in February of last year titled “The Anti-Jewish Narrative.” Andrew Joyce wrote a masterful reply, “The Cofnas Problem,” while I decided to try to  publish a response in Philosophia. My paper went through two rounds of peer review and was finally accepted. It was the lead article in the January issue of Philosophia,  and is available as an open-access paper on Springer Nature [The two links in the previous sentence go to the original paper but now with the retraction notice.] I provide a local version due to [well-founded] concerns the article will be pulled by Springer Nature.

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone. I have updated quite a bit of the material, particularly the scholarly writing on Jewish involvement in influencing U.S. immigration policy—Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. I have always felt that Chapter 7 was the most important chapter in the book. Intellectual movements can decline drastically in influence. This was the fate of psychoanalysis—but not Boasian anthropology, and the intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt School remain influential throughout postmodern academia. Moreover, at least in Western democracies, even political movements, as embodied in the Jewish subculture of radical leftism, can be reversed at the ballot box—unless the people against whom the 1965 immigration law was directed are replaced by a new electorate with no attachment to the people and culture of the West. As argued in the paper, this is exactly what the 1965 immigration law was intended to accomplish in the minds of the Jewish activist community that was by far the most influential force in enacting the law.

Besides updating some critical aspects of The Culture of Critique, the paper emphasizes the point that the enactment of the 1965 immigration law did not occur in a vacuum and cannot be understood apart from the wider context of the rise of a new Jewish elite with influence in a wide range of areas. As I note in the article, the rise of this new elite “implies that vital issues of public policy, including immigration, the civil rights of African-Americans, women’s rights, religion in the public square (Hollinger’s “secularization of American society”), the legitimacy of white racial identity and interests, cosmopolitanism [identifying a “citizen of the world”], foreign policy in the Middle East, and many others will be affected by the attitudes and interests of this new elite.” The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America. This new elite exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture” The 1950s saw the decline of the old WASP elite, recounted in Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. By the 1960s this new elite was flexing its muscle, resulting in a cultural and demographic revolution which is ongoing and indeed accelerating. This new, substantially Jewish elite was (and remains) centered in academia and the media, and, because of Jewish wealth, this new elite has been able to have decisive influence in the  political process via donations to political causes.

The abstract:

The role of Jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to Jewish influence, particularly the “default hypothesis” that Jewish IQ and urban residency explain Jewish influence and the role of the Jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States; other issues include Jewish ethnocentrism and intermarriage and whether diaspora Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States. The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved: intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs; establishing, staffing, and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; recruiting prominent non-Jews to anti-restrictionist organizations; rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal because of fear of a relatively homogeneous white majority; leadership in Congress and the executive branch.

Lance Welton on Jewish ethnocentrism: Fairness, Paranoia, and Self-Deception

Lance Welton’s article on VDARE is a nice summary of research on Jewish ethnocentrism and its consequences: “Did the ADL Think It Could Get Away with  Hypocrisy on Replacement in U.S. vs. Israel? Answer: It Probably Didn’t Think At All.” As noted below, some of his presentation touches on my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition as well as my books on Judaism.


“Fairness,” as I noted in my article on blacks, is “impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.” This is a high-order value which demands that you put aside nepotism, ethnocentrism, and even personal gain, in favor of this abstract goal. So, on this basis, would we expect Jews to be as high in “fairness” as Whites?

No. Firstly, there is abundant evidence that Jews are more ethnocentric than whites; meaning they cooperate strongly with their own people and are hostile to other peoples. Jews have been stereotyped as being highly ethnocentric throughout their history, as Kevin MacDonald showed in his 1994 book A People That Shall Dwell Alone [Chap 8, 228ff]. There is overwhelming evidence that racial stereotypes, like all stereotypes, tend to be true; that’s why they develop [Social Perception and Social RealityBy Lee Jussim, 2012].

This goes very deep. Jewish babies react with far greater horror to strangers of a different ethnic group than do German babies [Security of Infant-Mother, -Father, and -Metapelet Attachments Among Kibbutz-Reared Israeli Children, by Abraham Sagi et al., Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1985].

Data from the University of Wisconsin’s MIDUS survey of middle-aged Americans demonstrated that among Whites there is a positive correlation between how religious you are and how group-oriented you are. However, the same study found that Jews are the most ethnocentric—group-oriented religious group—even though they were the least religious group of those surveyed. When factors such as intelligence (which tends to make people less ethnocentric) and religiousness level were controlled for, Jews were still way more ethnocentric than the gentile White groups. (This is discussed in Religiosity as a Predictor of In-Group Favoritism Within and Between Religious Groups, by Curtis Dunkel & Edward Dutton, Personality and Individual Differences, 2016).

If you take into account the number of Jews in a population compared to the number of Whites, then the extent to which Jews “marry out” is far lower. Jews are about 49 times less likely to marry someone of a different faith than Protestants are, for example. [See Andrew Joyce’s “The Cofnas Problem.“]. The most obvious explanation for this, in the context of the other research: ethnocentrism. Jews seem to be evolved to be higher in ethnocentrism [see “A Genetic Perspective on Individualism/Collectivism,” A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 8: p. 236ff], something that would be heightened by their small gene pool; with people tending to be more ethnocentric when the gene pool is small [Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, By Gregory Cochran et al., Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006]. This higher ethnocentrism would make them less able to suppress ethnocentric instincts in favor of creating fairness than are gentile Whites.

Fairness is one of the traits that is higher in Western societies based on individualism versus the kinship-based societies of the rest of the world. Joseph Henrich and colleagues reviewed research showing differences between subjects from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) nations and subjects in a wide range of other cultures, finding important differences in fairness and moral reasoning. This is reviewed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: 

In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of justice such as Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act according to the maxim that you could wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. … The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures—whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception—are all “of a piece;” they all fit into a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning (p. 110).

On the other hand, collectivist cultures—my view is that Judaism is a paradigmatic collectivist culture—see the world from the standpoint of group interests, so that even scientific reasoning in the social sciences is performed through the lens of group interests. Hence, The Culture of Critique.

The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) people discussed in Chapter 3 developed scientific and scholarly associations in the post-medieval West which assume groups are permeable and highly subject to defection—that there is a marketplace of ideas in which individuals may defect from current scientific views when they believe that the data support alternate perspectives. On the other hand, collectivist cultures create group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders, ethnic networking, and expulsion of dissenters [i.e., the thesis of The Culture of Critique]. …

Moreover, … WEIRD people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to characteristics of the object and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and surrounding field). Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract whereas non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship. Science is fundamentally concerned with creating abstract rules independent of context and developing explanations and predictions of phenomena in the empirical world. Such traits, which can be seen even in the ancient Greco-Roman world of antiquity, clearly predispose to scientific thinking. …

For collectivists, moral reasoning involves taking account of the social context, which is fundamentally centered on fitting into and strengthening a kinship group. For individualists, the social world involves a greater need to interact with strangers and to consider their reputation for respecting impersonal rules. …

Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits—e.g., honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments—in abstraction from their (relatively weak) kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying universally applicable laws of nature.

Back to Welton:

In addition, there is evidence that Jews are perfectly happy for a situation to be unfair. One study compared religious groups in the US—Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Jews, and Atheists/Agnostics—and asked people what they thought was most important to live a “good life.” Jews, in contrast to all the other groups, highlighted “extra money” [“For Tomorrow We Die”? Testing the Accuracy of Stereotypes about Atheists and Agnostics, by Edward Dutton & Curtis Dunkel, Mankind Quarterly, 2019]. They see it as important to be richer than other people in a way that the whites do not, which implies that they are less concerned about a possibly unfair situation as long as they benefit. And, being more intelligent than gentile Whites on average (as Richard Lynn has shown in his book The Chosen People) they will better be able to rationalize achieving such an advantage, as intelligent people are typically better at finding ways of rationalizing their biases [Why smart people aren’t better at transcending their biased views, by Tauriq Mousa, The Big Think, June 13, 2012].

Finally, Jews are less mentally stable than Whites. Ashkenazi Jews have significantly elevated levels of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, both of which can make people paranoid [Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia in Ashkenazi Jews, by Fernando Goes et al., American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2015]. When people are paranoid, they are less interested in what is “fair”—they are interested simply in surviving and doing so may involve being very “unfair.” People with paranoid personalities tend to be hypocritical and self-seeking [Understanding Paranoia, by Martin Kantor, 2004, p.71].

Because Jews are better at finding ways of rationalizing away their bias and hypocrisy, they may well not believe that they are being “unfair” at all [a kind of self-deception one expects to find among highly ethnocentric people—Ch. 8 of Separation and Its Discontents  and elaborated by Andrew Joyce here]. In this sense, it can be said that intelligent yet paranoid people do not “know themselves”—meaning that they live in a fantasy world in which there is nothing wrong with them; only with others.

This personality type will see the world as packed full of hostile persecutors who want to destroy them, meaning that an obviously Mostly Peaceful protest at the Capitol becomes an “insurrection” in which people could have been killed.

This personality type will also engage in “paranoid projection,” whereby they purport to find an aspect of themselves they dislike in others, causing them to despise these people. “I hate them” becomes “They hate me,” based on finding some minor evidence of this. Hence the Leftist obsession with how “hateful” their opponents are [8 Key Traits of Paranoid Thinkersby Shahram Heshmat, Psychology TodayFebruary 24, 2016].

It’s interesting in this regard that paranoia about the surrounding world is a very central aspect of Jewish culture—analyzed as what behavior geneticists label genotype-environment correlation (e.g., paranoid parents with genetic predispositions to paranoia would socialize their children (who share their genes for paranoia) in a manner that would reinforce a worldview that the outside world is dangerous). From A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7:

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982) note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage—with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153) note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.”

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification. Hartung (1992) provides anecdotal data on the emphasis on Jewish suffering and its exaggeration as aspects of modern synagogue service. Such practices have a long history. Roth (1978, 62) notes that Jewish “martyrologists” maintained lists of Jewish martyrs for commemoration during synagogue services during the Middle Ages, and Jordan (1989, 20) refers to the “forbidding martyrocentric self-image” during this period.

Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is a theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary America. Within this world view, the gentile world is viewed as fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing to exist entirely. “Like many other generations of Jews who have felt similarly, the leaders of the polity who fear that the end may be near have transformed this concern into a survivalist weapon” (Woocher 1986, 73). Woocher (1986) notes that there has been a major effort since the 1960s to have American Jews visit Israel in an effort to strengthen Jewish identification, with a prominent aspect of the visit being a trip to a border outpost “where the ongoing threat to Israel’s security is palpable” (p. 150).

Or, as Elliott Abrams (Faith or Fear, 190) wrote, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

Hence the Jewish motivation for diversifying America, the theme of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique (corroborated by Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates [2004]: 80), who notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). (Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Welton concludes:

The self-centeredness and implicit unfairness of the ADL operatives’ fantasy world means they indeed might very well not have thought at all about what to any outside observer appears to be the utter hypocrisy of their position on the Great Replacement [via immigration] in the U.S. as opposed to Israel.

For such people, objective truth is “defamation”—but their “defamation” of others is objective truth.

Any objective observer would indeed have to agree that the ADL is utterly hypocritical in its stance toward immigration in Israel versus the United States. But activist Jews like Jonathan Greenblatt may not even be aware of it due to their powerful tendencies toward ethnocentrism and its corollary of self-deception. And now these people are firmly ensconced in the hostile elite that is running the United States. A dire situation indeed for the traditional White population of America.

Tucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL’s Hypocrisy(!)

In a previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson’s comments on ‘replacement’ in the context of immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted that Carlson’s comments were “anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic.” Accusations of racism—and especially anti-Semitism—are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.

So I was gratified that Carlson didn’t back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites (and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it’s not about compassion as usually advertised, but about power. And anyone with any brains knows it.

To date, Carlson’s monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there. He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. ‘Client’ is the right word (from the Latin for ‘dependent’) because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all the free stuff — medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again). They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government. Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters.

Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about White people’s vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to 30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used to. It’s shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where, even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they couldn’t win a statewide election.  And that’s the whole point. Permanent hegemony.

But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted that the voter replacement argument doesn’t apply so much to Blacks because the people replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino, after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.

California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate. Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. … The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms. Lee.

As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.

Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg’s NYTimes op-ed, “We can replace them,” which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen shot of Goldberg’s statement: “The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic White.” He didn’t mention Goldberg’s ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is “a New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger.”

The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact, it’s an obsession on the left. “It’s the central idea of the modern Democratic Party.” So true. And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.

As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump’s plan to deport illegals on the basis that Trump was trying to “remake the demographics of the country”; she tweeted that such actions are “deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values.” Of course, the left would never think of remaking the demographics of the country!

What’s immoral—and obviously so— is the left’s scheme to remake  the electorate in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as “cheating.” This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White population of America is profoundly immoral. It’s an important message because we Whites are uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly prone to forming moral communities rather than kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It’s a very exploitable weakness, and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the community’s interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength. But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of the West since World War II are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture, i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it’s a moral imperative to replace the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to replace its founding population.

However, the best part about Tucker’s monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence immoral, while legitimizing Israel’s ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate ethnic nationalists—exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland that remains theirs.

Granted, Carlson didn’t mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:

With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically—and potentially physically—vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.

This is another recurrent theme on TOO—that the traditional White majority will become a hated and oppressed minority (58 articles) because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their influence in passing the 1965 immigration law, should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.

In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to Fox News, demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the  hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: “Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind.” But he rejected the argument that Carlson had endorsed “anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism,” retreating to Carlson’s original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.

In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson “did not accidentally echo these talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. … At a time of intense polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence.”

Intense polarization indeed. That’s what happens when there is a powerful attempt to dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism that is tearing the country apart.

Greenblatt thinks that Tucker’s message will galvanize “extremists.” Let’s hope that it does indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it’s important for Carlson to not let this issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies, print media, and throughout the educational system.

The message of White replacement is powerful. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[1]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

White replacement is our most powerful message. Let’s hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We certainly will.

[1] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.


Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues.

The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.

Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.

“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.

This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?

Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”:

Not clear how replacement theory is “anti-Semitic,” but I suppose that Greenblatt considers anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt’s tweet, The Hill noted that “the ADL head explained that the “Great Replacement” theory “is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,” linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a “racist lie.” But how much of a “racist lie” is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60 percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?

Greenblatt also emailed Fox News, writing “Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.” This assertion that Carlson is making a “full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement theory” is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places these days—witness Biden’s lie about the new Georgia voting laws as “Jim Crow on steroids.” A full-on embrace of “white supremacist replacement theory” would at least reference a specific concern for White people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology (“every time they import a new voter…”). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say it. I am pretty sure he believes it.

Officially, Carlson’s heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate, particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious—at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it’s fine for non-Whites to hate Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White minority.

And it’s not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to replace Whites as part of the American elite.

Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn’t make much sense to say that America’s non-White voters are being replaced when they are being “replaced” by more non-White voters, although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. But in any case, they ain’t White, and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants—as noted in my comments on the January 6 “insurrection,” The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony.”  Their strategy also includes packing the Supreme Court, in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a super-majority of liberals.

Biden’s immigration plan calls for an increase in “diversity” visas to 80,000 from 55,000 and has an emphasis on family unification—a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (here, p. 283) and beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.

Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!

Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson’s mild comments to the manifesto of the Christchurch and El Paso murderers.

I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot’s Twitter feed. Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And now, because of obsessive Trump hate, he is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at The Washington Post. Boot wrote that Carlson “the top-rated host on Fox “News” Channel, has been attracting attention for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he’s reached a new low.”

As the left-leaning Media Matters for America has chronicled, Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” and said that Afghanistan is “never going to be a civilized country because the people aren’t civilized.” He has complained that an influx of poor immigrants “makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided.” He has repeatedly described immigration as an “invasion,” and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a “hoax” and “a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power.”

And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his manifesto: “Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum …. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?”

On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New Zealand shooter’s manifesto was literally headlined “The Great Replacement,” and the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

The Long History of Jewish Efforts to Replace the White population of America

The lack of concern on the part of Boot and Greenblatt for White Americans is entirely typical of the organized Jewish community. The following is based on Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique along with some more recent research—the point being that the organized Jewish community has long had the aim of diluting the White population of the U.S., motivated by fear and loathing of the White population. The culture of critique is the erection of an adversarial culture that is hostile to the traditional White population of the U.S.

Jewish activists on immigration rejected the ethnic status quo put in place by the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws. Otis Graham (2004: 80) notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration was not only the most effective force in enacting the 1965 law, their activism “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Stuar Svonkin ( 1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). Similarly, Elliott Abrams (1999, 190) noted, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

In 1952 President Truman’s President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo, and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system, because there were already high levels of nonquota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas. Rather, the report noted that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was the total number of immigrants.

The [PCIN] thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total number of immigrants (PCIN 1953, 42). As Bennett (1963, 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants “was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.” Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator Pat McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system “would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation” (in Bennett 1963, 185)—a result that has indeed come to pass. (The Culture of Critique, 1998/2002: 281)

The chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman, and the staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director); its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJCongress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952: 3). The proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome (PCIN, 1953) with the cooperation of Rep. Emanuel Celler and with an essay by Oscar Handlin, the Jewish academic activist (see below).

The American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”[i] During this period the Congress Weekly, the newsletter of the AJCongress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the “myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks” (Oct. 17, 1955: 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of “need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin” (May 4, 1953: 3). Dr. Israel Goldstein (1952a, 6), president of the AJCongress, wrote that “The national origins formula “is outrageous now . . . when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples” (Goldstein 1952b, 5), thus presaging the current mantra promulgated by American media and politicians that “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

Prominent Jewish intellectuals, such as Harvard historian and public intellectual Oscar Handlin, published pro-immigration books (e.g., The Uprooted [1951/1973]) and articles. Handlin’s (1952) article, “The immigration fight has only begun,” was published in Commentary (published by the American Jewish Committee) shortly after the Democrat-controlled Congress overrode President Truman’s veto of the restrictionist 1952 law. In a telling comment indicating Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces, Handlin complained about the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” in joining the immigration battle. He repeatedly uses the term “we”—as in “if we cannot beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons” (p. 4)—suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged “chipping away” of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years mentioned by Graham (2003) as part of the context of the 1965 law and noted by Cofnas.

Handlin clearly rejected an ethnic status quo, arguing that it was “illusory [to expect] that the composition of American population will remain as it is” (Handlin, 1947, 6). And he never addressed the stated justification used by restrictionists in the 1924 debates, describing their attitudes as follows: “The hordes of inferior breeds, even then freely pouring into the country in complete disregard for the precepts of the new racial learning, would mix promiscuously with the Anglo-Saxon and inevitably produce a deterioration of the species” (1951/1973: 257).  Handlin thus ignored the actual argument used by restrictionists during the Congressional debates of 1924—that the national origins formula was fair to all ethnic groups in the country because it created an ethnic status quo (MacDonald, 1998/202: 263) with its implicit and entirely defensible assumption from an evolutionary perspective that different ethnic groups have conflicts of interest on immigration (e.g., conflicts between Palestinians and Jews in Israel over a Palestinian right of return).

Handlin was a critical figure in the decades leading up to the passage of the 1965 law:

Handlin’s thinking on immigration policy both reflected and shaped the course of reform in the postwar period. He may be credited with popularizing a new interpretation of American history—one that conceptualized immigration at the heart of American economic and democratic development. In creating this framework for immediate political reform, he founded a normative theory of immigration history—one we popularly known as “a nation of immigrants” (Ngai, 2013, 62).

[i]. 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, 410.

Abrams, E. (1999). Faith or fear: How Jews can survive in a Christian America.

Graham, O. (2004). Unguarded gates: A history of American’s immigration crisis. Rowman & Littlefield.

Handlin, O. (1947). Democracy and America’s future. Commentary 3: 1–6.

Handlin, O. (1951/1973). The uprooted, 2nd ed. Little Brown and Co.

Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary 14(July), 1–7.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Ngai, M.M. (2013). Oscar Handlin and immigration policy reform in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32(3), 62–67.

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953). Whom we shall welcome. De Capo Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against prejudice: American Jews and the fight for civil liberties. Columbia University Press.

Lack of Self-Awareness (Self-Deception?) at The Tablet

Tablet came out with an article relating level of education to attitudes toward Jewish issues. As they note, it’s long been a bedrock belief among Jews that higher levels of education are linked to lower levels of anti-Jewish attitudes—think decades of Jewish-owned media portraying people with anti-Jewish attitudes as illiterate hillbilly types with some missing teeth. But, as the authors note, the problem for doing this kind of research is that educated people are much less likely to agree with classic anti-Jewish statements like “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” or “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” (although there’s more than a grain of truth in them).   And this could well be because educated people are more aware that such statements are simply not the sort of thing one says in polite society and if it’s one thing educated people want, it’s to feel that they are good people.

But this study shows or at least suggests that in some areas educated people are more “anti-Semitic” based on asking people with different education levels similar questions but with one set of subjects given questions related to a Jewish example, another set of subjects given questions related to a non-Jewish example. For example, one set of subjects  was asked a question such as “a person’s attachment to another country creates a conflict of interest when advocating in support of certain U.S. foreign policy positions.” One set of subjects got Israel as an example, while the other got Mexico. More subjects thought loyalty created a conflict of interest when Israel was the example than with Mexico.  Their theory was that even though particular individuals will have different opinions on the different questions, on average the responses should be the same for the two groups.

The report only includes three more examples: whether the government should set minimum requirements for what is taught in private schools,” with Orthodox Jewish or Montessori schools given as the illustrating example; whether “the U.S. military should be allowed to forbid the wearing of religious headgear as part of the uniform,” with a Jewish yarmulke or Sikh turban offered as illustrating examples; and whether public gatherings during the pandemic “posed a threat to public health and should have been prevented,” with Orthodox Jewish funerals or Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests offered as illustrating examples.

The Orthodox Jewish/Montessori example showed no difference, but the other three showed differences with the educated responding in a more Jewish-critical way, although, as you might expect given that more educated people trend to the left, more educated people wanted more government control over education.

The question on wearing religious symbols in the military seems clean and suggests a distaste for religious Jews—interesting, but that may not translate to distaste for the many very powerful and influential Jews who don’t wear outward signs of Jewish identity.

The largest effect of education was the Orthodox funeral/BLM item for people with more than a four-year degree (a difference of 36 percentage points). I suspect that more educated people are generally way more enthusiastic about BLM, so that the item doesn’t really get at being critical of Jews. And again it’s Orthodox Jews, so it may not apply to the people who run Hollywood, etc.

Re the loyalty issue, I suspect that more highly educated people are more aware of Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy, despite such news being confined to the fringes of  political discourse. In other words, they are simply more aware of the reality of U.S. subservience to the Israel Lobby and the incredibly costly wars that has resulted in, not to mention the $3.8 billion/year, and high-profile spying cases like the recently repatriated Jonathan Pollard—not to mention support for Pollard in the Jewish mainstream. Israeli oppression of the Palestinians may also be a factor, even though it’s not directly relevant to the loyalty issue. More educated people then to be more liberal and are likely more aware of the oppression. It’s well known that support for Israel is dwindling on the left. As is often the case, being anti-Jewish is simply about knowing more of what’s going on.

Of this bunch, the loyalty question is by far the most interesting because it gets at a central feature of Jewish activism. And it suggests that more educated people are aware of what should be obvious to the non-braindead—that America has indeed suffered greatly because of the subservience to Israel and that this is entirely due to the activism of American Jews.

But of course, for a very Jewish magazine like the Tablet, any hint that educated people are not completely enthusiastic about Jews is cause of alarm and activism. After all, educated people have more power, and it certainly behooves any community to understand where the real threat lies (same goes for White activism, which is why we stress Jewish issues at TOO). But what really bothers the authors is that “educating” the public may not be the answer. Jews have always relied on their very large influence on the mass media and academic opinion to provide positive images of Jews and completely omit anything that might suggest conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews. Since the authors are so confident that there could never be any serious criticism of the Jewish activist community, they suggest that providing facts is not enough to rectify the situation:

Strategies for addressing intolerance in general, and anti-Semitism in particular, tend to revolve around the belief that group-hatred is caused by ignorance, and that the solution is more education. Yet if more-highly educated people are more hostile with respect to Jews, higher educational levels and more courses and training could increase prejudice, rather than diminish it.

This of course leaves out the very strong possibility that more educated Americans are more aware of Jewish power and in particular how Jewish power has been focused on Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. Such information is leaking out despite their best efforts (to date) to shut down negative information about Israel in the mainstream media and even make criticism of Israel illegal, as with the recent spate of anti-BDS laws in several states.

So what to do?

At the very least, it seems that an education that simply provides information about historical events, civil liberties, and other cultural groups is insufficient. Addressing anti-Semitism and prejudice more generally may require the cultivation of virtue. Specifically, it requires the formation of a kind of character that is not only familiar with other outgroups and democratic norms, but also has the integrity to behave in ways that demonstrate consideration of their interests and restraint in the use of political power in the pursuit of personal interests.

This shows an amazing lack of self-awareness, even self-deception. Anyone with the slightest understanding of where the power of the Jewish community has been directed realizes that Jewish power has fundamentally been arrayed against the interests of the traditional White majority.

In fact, the activist Jewish community clearly has not had the integrity to respect the legitimate interests of White Americans, nor have they used restraint in their pursuit of their interests. They have not done unto the White majority as they would like the White majority to do unto them. In their long history of conflict with surrounding peoples, Jews have never been treated better than they have throughout the West, at least since World War II.

In the contemporary U.S., besides the conflict between Israeli and U.S. interests, Jewish activism is strongly focused on curtailing free speech, especially on diversity issues and most especially on assertions of White identity and White interests. And it is strongly focused on supporting replacement-level immigration which is lessening the power of Whites and will ultimately result in Whites being unable to achieve their interests in a democratic manner. And much worse if Whites become a relatively powerless minority.

Immigration is indeed Exhibit A in the Jewish disregard of White interests—the topic of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique where I show that the activist Jewish community rejected the ethnic status which was the aim of the 1924 immigration law—a status quo that was obviously in the legitimate interests of White America as the founding population of the country—and that the main Jewish motivation was fear that a relatively homogeneous White America would inevitably turn on the Jews. Some examples:

Svonkin (1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

The AJCongress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”

Recently I became aware of Otis Graham’s 2004 book Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis. Graham notes that, besides being the most effective force of liberalized immigration, the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely” (80).

I firmly believe that if Jews had had respect for the legitimate interests of White Americans rather than consistently engaging in ethnic hardball against the interests of White America (especially in the post-World War II era when anti-Semitism had been completely marginalized), we and the entire West would be in a very different situation.

The authors conclude:

As Harvard professor and Yiddish scholar Ruth Wisse has argued, anti-Semitism has not thrived because of ignorance, but because it “forms part of a political movement and serves a political purpose.” Those political causes making use of anti-Semitism are increasingly favored by the well-educated in this country. Countering the anti-Semitism of the well-educated will be a political and moral struggle, not one that can be addressed by conventional approaches and conceptions of education.

I agree with Wisse. If indeed there is an anti-Jewish movement in America, it will be aimed at a political purpose for the Whites involved: rectifying historic wrongs inflicted on White America.