Jews as a Hostile Elite

Joe Klein: Immigration will save the U.S. from White racism

Writing in Time, Joe Klein presents the view that it is necessary to import millions of non-Whites as a cure for “our poisonous biracial era.” The subtitle says it all:  “Trayvon’s Death Is an Outrage, But …Thanks to immigration, stronger laws and years of hard work, our poisonous biracial era is ending.”

Yes, we are nearing the promised land of racial harmony that will be possible only when those evil Whites are a minority. Not surprisingly, Klein looks forward eagerly to a non-White majority America:

This is not the 1980s; race isn’t the issue it was 30 years ago. It isn’t binary–black and white–anymore. It’s a kaleidoscope now: Latinos outnumber blacks in the American population, healthy dollops of South and East Asians add to the mix, and the prospect of a nonwhite majority is just around the bend.

Could there ever be  healthy dollops of White folks? Probably not.

The logic is quite familiar—the same logic that has motivated generations of Jewish activists advocating non-White immigration in order to make it safer for Jews. People like Klein pose as moral paragons when their logic is nothing more than self-interested ethnic hardball: Demographically swamp White America so that the political power of Whites declines, making the rise of an anti-Jewish movement among Whites much more difficult. Recall Jewish sociologist Earl Raab, writing in 1995, on the Jewish role in promoting non-White immigration:

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.  … The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever (see here, p. 246)

People like Klein are only using the Black-White racial divide as a weapon against White power. And the result of their anxieties and hatreds is to swamp America with tens of millions of non-White immigrants, making Whites a minority in the country they founded and built.

Of course, the world is still imperfect. For example, Florida still has “barbaric gun laws.” But the main point is that for Klein,

the Republicans can no longer profit from being a predominantly all-white, regional, rural party. The Al Sharpton version of the Democratic Party is 20 years in the past. There will always be injustices like the murder of Trayvon Martin, but in our multiracial future, led by our color-blind children, there will be fewer of them. Read more

Joe Biden’s faux pas

Good  grief!  Joe Biden should  know the ground rules by now. You can praise the contributions of individual Jews. It’s totally permissible to wax eloquent on the accomplishments of  Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, or Albert  Einstein—perhaps even implying that humanity would never have come on these ideas and thus be infinitely poorer for it. (John Derbshire seems to agree, but it’s ridiculous on the face of it.) You  can even  praise the Jewish community’s role in enacting public policy on which there is a broad consensus, such as the Civil Rights movement.

But you can’t imply that Jews have real power and have used it to push America in directions most Americans don’t want to go or obviously conflict with the legitimate interests of other  groups—particularly Whites.

The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you … I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation. (See Jonathan Chait, “Biden praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidentally Thrills Anti-Semites“)

In particular, as noted also at TOO, Biden claims that Jews have been at the vanguard of gay marriage. We have also noted Jewish domination of the gun control movement and their responsibility for the mainstreaming of pornography and for the sexualization of culture. Jewish neocons with their power in the media and in the government were the main force behind the costly war in Iraq. And by far most importantly Jews have been the main force behind displacement-level non-White immigration (see also here regarding the current push for yet more massive increases in non-White immigrants). Biden cheerfully says, ““The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.” Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Goad on “a specific minority Who Must Never Be Named Under Threat of Eternal Damnation”

Jim Goad has a noteworthy comment on TakiMag on the liberal Jews David Sirota and Tim Wise who took the opportunity presented by the Boston bombings to complain about “White privilege” while exempting themselves from any taint of Whiteness  (“Let’s Hope the Next Bomber is a Liberal Journalist“). (This was such low-hanging fruit that I couldn’t resist taking a shot myself.) Sirota’s column got a lot of attention by mainstream conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, but of course they never mentioned that Sirota was a Jew and had therefore exempted himself from White guilt and White privilege because, after all, he is a member of minority persecuted by those evil Whites.

Goad hits all the right notes, particularly the hypocrisy of these anti-White crusaders. You have to read the whole thing, but I can’t resist quoting his comment on Tim Wise:

Wise kinda-sorta claims to be white in an apparent quest to score self-flagellation points, but not really, since he says his Jewish ancestors were only able to achieve success by slyly passing as white. So if I’m understanding him correctly, even though he insists he’s white and that white guilt is a real thing, don’t try and pin any of the bad stuff about whiteness on him, because he’s not really white. This, apparently, is how he’s able to feel justified in plotting the “destruction” of the “conservative old white people [who] have pretty much always been the bad guys” while he refers to Jews as “my people.”

Fuck me with a dreidel if that “destruction” line doesn’t sound somewhat genocidal, Uncle Tim. But what the hell do I know—I’m rendered deaf, dumb, and blind by “white privilege,” right?

Although the Boston bombings had nothing to do with whiteness, Wise immediately squirted his shopworn “white privilege” meme all over the blood and guts in Boston. Read more

Boston Bombing Aftermath: David Sirota and Ben Shapiro claim Jews are not part of White America

David Sirota’s  blog hoping that a White guy was responsible for the Boston terror has gotten quite a lot of mileage (“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American”). The basic idea is that if it’s a Muslim, say, people might start thinking that increasing legal immigration by 50% and amnestying God knows how many illegals in a time of high unemployment—the Senate bill that insane Republicans think will bring them back to power—might not be a good idea. That’s because , if it’s a Muslim, people will start blaming whole groups of people and maybe not want to continue importing more of them.

Or maybe they’ll tend to just blame immigration itself. (See LATimes: “Boston suspects’ background threatens to derail immigration bill.”) The bombers appear to be ethnic Chechnyans and Muslim, although at this point it can’t be said exactly what their motives were. In any case, it’s pretty obvious that these immigrant bombers don’t have much love or respect for America.

So Sirota is right that people like him should hope that it was a White guy. But I rather doubt he would like the logic: It’s probably true that quite a few people would blame an entire group or even all immigrants for the actions of a few people. But that’s not really the issue. Even the least likely to stereotype would reasonably wonder why any of the group are here if even a small number are causing such death and destruction.  Even if a tiny percentage of immigrants of a certain sort turn out to be terrorists who wreak major havoc (VDARE has documented the immigrant mass murder syndrome), it’s still a very bad policy to bring them in, especially when the only reasons for doing so are to meet the political goal of the left in swamping the White majority and the Republican’s goal of destroying the labor market.

The same can be said about crime, low IQ, and high rates of welfare dependency and single parenting, although it would take more than a few bad apples to sway the argument on these issues. (High percentages of illegal immigrants [58% in Texas, 55% in California] are already on means-tested welfare; the new bill ensures that they will continue to do so, likely at much higher rates.) Of course, for the left and now the Republicans envisioning all those welfare recipients voting for Marco Rubio, no cost is too high in the drive to eclipse White America.

But it’s worth pondering the other side of the coin—that a White American bomber would not result in stereotyping Whites. Anti-White activist Tim Wise took the opportunity presented by the Boston bombings to claim that the fact that Whites do not suffer group stigma for such an act is yet another example of “White privilege”—a “privilege” enjoyed by any demographic majority. But of course that’s the real reason why Wise and Sirota are exercised: they hate the fact that there is still a White majority. (See here for TOO articles mentioning Tim Wise.) Read more

Review of Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy


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

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

Dissident History

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

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

David Turner’s Fevered Imaginings of the West

A commenter on David Turner’s article mentioned in my previous article “The Media Drumbeat: The West is Evil“) writes:

So the majority looking to protect its ethnic interests by retaining the ethnic status quo is bad? What about the Dalai Lama, the Japanese or indeed even Israel? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the recent “flood of illegal workers infiltrating from Africa” into Israel was “a concrete threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the country.” Don’t you need to acknowledge that this is normal group behavior and part of human psychology

Nice comment!

Turner replies:

Since your comment is so general I’m not certain of your point? Surely its not that if Christendom sees the Jewish Problem essential to its interests then it is justified in annihilating  the Jewish people? Because that, in effect, was the near result of the the Final Solution, and the US using the 1924 Act (clearly intended as preemptive ethnic cleansing) to force Jews to remain available for Auschwitz?

The commenter replies:

Was it intended as pre-emptive ethnic cleansing? I wasn’t aware of any suggestion of deporting or removing groups in the US? My comment was that it seems there is a double standard here? If it’s bad for one group to [advance] its ethnic interests by retaining the ethnic status quo,  does that apply for all groups? Take the quotation ““Upon signing the Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, ‘America must remain American.’ This phrase would become the rallying cry of anti-immigration sentiment until after World War II.” If that is wrong, then what is your view on countries like Japan, or even Netanyahu’s comment…

Well said. In Turner’s fevered mind, the concept that other people have ethnic interests is completely incomprehensible. Not only that, the American desire to retain the ethnic status quo becomes a justification for killing all Jews even though no legislator ever mentioned killing Jews in the Congressional debates, and even though no Jews were ever killed or even deported. The idea that the law was “preemptive ethnic cleansing” is completely bonkers—as if American legislators in 1924 could predict what would happen in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. Read more