So as the partly Jewish Vladimir Lenin asked “What is to be done?”

A direct and explicit attack on Jewish power — at this point — would be no more likely to succeed than a frontal attack on Verdun in 1918.  However admirable this direct approach is, it is unlikely alone to make a significant change.

Is there any indirect approach which could significantly weaken the power of the Jewish nation over the US?

To analyze this, we need to examine the environment the Jewish Nation creates for itself in order to effectuate its goals.

First, some underlying principles:

(a)        Jews hate democracy.  They feel that the vast majority of people hate them (generally wrongly at first, correctly at the end) .  So, from the days of the favorite Jewish King of Spain — Pedro the Cruel — they have LOVED the most vicious, tyrannical, and worthless dictators; in contrast, they have hated popular control unless they felt they could control the people through media.  This gives you an idea of what they want to do with our country.  We are not even close to the end-game.

(b)        Jews do business everywhere, even in the most unlikely goy-centered places.  Accordingly, they need “protection” from democracy everywhere, not just in the locations (NYC and LA) where most of them live.  So having Jew-friendly policies in two cities and nowhere else does them no good.  They have to control everything, everywhere to feel secure.  For example, in “wild west” bastion, Dallas, Texas, in 1963, hardly a center of US Jewry, there were a number of extremely powerful and rich Jews, who composed a substantial part of the Dallas business leadership.

(c)        Because of (a) and (b), Jews love centralization and hate local self government, since they are unable to  influence a multiplicity of governmental units as easily as one central unit.  If they can have a federal agency mandate, backed up by the FBI, once that agency — as it has been — becomes indirectly controlled by them through congressional and presidential campaign contributions over many years, to prevent local, small town businesses, governments, or schools from so much as saying “boo” to a local Jew, that is much easier than trying to  construct safe zones in each of 100,000 separate dinky towns where only 7 Jews live but where those 7 own the department store and most of the office buildings.  Ditto the schools; ditto the media (Jews love media chains, since one or two timely purchases can put hundreds of local town newspapers and TV stations under their editorial control.)

The basic rule is that what Jews centralize, they will buy, bribe and/or infiltrate.  What they buy, bribe and infiltrate, they will control.

So the basic countermeasure is to deprive the Jewish Nation of the tools it needs to succeed, much like the indirect military operation of destroying rail lines through which front-line troops received materiel and food.

The main indirect attack would be decentralization or, where that is impossible due to technological factors (such as the natural monopolies of Google and Facebook), neutralization.

In this light, the following neutral-sounding, counter measures suggest themselves.

Decentralize All Levels of Government.  First, massively decentralize government.  Both at the Federal and at the State level.  This will involve the elimination of laws that, by their very nature, demand centralized control of ordinary citizens and small institutions.

Repeal the all Civil Rights including and those enacted after the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Eliminate the Department of Education and virtually all of the Department of Justice.

Massively restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  Likewise the state courts.

Eliminate all federal and state law enforcement agencies.  They are not needed for the crimes most people care about, and they will always be used against White interests.  As part of this, eliminate all federal and state criminal laws except those in existence, say, in 1800.

Eliminate all state or federal control over education.  Control should be at the local school board level and the school boards should encompass no more than say, 1,000 students at a crack.  All school funding should be local.  At the local level, revise zoning and other codes to permit anyone to start a school in their house.  End mandatory education in the sense that towns would still be required to provide schools for those who wished to attend, but no one would be required to go to school.  At that point all regulatory pressure on private schools would end.

Eliminate almost all state-level executive officers, except the Governor himself; any significant law enforcement or school officer(s) should be local only and elected at the local level.

Eliminate any credentialing requirements for law, school teaching, medicine that are not done at the local level; and permit very few professions to require credentialing at all.

Decentralize Other Institutions.   Decentralize as many institutions as possible, even if not governments.

Media.  Decentralize — to the extent possible — media.  Go back to the original Federal Communications Act of 1924 and massively reduce the permitted power of broadcasting devices, so that each broadcast station reaches only a truly miniscule areas.  Prohibit any cross ownership.  Require that at least one station be owned by the relevant town.  Prohibit any “network” — make any such arrangements a per-se anti trust violation.

Amend the antitrust laws to prevent the ownership of more than one newspaper by any set of related parties.

Massively shorten copyright times.  Copyright, through its centralized ownership, is a massive tool of central control, permitting “unwanted” narratives to be removed from public dissemination on copyright and purported “financial” grounds.  Thus, for entertainment copyrights, shorten terms to perhaps 10 years.  And copyrights owned by any news outlets, visual or written, permit only a two-day copyright period; thereafter any news organization’s product is public material with, at most, an ASCAP-like fee to the writers (not the News organizations).  Re-use where the re-user gets no monetary compensation would in  be royalty free.

Banking.  Repeal all laws permitting branch banking.  One branch per bank please, and no related ownership.  Forget about interstate banking.

Currency.  Permit local commodity based currencies and permit gold, silver, and diamonds to act as currencies in any local areas if desired.  (This goes to Anonymity as well (see below))

Neutralize; If Possible, Decentralize.

Media.  Where media cannot be decentralized, regulate it so as to make its application as neutral as the “Ma Bell” telephone lines of yore.  Require that any internet company, bank, airline, train, bus system, or other business with a greater than a 20% market share nationally (or in a local community) may not discriminate in the provision of service based on the speech or ideology of the customer or up-loader.  Put in rules demanding all media outlets permit free speech; no hate speech or “group libel” laws.

Banking.  Force all credit card consortia or businesses — think Visa or American Express — which in a sense need a nationwide scale to be useful at all — to operate like AT&T:  each must serve all without any regard to the political views or speech of customers — card users or card takers.

Currency.  No restrictions may be put on the use of currency; to the extent it is not anonymous, use must be without regard to the political views of the user.

Anonymity (a form of neutralization).  Wherever possible promote the ability to operate — online and offline — with anonymity.

Banking.  Permit anonymous bank accounts to be established without personal identifying information.

Internet.  Work on a regulatory regime for the internet demanding that all platforms permit use of their services anonymously, without giving one’s name or other identifying information.  Make taking a plane like taking an NYC cab in 1965.  Work with DARPA and institutions like Cal Tech to develop an anonymous internet — one in which the user of a site could not be tracked or even recorded.

Money: promote the use of cash.  Permit local and commodity-based (e.g., gold-based) currencies in localities.  Commission the US Treasury to develop anonymous cash cards to be used on the internet.  Bring back bearer securities, both for government issues and private debt, so that income can be received simply by clipping coupons.  Require all corporations to have a certification option and a bearer certificate option.  Require all employers to pay in dollars or in gold if so requested by their employees.

Tax.  Repeal all the information reporting requirements enacted since 1940, including wage withholding.

Campaign Financing.  Limiting spending simply will not work. Instead, eliminate most of the things on which campaign media is spent, which almost uniformly is television.  How?  Require that every broadcast media go to C-span mode, such that for the three months before every election, primary and general, each of, say, the top 6 candidates by polling or other interim data have their speeches broadcast continuously, with no third party commentary, and no advertisements.  The flood of primary data via broadcast will crowd out any ads and will overwhelm the effect of advertising by any other media, as well as prejudiced mainstream media on-air editorials and “talking heads.”

If possible by statute or constitutional amendment, prohibit any funding by any person not resident in the relevant political district or state where the elections are being held.  No more field trips to New York where pledges to Israel must be taken, please.

Politics.  Limit by statute if possible or constitutional amendment if necessary the holding of elective or appointive office by any person not resident in the relevant district and/or state for at least ten years.  No interlopers from Goldman Sachs, please.

Borders.  Suspension of All Undesirable Immigration.  Ideally, all immigration by persons other than Christian Whites would be suspended for a period of, say, 20 years, with very limited or no such immigration thereafter.  Since Jews will be more likely to see this as an attack on them, start with simply a suspension of all immigration for 20 years.  Phrase this as a neutral protection for the hard-pressed working class, a purported favorite of left-wing Jews everywhere.  Quote the previous statements of Jewish politicians — such as Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders, each of whom had pretty good statements on this back in the day —  to defuse charges of anti-Semitism.  In this regard, permit state and local governments, as well as private citizen groups, to protect the border without federal involvement, all exempt from any civil or criminal liability for any damage caused.

Military.   Jews hate serving in the military, hate the outdoors, hate farm and wild animals, and hate camping.  Thus the main infantry will never be overrun with Jews.  However, just as with the FBI, the military can be — and is now being — corrupted from above to serve Jewish interests.  The solution is to essentially disband the federal Army except for a training force of 50,000 or so men, prohibited by statute from engaging in force anywhere in the U.S. without a two-thirds vote of Congress and a two-thirds vote of the State legislature in any state where the US Army intends to operate..  Instead require towns to field and pay for local militia.  The militia can be centrally trained to high and uniform standards, but they cannot be called out except by vote of the local towns or, perhaps, the State legislature by a two-thirds vote which would lapse automatically at the end of each six month period.  Every male would have military training, so that this reserve force would constitute, say, 12 million men.  These men would be fully armed with the most modern Army equipment, which each would keep in special storage lockers in their homes, essentially like the Swiss, or, for the largest weapons, at local town armories.  So much for attempts to get rid of the Second Amendment.  Militia would have legal precedence over (a) local police and (b) any state or federal police, armed agents, or army personnel.  They would thus be entitled to defend their own and neighboring towns from state or federal incursion with lethal force without any legal ramifications.  Jews will hate this.  But, on its face, it is neutral.

Foreign Relations.

Eliminate.  Eliminate foreign relations.  Given its recent track record, it is not clear that the US should be allowed to have a foreign policy, given that it has done so much damage to itself and the rest of the world in the last 30 years.  Of course the reason is that our foreign policy has been delegated to the Jewish Nation.  It would be better to have no foreign policy at all than one controlled by enemies of our country, enemies that undercut our interests at every turn.

Bricker Amendment.  At long last, pass the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, reversing an ill-advised Supreme Court decision effectively holding any international treaty will override the Constitution.  If the power to override the Constitution via treaties is left in the hands of the Senate, it will defeat every proposal set forth above simply by way of a web of nefarious treaties.  This has been, and is being, done at every turn.

Treaties.  A massive withdrawal from most US treaties is in order.  Top of the list:

(a) Every extradition treaty.  Under these treaties US citizens can be extradited to barbarous foreign judicial systems.  This treaty network is the product of our police elites — read the FBI and DEA — that feel more comfortable with their “cop-counterparts” in foreign nations than they do with the American people and that, in any case are now fully controlled by the Jewish nation.

(b) NATO, SEATO, and the defense treaties with Japan and South Korea.  Recognize North Korea and Iran and be done with it.

(c)  Selected trade treaties, including possibly the WTO.  In essence get out of every treaty that puts restrictions on the on-shoring of our manufacturing capacity.

(d)   All human rights treaties.

(e)   All asylum or other treaties compelling us to accept immigrants, temporary or otherwise.  These treaties were a Jewish thing from the beginning.  End it.

Adopt a policy of peace and non-involvement, along with a massive draw down of our international armed forces deployments.  The more toys a centralized government has to play with, the more toys for the Jewish National toy box.  Not good.

It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that most of these measures — though not all, e.g., campaign financing — are libertarian and De Toqueville-esque.  The beauty of this is that libertarianism is effectively a Jewish movement!  Think Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Murray Rothbard.  Thus, the bulk of these proposals use Jewish momentum against itself.  Much like a Judo throw.  In any case, at least initially, if skillfully presented, they will not immediately attract the combined rage of the Jewish establishment.

John B. Connolly, World War II combat veteran, confidante of Lyndon Baines Johnson, former Governor of Texas (remember Dealy Plaza?) and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury — no inexperienced student of power — stated that if he were to take over a country he would go immediately to control three institutions:  the banks, the media, and the military.

Funny how our proposals above puts each of these institutions back to the local level, effectively under local control.  Under the control, that is, of the people of the United States.

So that we may, at long last, have a government by, for, and of the people, which may not perish from the earth.

Here’s to John Bricker.  May his soul rest in peace.

---

Notes:

1/  The fall off in numbers when one travels up the bell curve is nothing short of astounding.  Non-Ashkenazi whites have a mean IQ of 100.  On this basis, a standard deviation is about 15 IQ points.  Only 2% of the population has an IQ 2 standard deviations above the mean (IQ 130 or above);  Only 1% has in IQ of 135 or above; and, only 0.13% of the population has an IQ at or above 3 standard deviations above the mean (an IQ of 145 or higher).  Since the Ashkenazim have a mean IQ of about 111, the entire Ashkenazi bell curve is shifted up by close to a standard deviation as compared to goyim Whites.  Accordingly, while only 0.13% of non-Ashkenazi whites have an IQ at or above 145, about 2% of Ashkenazi do.  Applied to estimated population numbers in the United States of 5 million for Ashkenazy Jews and 200 million for non-Ashkenazi whites, the result is that about 100,000 Ashkenazim should have an IQ at or above 145, and about 260,000 non-Ashkenazi whites would be expected to have an IQ of 145 or greater.  Of this total of 360,000, therefore, the Ashkenazie constitute almost 30% of the “top end” intellects in the country.  Accordingly, they are overrepresented by almost a factor of 6 compared to their actual numbers in the population. And then, there’s ethnic networking and concentrating in particular sectors, like media, law, social sciences….

 

Wigmore Hall is not a place that one would typically expect to find out is intimately connected with the subversion of the sexual morals of the West. If you aren’t a fan of classical music, then its name probably means little to you, but since 1901 this concert hall located in central London has been one of the world’s premier chamber music and recital venues, a space specially designed for the exhibition of Europe’s unmatched musical achievements. Sadly, even places such as this have not been spared from the modern forms of “enrichment” that are becoming all too common within our cultural institutions. In-between performances of Schubert or Beethoven, the venue now hosts things like an “African Concert Series” and refugee art installations, and the hall is regularly used for music lessons for London’s depressingly multiracial youth. The sight of an ensemble of British primary school students—where almost not a single child is white—singing about diversity on a stage that should be reserved for the celebration of White people and not their denigration and replacement, is a particularly egregious example of our predicament.

As this writer recently discovered, such hostile acts are not a new occurrence at Wigmore Hall, as nearly 100 years ago it was being defiled in an altogether different sort of way. The year was 1929, and between the 8^th and 14^th of September the chamber hall was rented out for a congress that attracted almost 350 delegates. Present were luminaries from around the world, academics and experts in their field, seated alongside famous activists and British cultural figures. On the opening day they sat to listen not to a musical performance but to an opening speech about sexology. For this was no ordinary gathering of people, they were delegates of the Third International Congress of the World League for Sexual Reform (WLSR) and the opening speaker was none other than Magnus Hirschfeld, the president of the league.        Readers of The Occidental Observer will need no introduction to Magnus Hirschfeld, a man once described by Hitler as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany,” but the name of Australian-born sexologist Norman Haire—the subject of this essay and the man who organized the London congress—has been largely forgotten to history. His exploits are now only known to a handful of writers and historians, but during the 1920s and 1930s, Haire was one of Hirschfeld’s more prominent disciples in the world of sexology and at one point the co-president of the WLSR, an organization that played more than a passing role in seeding the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the modern toleration for every form of sexual depravity imaginable. Haire’s works widely circulated in the elite and socialist circles of pre-war anglosphere, with Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm claiming in 1939 that he was one of the few people of his generation that did not read Haire.[1]

When it comes to “sexology” or the study of human sexuality and behaviour, Andrew Joyce has previously identified[2] the two distinct strains within the modern discipline as it emerged in the early years of the twentieth century, noting that it was never proclaimed as an explicitly Jewish discipline. One was the gentile strain, a forensic study of the “sex question” that medicalized sinful behavior, gaining prominence with the writings of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and was pioneered in the anglosphere by Havelock Ellis. The other was the now-dominant Jewish strain, the one to which “the modern toleration and promotion of sexual delinquency owes its most significant debt.”[3] This came out of the German-speaking world, originating with Albert Moll, Iwan Bloch, Magnus Hirschfeld and Albert Eulenberg, and was strongly supplemented by Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis.

Both strains sought to extract inquiries on sexual behavior from the constraints of religious discourse, but where gentile sexology largely contextualized sexual deviance within theories of degeneration and came to dovetail closely with the birth control and eugenics movements (which directed inquires on sex through the lens of demographic issues as they related to the health of the race), Joyce notes that:

these Jewish sexologists and social commentators were united in advancing theories of sexual inversion [homosexuality] that moved away from interpretations involving themes like degeneration, demographic decline and biological reality, and instead towards Talmudic abstractions involving the nature of romantic love and the allegedly fluid nature of gender and sex. As one might predict, running through all of their works is a clear preoccupation with the need for “tolerance” and social pluralism, the denial of human difference, and a fanatical opposition towards non-Jewish attempts to develop racial science.[4]

Bloch in particular can be credited with originating the critique of the “degenerative theory” that defined the gentile strain, arguing instead that sexual deviance was an isolated anthropological phenomenon that had no capacity to undermine civilization and result in cultural decline.[5]

Haire’s origins in the anglosphere saw him begin his career in the former strain, which imbued his writings with a degree of rhetoric on race improvement. But driven by his own Jewish background and homosexuality, as well as an underlying desire for sexual tolerance, it is obvious to which side he spiritually belonged to from the start. In a statement on the aims of the WLSR, Haire himself clearly articulated the ultimate point of Jewish sexology as a weapon of cultural warfare, namely to

establish sexual ethics and sociology on a scientific, biological and psychological basis instead of the present theological basis. … The Stronger our organisation [the WLSR] and the greater our resources, the sooner we shall attain our object, which is freedom of humanity from the sexual persecution and sexual starvation which ignorance and intolerance have imposed upon it.[6]

Though he was only of secondary importance in the history of sexology and twentieth-century sexual reform, Haire—as apologist and enabler—bridged the gap between the trailblazers of Jewish sexology and the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Following in Hirschfeld’s wake were people such as Haire, who worked diligently to mould public opinion and popularize the sexual ideals that achieved dominance by the end of the twentieth century. According to Diana Wyndham, the author of his biography, Haire exemplified the Jewish virtue of Tikkun Olam (“healing the world”),[7] by which she means he dedicated his life’s work to the dissolution of Western, Christian norms on sexual morality and the aggressive promotion of the use of contraception. The following critical review of the contours of his life illustrates the poisonous influence that even a secondary player like Haire had, as a prophet of sexual reform and a prominent contributor to the sexually radical climate of pre-war intelligentsia, in bringing about the current sexual perversion of the West.

Australian Origins

Norman Haire was born Norman Zions in Sydney in 1892, the youngest of 11 children in a non-observant Jewish family. The Zions family (originally Zajac) originated from Poland and were one of the many thousands of Jews that migrated to London during the nineteenth century to escape the Tsar’s failed attempts at turning them into Russian citizens. Sexual deviance to some degree or another was common to the major proponents of sexology, leading to the obvious hypothesis that sexology became, at least in-part, the vehicle for legitimizing their own sexual deviance, and Haire was no exception to this rule. There was Alfred Kinsey the sado-masochist who physically abused his genitals, Hirschfeld the nudist homosexual, and Havelock Ellis’ private life was far from conventional, being in an “open marriage” with a lesbian. Haire’s own homosexuality was a matter of conjecture to even his colleagues within the sex reform movement, known only to or suspected by close confidants—one can theorize that Haire, who regularly interacted with the general public, felt the level of secrecy was necessary to avoid him and his clinic being ostracised. It was at the Sydney Library that an 18-year-old Haire encountered the first two volumes of Havelock Ellis’s Studies in the Psychology of Sex. Within he discovered a discussion on sexual inversion (homosexuality) that, whilst still describing it as a disorder, was absent from guilt-inducing religious rhetoric that located the origins of the behaviour solely in sin. This apparently relieved his youthful sexual anxieties and sparked a lifelong desire to study sex and reform the views of Christian society that he felt caused unnecessary suffering.[8]

In 1915, Haire graduated from the University of Sydney with a medical degree and he relocated to work at a hospital in London in 1919, whereupon he made contact with Havelock Ellis. Ellis had spent a number of his formative years in Australia—of which he had fond memories—and even taught at the same Sydney high school Haire attended, and accordingly accepted his Australian admirer with open arms. With introductions from Ellis, Haire ingratiated himself and soon became a leading member of Britain’s birth control movement, moving in the circles of all the prominent figures—Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Stella Browne and C.V. Drysdale. Within three years he was on the executive committee of the British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology (BSSSP) and a medical officer of the Malthusian League, and his pioneering articles on birth control methods were being published in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, both prominent medical journals. However, he was an ethnic outsider within the country’s birth control scene; Jews had entered into prominent roles in birth control endeavors elsewhere, such as Gregory Pincus and Abraham and Hannah Stone in America or Hans Lehfeldt in Germany, but in Britain, Haire took a backseat to what was primarily a gentile venture. Haire quickly moved on from hospital duties and set up a gynaecology practice on Harley Street and provided birth control advice to the poor at a free clinic he set up with the Malthusian League called the Walworth Women’s Welfare Centre—among the earliest such clinics in the world. A number of foreign contraceptives made their way to England through promotion by Haire, such as the Dutch-designed rubber pessary and the Gräfenberg Ring (designed by Jewish researcher Ernst Gräfenberg) a precursor to the IUD.

Haire’s most well-known and accessible book was Hymen, or the Future of Marriage (1927) wherein he outlined his predictions (or more accurately his desires) about the nature of marriage and sexual relations in the future. Alongside his defenses for no-fault divorce, euthanasia, pre-marital sex and sterilization, Haire predicted that every city in the world would have an Institute for Sexual Research like Hirschfeld’s, and he promoted the benefits of polygamy.

Lifelong monogamous marriage is, I believe, the ideal to aim at; but it is an ideal that is at present suitable to, and attainable by, only a very small minority of people. Most men are polygamous, in their desires at least: a large number are polygamous in practice; and, of those who remain physically faithful to one woman, the majority do so only because of the fear of consequences in this life, or punishment in that after-life which has been invented and exploited by theologians.[9]

At the heart of his book is the now-ubiquitous rhetoric of “live and let live” and the toleration of sexual difference, namely that unless a deviant sexual behaviour directly harms another individual, it should be left undisturbed:

But so long as the sexual rights of others are not interfered with…the sexual relations of two mutually consenting adults will probably be considered the private concern of the two individuals involved. We shall cease to persecute the unfortunate abnormals; and instead, we shall endeavour to cure them. Where cure is impossible, we shall not interfere with their rights as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.[10]

The integration of homosexual toleration within the wider discourse of sexual reform, particularly through association with popular endeavors such as sex equality, was a longstanding Hirschfeld tactic of legitimization that Haire was more than happy to also utilize.

Rejuvenation and Conflict with the BSSSP

Other than his support for a form of compulsory sterilization, one of the more embarrassing aspects of Haire’s career for his modern-day defenders is his involvement with the Jewish-instigated medical quackery known as “rejuvenation therapy,” invented by Eugen Steinach and Serge Voronoff. Steinach, an endocrinologist born to an Austrian Jewish family, and Voronoff, a surgeon born to a Russian Jewish family, both purported to have discovered, through experimentation on the endocrine systems of animals, the medical answer to the “fountain of youth.” Through surgical alterations to the endocrine and reproductive systems, they claimed that mankind could be “rejuvenated” from old age, with the operations allegedly increasing the vigor and sexual potency of the subject. The Vonoroff method involved surgically grafting slices of monkey testicles to the scrotum of the patient, a procedure which earned him the moniker of the “monkey gland man.” Steinach’s method was more mundane, being essentially a partial vasectomy.                                                                                                                                         Haire learnt of the procedures from a lecture given by his colleague Eden Paul[11] to the BSSSP and opted for the Steinach method, earning a small fortune “rejuvenating” famous elderly clients like W.B Yeats and H.G Wells by charging exorbitant surgical fees. In 1924, he published Rejuvenation:Tthe Work of Steinach, Voronoff, and Others which popularised the fad. Needless to say, none of these operations resulted in anything more than a placebo effect, but what they did do is provide the perfect guinea pigs for experimentation on Steinach’s more enduring achievement—sex-reassignment surgery. Steinach’s experiments on the function of sex hormones guided Hirschfeld and two Jewish doctors (Ludwig Levy-Lenz and Felix Abraham) at the Institute for Sexual Research in 1931 in performing the world’s first full sex-transition surgery on a German man called Rudolph Richter.

Though originally founded under the chairmanship of Hirschfeld, the BSSSP was little more than a lacklustre discussion forum for upper-class sexual radicals,[12] and the majority of its members were not interested in the goal Haire aspired to, namely bold, public sexual reform. Haire, now a prominent figure in the society and the British birth control scene, was not impressed by the BSSSP and its low membership numbers, and described other prominent members as “unbalanced,” “timid,” and “carries discretion to the extreme.”[13] By mid-1923, a minor power struggle over the direction of the society had resulted, but Haire backed down after Ellis reprimanded him in January 1924 after giving a speech at a BSSSP meeting that took the case for homosexual liberation a little too far, telling him that “the usefulness of the society will be largely destroyed if it comes to be regarded as simply a homo club.”[14] Alongside his flair for self-promotion, Haire’s abrasive personality and chutzpah had previously caused friction and interpersonal disputes with prominent members of the British birth control movement,[15] but the conflict over the direction of the BSSSP saw Haire begin to gravitate away from his childhood idol[16] and into the orbit of Magnus Hirschfeld and the Jewish strain of sexology in the German-speaking world—a place Haire would later call his spiritual home.

Hirschfeld and the Third Sexual Congress

First contact with Hirschfeld was made on a trip to Berlin in 1923 with a letter of introduction from Ellis. Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research (ISR) made a strong impression on Haire, as did the “openness of homosexuality” that he encountered in the Berlin bars Hirschfeld invited him along to.[17] In Hirschfeld and the ISR, Haire found an outwardly confident movement that since 1897 already had a trailblazing track record of strong public support for the cause of sexual reform and homosexual liberation. Haire was present at the 1928 Copenhagen conference which founded the World League for Sexual Reform and also attended Albert Moll’s rival Berlin sexology congress in 1926, the International Congress for Sex Research.

Norman Haire (on the left) standing outside a WLSR meeting with Hirschfeld and his lover Karl Giese.   

Haire took up leadership roles in the WLSR, including as co-president with Hirschfeld from 1930 onwards, and he proved particularly influential in the transmission of the currents of Jewish sexology into the anglosphere. Proficient in both French and German, he put his language skills to use not only in attending conferences that were out of reach to most English speakers, but also in personally translating and editing German-language sexology books. From 1929, Haire edited The International Library of Sexology and Psychology series, which provided cheap translations and reprints of all the major sexology works, and edited and contributed to the English editions of Arthur Koestler’s bestseller The Encyclopaedia of Sexual Knowledge (1934). Translations of Wilhelm Aldor’s[18] Encyclopedia of Sex Practice (1934) and Wilhelm Stekel’s Sadism and Masochism (1929) brought Haire into legal trouble as they were being sold as titillating works alongside pornographic books and were considered “unlikely to be read in a scientific manner.”[19]

Haire’s role at the junction between Jewish sexology and the English-speaking world became most evident when he organized the aforementioned Third Congress of the WLSR in London, the first outside continental Europe and a high point for sexual reform in Britain. In total, the congress drew 350 delegates, a mixture of prominent sexologists and birth control activists from around the world and liberal reformers in Britain. Papers from prominent names such as Julian and Aldous Huxley, Bertrand Russell (Russell’s 2^nd wife Dora assisted Haire in organising the congress) and George Bernard Shaw were presented. Havelock Ellis, now dealing with Haire at arm’s length, did not support the London congress and refused to attend, and Margaret Sanger abruptly defected, apparently for fear of her birth control endeavours being tainted with the accusation of involvement with communism and homosexual activism.[20]

The Planks of the WLSR

The topic of homosexuality did not in-fact receive much discussion at the London WLSR, struck from the agenda by Haire in order to align the congress with the more conservative English sensibility, and despite him bemoaning the “conspiracy of silence” against homosexuals.[21] Sex censorship on the other hand received particular attention (as did psychoanalysis), an issue on the minds of British participants given that many of them had recently come to the defense of Raclyffe Hall’s The Well of Loneliness (1928), charged with obscenity due to its presentation of lesbianism. Haire gave evidence in support of the book during the trial, invited by the publisher’s solicitor Harold Rubinstein,[22] and Rubinstein returned the favor by presenting a paper on censorship at the congress. The “planks”
of the WLSR platform, as re-drawn (and somewhat watered down[23]) by Haire for the London congress, read as follows:

1. Political, economic and sexual equality of men and women.
2. The liberation of marriage (and especially divorce) from the present Church and State tyranny.
3. Control of conception, so that procreation may be undertaken only deliberately and with a due sense of responsibility.
4. Race betterment by the application of the knowledge of Eugenics.
5. Protection of the unmarried mother and illegitimate child.
6. A rational attitude towards sexually abnormal persons, and especially towards homosexuals, both male and female.
7. Prevention of prostitution and venereal disease
8. Disturbances of the sexual impulse to be regarded as more or less pathological phenomena, and not, as in the past, merely as crimes, vices, or sins.
9. Only those sexual acts to be considered criminal which infringe the sexual rights of another person. Sexual acts between responsible adults, undertaken by mutual consent, to be regarded as the private concern of those adults.
10. Systematic sexual education.[24]

Minus some changes to the language, and with the notable exception of the eugenics plank, it stands as almost a complete ideological framing of the sexual revolution that was still nearly 40 years away, with all the suggested reforms having now been implemented throughout the Western world.

Following the 1929 London congress came the Vienna congress in 1930, which attracted 1,000 delegates. However, a subsequent congress held in Brno prior to Hirschfeld’s death failed to attract as much publicity, and sexual reform was overshadowed by the worsening political and economic situation. Haire was in London when he heard of the burning of the archives of the ISR by the National Socialists in May 1933 (which included Haire’s works) and sent a frantic letter to Hirschfeld’s lover Karl Giese to inquire if any of the more precious books and papers had been spared from consignment to the flames.[25]

Haire and Race

A more difficult aspect of Haire’s career to parse out is how he approached the question of race. Haire did not (to this writer’s knowledge, based on his publicly available works) make any outwardly hostile statements on racialism or race science and his writings express a broad support for sterilization for reasons of “race improvement.” For example, in Hymen Haire critiques a funding appeal in a newspaper for a family suffering a case of hereditary blindness:

Such an appeal is possible only because Society has a false standard of values—a standard which is hurrying us to national and racial disaster.[26]

His rhetoric on race is nevertheless highly generalized and medicalized and can be seen far more as the desires of a utopian (Haire considered himself a socialist) seeking to eradicate physical and mental deformities in all peoples of the world, utilizing the linguistic rhetoric popular in Britain at the time, rather than as a manifestation of a commitment to the health of the race derived from a wider worldview of racial nationalism.

Degenerative theory is absent from his writings on sexuality and it is difficult to see Haire, the “world citizen” equally at home in London as he was in Berlin and Paris, offering support to racial nationalism or engaging in rhetoric against miscegenation. Furthermore, Haire was concerned about rising anti-Semitism and “jew baiting” in Germany, and he helped a number of his fellow Jewish sexologists who came to England as refugees after 1933. The most generous interpretation is that the issue was largely not of interest to him, a distraction from his pet topic of birth control, but his idol Magnus Hirschfeld’s position on race offers us a clue as to what Haire’s view most likely was (see Andrew Joyce’s Magnus Hirschfeld’s Racism” (1934)).

Wykeham Terriss and the Population Debate

Haire continued his medical practice and involvement with the WLSR and Sanger’s birth control conferences throughout the 1930s, but war and poor health saw him decide to return to Australia in 1940, setting up a clinic in Macquarie Street, Sydney. When it came to movements for sexual reform, not much had changed in the country of his birth since he had left it nearly 20 years prior. There were only two operating birth control clinics, set up by Australia’s small but dedicated birth control movement (one by the Racial Hygiene Association in New South Wales (NSW) and another by the Eugenics Society of Victoria), local condom manufactures like Ansell Rubber (founded by London-born Jew Eric Ansell) still operated discreetly, and little of the currents of Jewish sexology had reached Australia’s shores other than isolated eccentrics who ran afoul of obscenity laws.[27]

After experiencing the liberated scenes of Weimar Germany, Australia was still stuck in what Haire considered to be a sexual dark age, wracked with sexual ignorance and religious dogma,[28] and before long he was at war with Australia’s even more conservative standards on sex, though public discussion of homosexuality was still out of the question. Churches and Christian societies targeted his sex education seminars held at universities and Haire penned a series of articles for The World News on “Sex and Censorship” where he decried Australia’s international reputation on the censorship of sexual publications, arguing that “the present method of censorship is very imperfect, harmful to the public interest and an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the individual.”[29]

In March 1941, Haire scored a major coup in the promotion of sexual reform in Australia when he was appointed to write a series of sex advice articles for a popular weekly magazine (Woman) using the pseudonym “Wykeham Terriss.” Australian women’s magazines of the day were still respectable affairs that catered to the middle-aged woman as the enforcer of morality in society—it would be another 50 years before Jewish editor Nene King turned Australia’s most popular women’s magazines into trashy gossip rags, filled with sex and scandal. Until it ceased publication in 1951, Haire contributed more than 400 articles, which were taboo-breaking endeavours guaranteed to provoke and enrage. Haire refused to use “code words” or religious rhetoric for describing behaviours and body parts, and provided he avoided the obscene, the only topics forbidden in his “freethinking” articles were masturbation and homosexuality. Highlights include Haire blaming the spread of venereal disease on the closing of shops and entertainment on Sundays. Haire’s claim that his articles were the first mass presentations of sex advice in Australia is difficult to quantify,[30] but there is no doubt that they had a wide readership that moulded public opinion in the direction of openness in talking about sex and sexual reform.

Alongside the Wykeham Terriss articles, Haire’s most notorious contribution to Australia was a radio debate in August 1944 which brought him wide censure from Australian politicians. Held as part of the Nations Forum of the Air series, which presented topics that looked towards post-war reconstruction, the debate asked the question “Population Unlimited?” and invited four participants for an unscripted hour-long debate. For the affirmative were two Catholics, Dame Enid Lions, member for parliament and wife of the former prime minister, and the economist Colin Clark, who later advised on the 1967 papal encyclical Populorum Progressio. The feminist Jessie Street took the negative alongside Haire. Whilst he conceded the need for Australia to “cautiously” grow (unlike in Europe, where he felt it best to decrease growth due to “over-population”), Haire presented a staunch defense of birth control methods of the sort that was almost never articulated on national radio, let alone in public discourse. During the debate, Haire referred to his mother as little more than a “prize cow” stuck in a cycle of fertility and child-rearing. The comment was taken as a broadside against Australian motherhood, and the outcry resulted in a government ban being imposed on both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial radio from broadcasting talks on sexual matters and venereal disease.[31]

The Legacy of Haire

“Norman Haire became a sort of hero. … Since then his followers have spread out, infiltrating not only the medical profession, but universities, schools, churches.”[32]

Haire returned to London in August 1946 to find that sexual reform had run out of steam due to the war, and that the fervor over birth control had subsided. As Haire no doubt understood from the radio debate in Australia and its vituperative aftermath, promotion of birth control strongly conflicted with the goal of using population growth as a form of economic stimulation to counter wartime death and destruction, and the field of eugenics had been rendered morally reprehensible by association with the National Socialist regime and its sterilization policies.

Haire kept pre-war sexual reform alive by establishing the Sex Education Society and its accompanying journal, and he became more public in support of abortion and reform of homosexual law, but he continued to be plagued by ill health. His last venture was a speaking tour in the US in 1952, where he met all the Jewish leading lights of American sexology and gay rights activism—Edward Sagarin, Albert Ellis, Hugo Gernsback and Edwin W. Hirsch—and received a visit from Harry Benjamin and Alfred Kinsey whilst resting in a New York hospital.[33] The trip was interrupted by intermittent hospital visits due to heart failure and he died in the UK a few months later. Haire’s papers, which contained many intimate details about well-known English and Australian political and cultural figures, were burned, but his sexology library was donated to the University of Sydney, which in 2020 established the Norman Haire Fund for Sexology Studies.

The legacy of Norman Haire was not immediately apparent in Australia after his departure, as the local sexology scene continued along the gentile strain for a number of years, i.e., it was concerned primarily with family and racial health to the exclusion of radical sexual reform.[34] By the mid-1950s however, the world that he had prophesized back in 1927 was beginning to emerge, a radical world of sexual license and the “toleration of difference”(as a proxy for the toleration of Jews) driven by Jewish ethno-political activism that was intrinsically hostile to any notion of race or racial improvement. The spirit of Hirschfeld, Haire, and the WLSR lived on in the form of Freudianism, Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School, championing the subversive cause of sexual liberation and cultural pluralism throughout the West, and the trickle of pornography and sexual publications turned into a flood. As a sign of the times, the NSW Racial Hygiene Association renamed itself the Family Planning Association in 1960 to align with the new goal of sexual liberation and remove any pretext that it was interested in the biological strengthening of White Australia. The strongly Jewish nature of this endeavour in the Australian context, particularly in the war on obscenity laws and Australia’s conservative sexual morality, has previously been discussed in detail by this writer; see his four-part series The Plot Against Australia (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4).

Once all the legal and cultural prohibitions on open discissions of sex had been dismantled, the field of sexology itself emerged in Australia in full bloom during the 1970s, and as one would expect with Jews playing leading roles. The first professional organization for sexology, the Australian Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists (ASSERT), was founded under the leadership of Greta Goldberg as its convener and first president. Jewish doctors Jules Black (also a founding director of ASSERT) and Elsie Koadlow later jockeyed amongst themselves for the accolade of who set up Australia’s first sex-therapy clinic,[35] and Viennese-born doctor Herbert Bower pioneered a gender-dysphoria clinic at a Melbourne hospital, later graduating to an in-house psychiatrist at the first sex-reassignment surgery clinic in Australia at Monash University—in 1999 he was called the man who “approves every sex change operation in Australia.”[36] Sexologists like Bettina Arndt[37] began appearing on mainstream radio and television networks and Dennis Altman’s Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation (1971) was a worthy successor to Haire and Hirschfeld’s quest for sexual reform.

Once the love that dare not speak its name, now the love one dare not oppose – Current prime minister Anthony Albanese and leading members of the Australian Labor Party celebrating the passing of the gay marriage bill at the Labor caucus.

Around the world, Jews abound in the history of the sexual revolution and its precursors, but like Norman Haire, most of them are now hidden away in the margins of books and journal articles (or uncritical Wikipedia entries), their lives which brim with subversion and intrigue unknown to all but the most esoteric readers. Perhaps someday writers on the Jewish Question will uncover them all, but for now this writer leaves you with the Australian piece in this puzzle, an individual that Australian patriots would prefer to forget was produced on our shores.

Select Bibliography

• Bongiorno, F 2012, The Sex Lives of Australians: A History, Black Inc, Australia.
• Grosskurth, P 1985, Havelock Ellis: A Biography, New York University Press, USA.
• Haire, N 1927, Hymen: Or the Future of Marriage, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd, London, UK.
• Haire, N 1943, Sex Problems of To-day, Angus & Robertson Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
• Leck, R.M 2016, Vita Sexualis: Karl Ulrichs and the Origins of Sexual Science, University of Illinois Press, USA.
• Mancini, E 2010, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement, Palgrave Macmillan, USA.
• Wyndham, D 2012, Norman Haire and the study of sex, Sydney University Press, Australia.

[1]Munster, G 1983 ‘Only shadowy clues left by a reviled prophet of sexual liberation’, The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 24 September, p.38.

[2] Joyce, A 2015 ‘The Assault on Gender and the Family Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part 1, The Occidental Observer, retrieved from: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/26/the-assault-on-gender-and-the-family-jewish-sexology-and-the-legacy-of-the-frankfurt-school-part-one/

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Leck, R.M 2016, Vita Sexualis: Karl Ulrichs and the Origins of Sexual Science, University of Illinois Press, USA, p.185.

[6] Wyndham, D 2012, Norman Haire and the study of sex, Sydney University Press, Australia, p.184

[7] Ibid., p.425.

[8] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.35.

[9] Haire, N 1927, Hymen or The Future of Marriage, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Lt. London, p.95. Retrieved from: 04.us.archive.org/26/items/dli.ministry.14394/E09677_Hymen_Or_The_Future_Of_Marriage_text.pdf

[10] Ibid., p.59.

[11] A member of the Communist Party, Paul was another prominent translator of Jewish sexology books from Germany.

[12] “The Society’s contemporary impact in terms of reform of laws, or even moderating more than a small corner of public opinion, was apparently minimal.”- See Hall, L.A 1995, ‘’Disinterested Enthusiasm for Sexual Misconduct’: The British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology, 1913-47’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.8(4), pp.665-686.

[13] Crozier, I 2003, ‘“All the World’s a Stage”: Dora Russell, Norman Haire and the 1929 London World League for Sexual Reform Congress’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol.12(1), pp16-37, p.21-22

[14] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.116.

[15] See Crozier, I 2001 ‘Becoming a Sexologist: Norman Haire, the 1929 London World League for Sexual Reform Congress, and Organizing Medical Knowledge about Sex in Interwar England’, History of Science, Vol.39, pp.299-329.

[16] Wyndham’s account of the correspondence between Ellis and Haire from this point up until Ellis’ death in 1939 give the impression of a tense but still professional relationship, with Ellis less than pleased by Haire’s manoeuvrings with the WLSR.

[17] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.112.

[18] The cousin of Arthur Koestler.

[19] Cocks, H.G 2004, ‘Saucy stories: Pornography, sexology and the marketing of sexual knowledge in Britain, c. 1918-70’, Social History, Vol.29(4), pp.465-484, p.481.

[20] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.183

[21] Ibid., p.184.

[22] Rubinstein’s son Michael was the defence solicitor for Penguin Books in the landmark 1960 obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

[23] Haire for example removed the plank, originally written by Hirschfeld, on the “tolerance of free sexual relations” and re-wrote the eugenics plank with more racialist language. See Dose, R 2003, ‘The World League for Sexual Reform: Some Possible Approaches’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol.12(1), pp.1-15.

[24] Crozier 2003, Op. Cit., p.28-29

[25]Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.228

[26] Haire, Op. Cit., p.32.

[27] Notably George Southern, the only Australian-based member of the WLSR.

[28] Wyndham Op. Cit. p.320-321.

[29] Haire, N 1941, ‘Sex and Censorship’, The World’s News Sydney, Saturday 25 October, p.2, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/139906663/16086749.

[30] Wyndham, Op. Cit., p.412 – The NSW Racial Hygiene Association had in fact produced sex education pamphlets during the 1930s. The guarded religious language used within these pamphlets about the spiritual uplift of marriage and sexual relations and the opposition to masturbation are a world apart from Haire’s writings on the topic.

[31] Inglis, K.S 1983, This is the ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Commission 1932-1983, 2^nd Edition, Black Inc., Australia, p.188.

[32] Buckley, B 1966, ‘Morals: The Sexual Revolution’, The Bulletin, p.19, retrieved from: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-674029485/view?partId=nla.obj-674142795

[33] Wyndham, Op.Cit., p.391-392

[34] This came in the form of contemporary practitioners such as Victor Hugo Wallace, the Australian editor of the journal Marriage Hygiene (later the International Journal of Sexology) from 1947 to 1955 and a leading member of the Eugenics Society of Victoria.

[35] See https://john.curtin.edu.au/julesblack/launch.html

[36] Bock, A 1999, ‘Gender Bender’, The Age, Saturday 9 October, p.113.

[37] Not Jewish, but with a Jewish background; her family were Lutheran converts.

President Johnson signs the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act

Last Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, publicly pleaded for “a path of citizenship” for America’s eleven million illegal immigrants “or however many” there are (November 16, 2022). Eleven million illegals, incidentally, is the low-ball number that democrats prefer to use. There are good reasons, however, to believe that a more accurate assessment would reflect a significantly higher number—around 5 million since Alejandro Mayorkas came into office at the DHS.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are approximately 46.6 million foreign born immigrants — both legal and illegal — in the U.S: “The 46.6 million immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country in January 2022 is the largest number recorded in any government survey or decennial census going back to 1850 . . . Hispanic immigrants accounted for 70 percent (1.1 million) of the increase in the foreign-born in the last year, indicating that a large share of growth was likely caused by illegal immigration. The federal government and outside researchers have estimated about three-quarters of illegal immigrants are Hispanic” (Steven Camarota & Karen Zeigler, “Foreign Born Population Hits Record 46.6 Million in January 2022”).

Although it’s difficult to pinpoint precisely, many have estimated a figure of approximately thirty million illegal aliens living and working in the U.S. If you’ve lived in California or in any of the Southwest states, it might not be hard to believe such an enormous number.

As one might expect, Schumer never addresses the issue of how the Democrat Party has helped to create the very problem of illegal immigration by urging lax border security and vilifying any person or any analysis that warns against it. Republicans aren’t much better, but most of the Democrats fully support no immigration restrictions and would gladly permit many millions more to arrive on our soil. In fact, since the inauguration of President Biden, illegal immigration has increased exponentially.

Thus, the problems that Democrats like Schumer create they now want to solve — but not by deporting the illegals — but by rewarding them with full citizenship rights!?

Schumer thinks such a pathway is necessary because the U.S. population is “not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to.” Not once, however, does he suggest that Americans begin having more children. Instead, he hopes to rectify our declining reproduction rates by legalizing and importing more non-Whites from the Third World — a solution that will surely bring even more problems.

There’s also a labor shortage that Schumer believes would be fixed if the illegals were granted citizenship. He states:

Now, more than ever, we’re short of workers. We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a good future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers, and all of them, ‘cause our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers get a path to citizenship for all eleven million, or however many undocumented that are here, and we will be pursuing that in the next Senate, in the Senate, the comprehensive immigration reform.

Although I’m sure Senator Schumer would deny it, there is little doubt that he’s essentially promoting ‘the Great Replacement’ which posits that America’s elites aim to change the racial mix of the country by replacing Whites with massive numbers of non-White, Third-World immigrants. Changing America’s demographic, it’s reasoned, will change the way the country votes (presumably in support of Leftist redistributive policies). Part of that effort involves legalizing and providing citizenship for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the country.

Liberals scoff at ‘the Great Replacement’ as mere racist conspiracy, but there is strong evidence that a systematic and well-funded plan to racially replace Heritage Americans with huge numbers of non-Whites has been occurring since the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. Prior to the Act, immigration quotas favored Northwestern Europeans, with relatively few non-White immigrants being allowed to enter the U.S. The New York House of Representatives career politician, Emmanuel Celler (1888–1981), worked tirelessly to reverse immigration laws that had worked well since 1924. As a Jew, Celler argued that such immigration restrictions were unfair, especially if Americans really believed their country was an authentic ‘melting pot’ of immigrants from all over the world.

According to Anna Diamond, who reviewed some of the most important persons involved in the Hart-Celler Act:

Emanuel “Manny” Celler was chair of the House Judiciary Committee for many, many years. Right when he becomes a congressman, in 1923, he sees the quotas passed and is horrified, because he himself is from a German Jewish family and he represents a district in Brooklyn that is basically all immigrants from Europe. He basically spends the next 40 years trying to get rid of [the quotas]. He sees during World War II how [the quotas] make it impossible to admit Jewish refugees. After the war, he’s still fighting and fighting and fighting, constantly losing. He’s sort of the rare person who is there to see the victory, but not everybody does (“The 1924 Law that Slammed the Door on Immigrants and the Politicians Who Pushed It Back Open: Decades of xenophobic policy were overturned, setting the United States on the path to the diversity seen today,” Smithsonian Magazine, May 19, 2020).

Some think that less educated and lower-skilled immigrants would be easier to manage, and this explains why powerful elites have schemed so hard to open America’s borders to the entire world. There may be some truth to this, and I would not be quick to discount it as a possible factor. Yet it seems more likely that powerful and influential Jews — such as Emmanuel Celler, Chuck Schumer, and many others – have worked tirelessly to make America less White for the past seventy years primarily for ethnic reasons.

Jews tend to view White racial solidarity as a bad thing, a threat to their ethnic and religious survival and their main enemies in the struggle for power in America. Is it any wonder why the current U.S. Attorney General who also happens to be Jewish, Merrick Garland, has publicly declared “white supremacy” as America’s greatest threat? In a speech given at the Justice Department, he stated:

In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race (June 15, 2021).

In their minds, Jews want to prevent another repeat of state-sponsored violence against Jews perpetrated by the ethnically and culturally homogeneous Germans. A most effective strategy of theirs against “white supremacy,” then, is to flood the nation with non-Whites. It’s reasoned that if racial demographics within the U.S. reflect more of the third world than of the Northern European Continent, Jews will be safer. They will be one minority group among many others. This will also prevent Jews from being so noticeable and possibly from being directly targeted by Whites who might want to preserve the racial and ethnic makeup of their country.

Jews can’t come out in the open and admit this, of course, so they cloak their true intentions by claiming that it’s being done to help the poor, weak and disadvantaged peoples of the world. They want to promote justice among the nations by means of a Talmudic teaching referred to as ‘Tikkun Olam’ (“repair the world”). They want to help the sojourner, the ‘stranger’ who yearns for freedom. They argue that this is only right since they were themselves once strangers in Egypt. It’s a ruse that many gullible non-Jews, including many ordinary Jews themselves, fall for.

Yet, once again, Jews have taken a leading role in fomenting immigration policies that are disastrous toward White Americans. Not so surprisingly, the very immigration schemes that Jews push for the U.S. are ones they would never push for Jews in Israel. This only makes sense when one understands their reasons, the lies behind them, and the complete hypocrisy of it all.

Thus, when Schumer pushes for amnesty on behalf of millions of illegal aliens (comprising mostly of Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and other groups illegally living in the U.S.), he is being disingenuous at best. He realizes, I think, that there’s a growing suspicion among many White Americans that they are being uniquely targeted for discrimination and racial hostility by their own government. Racial questions that only seven years earlier would not have been entertained by most Whites are now being openly discussed by a growing number of them. Along with skyrocketing levels of violent crime, including soaring inflation rates, the mood of the country is beginning to change. Liberal social policies have proven costly and utterly disastrous throughout Blue states.

The stage, it appears, is being set for what may be a great and inevitable backlash that will likely be led by Whites who oppose ‘the Great Replacement.’ Many Whites are no longer afraid of openly discussing secession and there is a growing disgust among them over widespread corruption in Washington. This deeply concerns Jews like Schumer who are pushing full steam ahead for a mass amnesty that’s destined to racially and culturally displace White Americans even further.

Thus, a nation comprised of a non-White majority along with a racially neutered White minority would hardly threaten Jewish power. The kinds of liberal-left social policies that most Jews vote for would largely go unopposed (even more so than they do now). Government policies deemed beneficial to Jewish interests — especially if ‘anti-Semitism’ were completely outlawed — would find little if any resistance.

Senator Schumer may argue that he wants illegals to become citizens to ensure an adequate work force, but never mentions the idea that workers could come to the U.S. on a contract basis, often for a defined period, and then return to their homelands after the contract ends, as Israel does, thereby preventing the workers from becoming citizens. This would be seen as racist in the extreme.

What he really wants is more Democrat voters who will overwhelm any Republican opposition. Granted, illegal aliens can still vote because of lax voter ID restrictions in some states. Yet, by granting a mass amnesty for illegals with full voting rights and citizenship, any hesitation on their part would be removed. There is little doubt who most of the illegals would be voting for and what kinds of government policies they will support.

Although it’s true that a larger segment of the Hispanic population in America voted for Trump in 2016 than expected, most Hispanics voted just as Democrats thought they would. This trend may change in future elections (and there are some promising indicators it will), but for now most Hispanics remain committed to voting Democrat.

Schumer argues that Americans are simply not reproducing and, therefore, the U.S. must loosen its immigration restrictions and allow everyone to come. It seems strange that the Senator would be concerned over matters of reproduction and birthrates when he has been such a strong abortion supporter with no legal restrictions attached to it. But, again, the man is not being honest with the American people.

In Schumer’s beloved promised land, Jewish birthrates are declining as well (see Hili Yacobi-Handelsman, “Israeli Birthrate on Decline, Government Data Shows,” Israel Hayom, February 22, 2022). Yet, I seriously doubt he would ever call for non-Jews to flood Israel’s borders in order to rectify the situation. No, such remedies are for racially naïve Americans who have been so duped by multicultural dogma that they imagine having their nation flooded by low-skilled foreigners to be a good thing.

Conservative Jew, Ben Shapiro, on his YouTube channel recently called out Schumer for his mass amnesty proposal. Although Shapiro raised some valid criticisms against the New York senator, he made it clear that he was not threatened by an America that looks less White each and every day because “ethnicity is not destiny,” “demography is not destiny,” and “I don’t really care where people come from so long as they actually reflect the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States” (“Chuck Schumer’s Great Replacement Theory,” Episode 1613, November 17, 2022).

Recall that Shapiro also declared on Twitter the following: “And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called “browning of America.” Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does” (June 16, 2017).

Yet Shapiro like his fellow Jew, Schumer, would most certainly care if that same “browning” were occurring in Israel. Suddenly, color would matter! They certainly would care where people came from if they were to land on Israeli soil. And there’s little doubt that Shapiro and Schumer would find any increasing ethnic group in Israel other than their own to be a direct threat to their Jewish survival. In such a case, demography really would determine destiny! For a people who require proof of one’s ethnicity in order to rightfully return to their land (“aliyah”), Shapiro’s dismissal of “color” and “demography” prove to be less than candid and truthful. It’s the kind of thing you say to a Gentile audience who doesn’t know any better and who isn’t likely to discern the hypocrisy in it.

Shapiro doesn’t care what racial group immigrates to the U.S. so long as they “reflect” the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution — a view that is depressingly common, even dominant, among White American conservatives. But how likely is this when massive numbers of American citizens themselves either don’t care or actively work in various ways to jettison the rights of free speech, religious freedom, and the Second Amendment? Seems to me that most foreign immigrants wouldn’t care in the least about such matters. The current mood of much of the country wouldn’t encourage them to see our founding documents as all that relevant or necessary. The kind of immigrants Schumer and his cohorts seem to prefer are those who will mindlessly vote Democrat, and who will care more about obtaining government goodies than about the principles established by dead White guys in August of 1776 at Independence Hall.