|
Jewish
Organizations Behind
Illegal Immigration Catastrophe
|
January 31,
2007
MidEast Policy—Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?
By Kevin MacDonald
Reproduced
from:
http://judicial-inc.biz/k,.evin_macdonald_archive_email_a.htm
|
 |
Kevin
MacDonald
Almost 3 ½ years
ago I published Thinking about Neoconservatism,
analyzing the neoconservative movement in the context of
my studies of the behavior pattern of Jewish groups in
the societies where they live. I concluded
neoconservatism was the latest of a long procession of
political and intellectual movements dominated and
essentially controlled by members of the Jewish
community, in effect dedicated to a particular concept
of how to promote the interests of that community. I
specifically cited foreign policy and immigration as
hallmark interests.
|
|
|
|
Immigration Was Top On The Jewish Agenda
Jewish
community, in effect dedicated to a particular concept
of how to promote the interests of that community. I
specifically cited foreign policy and immigration as
hallmark interests.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
The
Southern SPLC Fortress
At the time, and
for a couple of years later, this was an unmentionable
theory. I am told certain prominent web sites stopped
linking to VDARE.com after my essay was published. The
malign presence of the SPLC (the “Southern Poverty Law
Center”, a notorious ethnically-oriented Political
Correctness enforcer) was soon felt on the scene, not
coincidentally, and it named VDARE.COM a “hate group”, a
sobriquet more normally associated with groups
advocating violence and other forms of illegality.
|
|
|
|
The
Obvious Neo-Cons
But now public
debate has changed considerably. Serious antiwar
commentary routinely connects the Iraq/Iran policy
problem with the influence of Israel and her friends in
America. (See here and here and here.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Immigration
So I ask now:
will the other boot drop? Will this candor next extend
to the immigration controversy?
|
| |
|
Freedom Of
Speech
The vast majority of
Americans live under the comfortable illusion that theirs is a
free country. They suppose that issues are openly and honestly
debated in the newspapers and on talk shows. In this imaginary
world, all issues affecting public policy are on the table and
are constantly scrutinized by the best and the brightest.
But that is simply not the case. In fact, I would go so far as
to argue the opposite—that virtually all of the really critical
issues affecting the United States and its role in the world are
actually excluded from discussion in the elite media or in the
political arena.
America Lets Israel Roam Free
The classic
case: US policy in the Middle East. Despite the obvious
fact that US support for Israel has crucial implications
for war and peace, the vast majority of Americans are
oblivious to what is really going on in this region.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
If
The Average American Knew
Most Americans
would be appalled to learn the truth about what former
President Jimmy Carter terms “the abominable oppression
and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories,
with a rigid system of required passes and strict
segregation between Palestine’s citizens and Jewish
settlers in the West Bank.” Carter calls attention to
the “enormous imprisonment wall … now under
construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine
to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers.”
(Los Angeles Times, December 8 2006).
|
| |
|
Finally Some Open Discussion
Carter’s recent
book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and his courageous
defense of it, seem finally to be triggering a newly
open discussion of Israeli actions and Jewish influence
in the U.S. Coming on the heels of the work of the
University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer and Harvard
University’s Stephen Walt on the Israel Lobby, it
highlights many of the same issues. Indeed, Carter has
explicitly endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt's conclusion
that American policy in the Middle East does not reflect
genuine American interests, but instead those of the
Israel Lobby. (Carter Shares Insight On Peace In
Mideast, by Marty Rosen, Coastal Post, January 3 2007)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Immigration Before The 1965 Immigration Act
America was
white.
|
| |
|
Immigration After The 1965 Immigration Act
This is why it
is possible to hope that the role of Jewish influence in
promoting the epochal change inaugurated by the 1965
Immigration Act might also now be discussed openly and
honestly
|
 |
| |
|
Carter is quite clear
that open discussion of Israel’s policies in the U.S. has been
suppressed:
“This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli
government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of
the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence
of any significant contrary voices. It would be almost
politically suicidal for members of Congress … to suggest that
Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of
justice or human rights for Palestinians…. What is even more
difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major
newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar
self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed
quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.”
In fact, it is not at all difficult to comprehend how this
regime of “self-restraint” is maintained. President Carter
himself, and Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, point to pressure by
the Israel Lobby on the media, consequent media self-censorship,
and the intimidation of dissidents.
|
 |
Carter's Battle
Carter’s book
has created the astounding spectacle of a former
president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize
winner being called an anti-Semite, being condemned by
mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL and the
Simon Wiesenthal Center, and having his offers to give
talks at major universities with high Jewish enrollment
rejected. The saga of the book’s treatment on Amazon has
been a farce.
|
| |
|
The
Attack Dogs
The ADL’s Abe
Foxman is one of many who have used the old canard of
anti-Semitism to condemn both President Carter and
Mearsheimer and Walt. (My favorite title in this genre
is by David Horowitz: “Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater,
Genocide-Enabler, Liar”.)
I focus on
Foxman’s comments because he heads a mainstream Jewish
activist organization and thus reflects the opinions of
at least a major component of the organized Jewish
community. (It has long been noticed that there is a gap
between the attitudes of the majority of American Jews
and the attitudes of the established Jewish leaders.
This is especially apparent on issues such as the
neoconservative agenda of regime change in the Middle
East and support of expansionist right-wing governments
in Israel.)
|
 |
|
|
If People
Become Aware Of Jewish Influence
The point here is that
the Jewish Establishment will strongly resist any discussion of
Jewish influence or dual loyalty in any area of public policy,
no matter how judicious and factually-based it may be. These
Jewish leaders have a strong sense of history. They know that
Jews have repeatedly become elites in European societies. But
they also realize that Jewish power and influence and dual
loyalty have been potent themes of anti-Semitism throughout the
ages. And they know that increases in Jewish power and influence
have often been followed by the rise of rise of anti-jewish
movements spearheaded by people whose interests have been
damaged by that Jewish power and influence.
Physiological Strategy
The strategy used by the
Jewish Establishment is not to condemn the neocons for acting on
their strong emotional and ethnic ties to Israel and
manipulating the Bush administration into the disaster of Iraq
and a looming war with Iran. Nor is it to urge that the Israel
Lobby be scaled back in an effort to bring it more in line with
a reasonable view of American interests. Rather, they go into
the full blown smear and intimidation mode.
|
 |
The
Self Hating Jew
Hence the fury
among Jewish activists when General Wesley Clark blurted
our that “New York money people” are gung-ho for
bankrolling politicians who will support US involvement
in a war against Iran; and that talk of a war with Iran
is common in Israel. As Matthew Iglesias, himself
Jewish, notes: “Everything Clark said … is true. What's
more, everybody knows it's true.” (American Prospect,
January 23, 2007). But, as we should know by now, truth
is irrelevant here.
|
| |
|
Why
Change Tactics?
Partly this is
because, thus far, these tactics have been tremendously
effective. The American Jewish Establishment will not
change these tactics until they stop working. After all,
it is a long road from widespread discussion on the
internet and occasional mentions in the above-ground
media to having a real influence on the President and in
the halls of Congress. There, change will be much
slower.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Jewish Money For Elections
This is
especially true given the very large role of Jewish
money in funding the newly-resurgent Democrats. On the
Republican side, as Scott McConnell has argued, the
neocons may be down, but they are far from out. And they
are still pushing for war against Iran.
I think too that the American Jewish leadership no
longer has the flexibility to use any other strategy.
The radical expansionists, often motivated by religious
and ethnic fanaticism, have long been in control in
Israel—since 1967 really. They are the vanguard of the
Jewish community, and as usual, they they pull the rest
of the Jewish community with them.
|
| |
|
| |
|
Jewish Moderates No Longer Count
The moderates
(aka “self-hating Jews”) have been shoved aside and do
not really count any more. Similarly, the organized
Jewish community in America is dominated by the
expansionists. Jews who do not sign on to Israel’s
expansionist agenda are relegated to the fringes.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Mearshiemer And Walt
Indeed, one of
the arguments of Mearsheimer and Walt is that Israel
would be far better off if it could not persuade
Washington to support its expansionist agenda. And
reasonable Jews like Jerome Slater are wondering what it
takes to “save Israel from itself”:
|
“The real issue is the willed ignorance—the psychological need
not to know—of our community. The price—to the Palestinians, to
the Israelis, and to American national security—is already
unbearable, and it may well soon become apocalyptic.”
These comments bring to mind historian Albert Lindemann’s
statement in his book Esau’s Tears (P535)
| |
|
Parasites To The Host
“Jews actually
do not want to understand their past—or at least those
aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred
directed at them, since understanding may threaten other
elements of their complex and often contradictory
identities.”
Whether it’s
about the past or the present, the pattern among Jews is
self-deception and willful ignorance.
|
 |
Jews Created The 1965 Immigration Act
As in the case of policy
in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish organizations
were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift
implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of
Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book
Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action
and Immigration Policy in America
| |
|
|
 |
“Most important
for the content of immigration reform, the driving force
at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s,
were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial
and ethnic quotas… Following the shock of the Holocaust,
Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington
in furthering immigration reform.
To the public,
the most visible evidence of the immigration reform
drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as
Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New
York. Less visible, but equally important, were the
efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency
staffs
|
.
|
|
|
The
Old Lions
These included
senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry
Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in
the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer
Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and
deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the
Kennedy-Johnson administration.” (pp. 56–57)
|
 |
In the past year, there
has been much discussion of illegal immigration. It tapped into
a very large reservoir of public anger about the lack of control
of our borders and, I think, the transformations that
immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal immigration is,
after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the public
radar (What part of illegal don’t you understand??).
|
 |
Destroying Social Security And Health Systems
But this
contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the
Mainstream Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so
legal immigrants that come to the U.S. every year—no
discussion of their effect on the economy, social
services, crime and competition at elite universities;
no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic
composition of the U.S. and the displacement of native
populations in various sectors of the economy; and no
discussion of whether most Americans really want all of
this. (They don’t.) The fact that large scale legal
immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as
large scale illegal inflow is a non-subject.
|
| |
|
A
New Crop Of Anti Semites
Those who
question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for
anyone who thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions
at all on immigration are “racist” and “nativist”.
|
 |
| |
|
It is
exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the
media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing, and ultimately loss
of livelihood.
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same
category of “not fit for public discussion”. Perhaps the main
one is the role of genetic influences on intelligence and
behavior.
Dual Issues Of The Mideast And Immigration
But
the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the
U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish
commitment to particular policies. My contention is that both
policies have been construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful
to the security and political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there ample documentation [PDF] of a
consistent interest by the Jewish community, both in America and
in Europe, in ending the hegemony of the host community amongst
whom they live.
| |
|
|
 |
The
Media Bosses
The measures
taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there
is indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses
as “the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish
control of the media, Congress, and the U.S.
government”.
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in
both immigration and the Middle East elsewhere. This has
been extremely unwelcome. And it is not at all
surprising that the Jewish community would strenuously
resist these conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Will
The New Congress Act
Nevertheless, on
foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously
become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people
with intellectual integrity.
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial
question will be if this new comprehension will dawn in
an area in which, I believe, it is even more critical:
America’s post-1965 immigration disaster.
|
 |
|
Reproduced from
Judicial-Inc. web
site
The Gap
Between Majority Of
US Jews & Their 'Leaders'
By Prof Kevin McDonald
2-2-7
Almost 3 12 years ago, I published
Thinking about Neoconservatism, analyzing the neoconservative movement in the
context of my studies of the behavior pattern of Jewish groups in the societies
where they live. I concluded neoconservatism was the latest of a long procession
of political and intellectual movements dominated and essentially controlled by
members of the Jewish community, in effect dedicated to a particular concept of
how to promote the interests of that community. I specifically cited foreign
policy and immigration as hallmark interests.
At the time, and for a couple of years
later, this was an unmentionable theory. I am told certain prominent web sites
stopped linking to VDARE.com after my essay was published. The malign presence
of the SPLC (the "Southern Poverty Law Center", a notorious ethnically-oriented
Political Correctness enforcer) was soon felt on the scene, not coincidentally,
and it named VDARE.COM a "hate group", a sobriquet more normally associated with
groups advocating violence and other forms of illegality.
But now public debate has changed
considerably. Serious antiwar commentary routinely connects the Iraq/Iran policy
problem with the influence of Israel and her friends in America. (See
http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2007/01/why-im-right-about-liberal-jews-and-the-antiwar-movement.html
and
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399 and
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070108_war.htm )
So I ask now: will the other boot drop?
Will this candor next extend to the immigration controversy ?
The vast majority of Americans live
under the comfortable illusion that theirs is a free country. They suppose that
issues are openly and honestly debated in the newspapers and on talk shows. In
this imaginary world, all issues affecting public policy are on the table and
are constantly scrutinized by the best and the brightest.
But that is simply not the case. In
fact, I would go so far as to argue the opposite-that virtually all of the
really critical issues affecting the United States and its role in the world are
actually excluded from discussion in the elite media or in the political arena.
The classic case: US policy in the
Middle East. Despite the obvious fact that US support for Israel has crucial
implications for war and peace, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to
what is really going on in this region.
Most Americans would be appalled to
learn the truth about what former President Jimmy Carter terms "the abominable
oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid
system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens
and Jewish settlers in the West Bank." Carter calls attention to the "enormous
imprisonment wall now under construction, snaking through what is left of
Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers." (Los Angeles
Times, December 8 2006).
Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace
Not Apartheid, and his courageous defense of it, seem finally to be triggering a
newly open discussion of Israeli actions and Jewish influence in the U.S. Coming
on the heels of the work of the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer and
Harvard University's Stephen Walt on the Israel Lobby, it highlights many of the
same issues. Indeed, Carter has explicitly endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt's
conclusion that American policy in the Middle East does not reflect genuine
American interests, but instead those of the Israel Lobby. ( Carter Shares
Insight On Peace In Mideast, by Marty Rosen, Coastal Post, January 3 2007)
This is why it is possible to hope that
the role of Jewish influence in promoting the epochal change inaugurated by the
1965 Immigration Act might also now be discussed openly and honestly
Carter is quite clear that open
discussion of Israel's policies in the U.S. has been suppressed:
"This reluctance to criticize any
policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying
efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any
significant contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members
of Congress to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in
defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. What is even more difficult
to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines
in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private
assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy
Land."
In fact, it is not at all difficult to
comprehend how this regime of "self-restraint" is maintained. President Carter
himself, and Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, point to pressure by the Israel Lobby
on the media, consequent media self-censorship, and the intimidation of
dissidents.
Carter's book has created the astounding
spectacle of a former president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize
winner being called an anti-Semite, being condemned by mainstream Jewish
organizations such as the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and having his
offers to give talks at major universities with high Jewish enrollment rejected.
The saga of the book's treatment on Amazon has been a farce.
The ADL's Abe Foxman is one of many who
have used the old canard of anti-Semitism to condemn both President Carter and
Mearsheimer and Walt. (My favorite title in this genre is by David Horowitz: "
Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar".)
I focus on Foxman's comments because he
heads a mainstream Jewish activist organization and thus reflects the opinions
of at least a major component of the organized Jewish community. (It has long
been noticed that there is a gap between the attitudes of the majority of
American Jews and the attitudes of the established Jewish leaders. This is
especially apparent on issues such as the neoconservative agenda of regime
change in the Middle East and support of expansionist right-wing governments in
Israel.)
The point here is that the Jewish
Establishment will strongly resist any discussion of Jewish influence or dual
loyalty in any area of public policy, no matter how judicious and
factually-based it may be. These Jewish leaders have a strong sense of history.
They know that Jews have repeatedly become elites in European societies. But
they also realize that Jewish power and influence and dual loyalty have been
potent themes of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. And they know that increases
in Jewish power and influence have often been followed by the rise of rise of
anti-jewish movements spearheaded by people whose interests have been damaged by
that Jewish power and influence.
The strategy used by the Jewish
Establishment is not to condemn the neocons for acting on their strong emotional
and ethnic ties to Israel and manipulating the Bush administration into the
disaster of Iraq and a looming war with Iran. Nor is it to urge that the Israel
Lobby be scaled back in an effort to bring it more in line with a reasonable
view of American interests. Rather, they go into the full blown smear and
intimidation mode.
Hence the fury among Jewish activists
when General Wesley Clark blurted our that "New York money people" are gung-ho
for bankrolling politicians who will support US involvement in a war against
Iran; and that talk of a war with Iran is common in Israel. As Matthew Iglesias,
himself Jewish, notes: "Everything Clark said is true. What's more, everybody
knows it's true." (American Prospect, January 23, 2007). But, as we should know
by now, truth is irrelevant here.
Partly this is because, thus far, these
tactics have been tremendously effective. The American Jewish Establishment will
not change these tactics until they stop working. After all, it is a long road
from widespread discussion on the internet and occasional mentions in the
above-ground media to having a real influence on the President and in the halls
of Congress. There, change will be much slower.
This is especially true given the very
large role of Jewish money infunding the newly-resurgent Democrats. On the
Republican side, as Scott McConnell has argued , the neocons may be down, but
they are far from out. And they are still pushing for <
http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10308 >war against Iran .
I think, too, that the American Jewish
leadership no longer has the flexibility to use any other strategy. The radical
expansionists, often motivated by religious and ethnic fanaticism, have long
been in control in Israel-since 1967 really. They are the vanguard of the Jewish
community, and as usual, they they pull the rest of the Jewish community with
them. The moderates (aka "self-hating Jews") have been shoved aside and do not
really count any more. Similarly, the organized Jewish community in America is
dominated by the expansionists. Jews who do not sign on to Israel's expansionist
agenda are relegated to the fringes.
Indeed, one of the arguments of
Mearsheimer and Walt is that Israel would be far better off if it could not
persuade Washington to support its expansionist agenda. And reasonable Jews like
Jerome Slater are wondering what it takes to "save Israel from itself":
"The real issue is the willed
ignorance-the psychological need not to know-of our community. The price-to the
Palestinians, to the Israelis, and to American national security-is already
unbearable, and it may well soon become apocalyptic."
These comments bring to mind historian
Albert Lindemann's statement in his book Esau's Tears (P535)
"Jews actually do not want to understand
their past-or at least those aspects of their past that have to do with the
hatred directed at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of
their complex and often contradictory identities."
Whether it's about the past or the
present, the pattern among Jews is self-deception and willful ignorance.
Kevin MacDonald [kmacd@csulb.edu] is
Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his
website, go to
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/
Excerpted from Mr. MacDonald's essay
Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?
Reproduced from
www.Rense.com
|