← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Roy Batty

Vdare (pretty much) Does it Again...

Thread ID: 14267 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2004-06-19

Wayback Archive

Roy Batty [OP]

2004-06-19 23:55 | User Profile

Sort of. Well, yes, they did. They put on article on the front page today about Steinlight and his efforts to get his tribe to see the light on immigration. THEN, they also posted an article written by our good friend, Professor Kevin MacDonald, that goes into the 1924 Immigration Cut-off - and the reasoning used by Steinlight to justify some of his views, and the reasoning used by the tribe for other ... well, lets say views on immigration that have been detrimental, to say the least, to what used to be the US. Any mention of the tribe and its more traitorous machinations can only be seen as a good thing.

[url]http://www.vdare.com[/url]

[url]http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_1924_immigration.htm[/url]

While Steinlight is no doubt an unabashed, ethno-centric jewish supremacist for the most part, closing down the borders is a good start. That many less folks to deal with when the eventual collapse hits, and clean-up time begins.

Faust

2004-06-20 00:27 | User Profile

Jews And Immigration: Steinlight Soldiers On

By Marcus Epstein

[Previously by Marcus Epstein: “The Price I Paid For Civilization”—Zora Neale Hurston on Blacks, Brown, And The American Nation-State]

The Center For Immigration Studies recently sponsored a panel in Washington, DC to showcase Dr. Stephen Steinlight’s latest monograph, “High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry.” This follows Steinlight’s pioneering October 2001 essay, “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography”.

CIS has a silly habit of trying to prove how moderate it is at the expense of VDARE.COM. But your stoical editors nevertheless asked me to attend.

On the podium with Steinlight (e-mail him) was neoconservative David Frum, and Joseph Puder, the director of the Interfaith Taskforce for American and Israel, and an officer of the American Jewish Congress. The event was moderately attended by approximately two-dozen people, mostly local policy wonks. No members of the press were in the audience and no accounts appear to have been published (except in the blogosphere). CIS is having a lot of trouble getting this debate started.

I didn’t think Frum (e-mail him) or Puder (e-mail him) contributed very much to the discussion of Jews and immigration policy. Frum’s remarks were limited to the virtues of a National ID card and fingerprinting everyone who breaks the speed limit. But as Frum is probably the most influential and well-known of the panelists, it is worth noting that he is beginning to say that you cannot stop illegal immigration without lowering the total number of legal immigrants into the country.

Mr. Puder’s comments similarly raised some interesting points about assimilation and Muslim immigration, but he did not talk about the link between immigration policy and American Jewry.

While not a monolithic group, American Jews have tended to support a liberal immigration policy. “The Melting Pot” and “The New Colossus”, two of the greatest pieces in the canon of the American immigration mystique, were both written by Jews. The Anti-Defamation league and The American Jewish Committee both played a major role in promoting the 1965 Immigration Act, as did Jewish politicians like Representative Emanuel Cellers and Senator Jacob Javits.

For the past couple of years, Dr. Steinlight has been urging American Jews to reevaluate their support for current immigration policy. Perhaps ‘reevaluate’ is the wrong word, because he is rather frank about the Jewish role in supporting a lax immigration policy in the past, and makes no apologies for it. He referred in his first paper to the 1924 immigration cut-off legislation as “evil” and “xenophobic.” Although he was admittedly a newcomer to the restrictionist position, he had no qualms in asserting that long-term restrictionists, or “classic anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and racist nativist forces,” should have no role in shaping the immigration debate:

“The white ‘Christian’ supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration (Europeans being defined as Nordic or Anglo-Saxon), a position re-asserted by Peter Brimelow, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change.”

There is much that can be said about the merits of this statement, and many other historical and moral claims in Dr. Steinlight’s original paper, some of which were addressed at length by Joseph Fallon in The Social Contract and by Sam Francis in Chronicles, and by Peter Brimelow and John White for VDARE.com.

But, regardless of the merits of the past immigration, the point is that Dr. Steinlight no longer believes that mass immigration is in the interests of American Jewry.

One reason is that it will lead to “diminished Jewish political power.” He acknowledges that Jews have political influence vastly outside their numbers and says they should not be apologetic for that. After the Holocaust, he believes Jews couldn’t afford to be apolitical.

One manifestation of this Jewish political influence: America’s support for Israel. According to Dr. Steinlight, Jewish groups have succeeded in securing American support for Israel “by default,” because there was no other group in America that was as passionate about the issue. However, as Muslims pour into this country, they are likely to act as a counterbalance and could possibly prevent America from supporting Israel.

If current immigration and birth rates continue, Muslims will eventually outnumber Jews in America in the next twenty years, if not sooner. They already outnumber Jews in Canada and every European country. In France and Britain, the Muslim-Jew ratio is ten to one.

Dr. Steinlight believes that this should trouble Jews—and all Americans—not just because of potential problems with terrorism, but also because of anti-Semitic violence. In Europe, where there is a large Muslim population, anti-Semitic violence has rapidly increased in recent years. The EU recently commissioned a study on anti-Semitic violence that determined that young Arabs were responsible for most of it. The EU shelved the report and re-commissioned the study, deciding, as Steinlight put it,

“rather like the famous lines of Claude Rains in Casablanca” to ‘round up the usual suspects.’ And they rounded up the usual suspects: skinheads, the followers of Le Pen and so on and so forth.”

Similarly, in the U.S., at the offices of Jewish organizations where everyone has to enter through bulletproof glass, metal detectors, and concrete barriers because of the threat of Muslim terrorism, the staff devotes their time to

“talking about the threats posed by evangelical Christians or how they can increase publicity for Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of Christ, or how they can castigate Mormons for converting dead Jews.”

Dr. Steinlight says he has discussed the immigration question with many prominent Jewish leaders. Some have privately agreed with him on the problems posed by increased Muslim immigration, but are hesitant to say so publicly because open borders has been an article of faith for many Jews. Dr. Steinlight believes that it is only a matter of time before more Jews and Jewish groups begin to support immigration reform.

He reported that, after he addressed the board of a Jewish organization about the problems of Arab immigration, one leftist member told him “I’m proud of my organization’s support for generous immigration, but why can’t we just not let Arabs in?”

In the question time, CIS executive director Mark Kirkorian (e-mail him) asked if, indeed, it was possible or desirable to stop Muslim immigration without limiting immigration from Latinos and other ethnic groups.

Dr. Steinlight responded that he did not believe that it would politically possible to limit immigration by national origin, so across the board cuts would be necessary. This would have to be buttressed by banning certain radical sects of Islam, just as Communists were banned from immigrating in the past, and by racially profiling Arabs.

Besides, Steinlight did not think that Latino immigration was desirable either. The reason is that, while most white Americans are very sensitive to Jewish concerns, immigrants from Latin and Central America are

“steeped in a culture of theological anti-Semitism that’s defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they a mitigating history of familiarity with Jews, little knowledge and no direct or familial experience of the Holocaust, and regard Jews simply as among the most privileged of white Americans. An ADL study found 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic attitudes.”

Many VDARE.com readers may not agree that ensuring American aid to Israel, or the fact that Latino Catholics are not immersed in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, are the most compelling reasons to support immigration restriction.

But if more Jews begin to support a more restrictive immigration policy, it will certainly be a welcome development.

As Dr. Steinlight noted, Jews have a great deal of political influence that they have wielded to promote open borders in the past. If they used that influence to support immigration reform, it will certainly help the restrictionist cause.

The immigration reform movement is a coalition. To succeed, it must include groups who have disparate views on other issues.

Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is an undergraduate majoring in history at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA where he is an editor of the conservative newspaper, The Remnant. He also writes frequently for The American Conservative and Lewrockwell.com A selection of his articles can be seen here.

If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL: [url]http://www.vdare.com/misc/epstein_steinlight.htm[/url]

Faust

2004-06-20 00:32 | User Profile

Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off “Racist”?

By Kevin MacDonald

[Also by Kevin MacDonald: Thinking About Neoconservatism]

When Dr. Stephen Steinlight first advocated a change in the traditional Jewish support for open borders, his reflexive loathing of the 1920s legislative cut-off that ended the First Great Wave of immigration (see timeline) overwhelmed the logic of his argument.

He described the cut-off as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” And he dismissed the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans as a “thoughtless mob” because they supported a near-complete moratorium on immigration.

Three years of arguing with Jewish groups about immigration reform have apparently not changed Steinlight’s mind on this point. In his most recent monograph, his only reference to the 1924 Act is that “tens of thousands” of Jews might have been saved from the Holocaust “had the United States not closed its doors…”

The 1924 immigration cut-off enjoys an almost uniquely bad press.

Other examples: bullet As an alert VDARE.COM reader recently spotted, even Governor Richard Lamm, immigration reformer hero of the Sierra Club insurgency, conceded in an NPR debate that the 1924 legislation was motivated by bigotry.

bullet In a panel discussion on immigration on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country last winter, Randall Hamud, an Arab-American activist, responded to Pat Buchanan, who had praised the effective 1924-1965 immigration moratorium: “He forgets that the earlier restrictions on immigration were racist-driven.”

But were the 1920s restrictions “racist-driven”? What, exactly does that mean? And could it be that the opponents of those restrictions had their own ethnic motivations? Motivations still to be found today?

Stephen Steinlight is a useful starting point because he is quite frank in his belief that the only legitimate consideration for immigration policy is his interpretation of Jewish collective interests.

In my research on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I found that the organized Jewish community has been the most important force favoring unrestricted immigration to the U.S. In doing so, the various entities involved have consistently acted to further their own perceived collective interests—interests that are arguably in conflict with those of the majority of Americans.

We shouldn’t blanche at the thought of bringing up the issue of ethnic interests. We all accept that African American leaders like Jesse Jackson are pursuing their perceived ethnic interests. No one would deny that the Mexican-American pro-immigration activists advocating open borders are pursuing their ethnic interests. But somehow it’s inappropriate or “racist” to bring up the fact that Jews and, yes, Europeans have ethnic interests too. And they are all equally legitimate.

By the time Jewish organizations and Jewish legislators sustained a (temporary) defeat over the 1921 and 1924 legislation, they had been at the forefront frustrating the immigration restrictionists for over 30 years.

By 1905, a strong element of American opinion had turned against immigration. Even ethnic and religious groups that stood to gain by immigration, such as the Irish, were ambivalent, and anyway were poorly organized and ineffective in influencing policy.

At the time, pro-immigration activism was widely seen as a Jewish movement. University of Wisconsin sociologist Edward A. Ross stated in his 1914 book, The Old World in the New:

“The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. From the paper before the commercial body or the scientific association to the heavy treatise produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains.”

Throughout the entire period from the late 19th century to their eventual victory in 1965, Jewish pro-immigration efforts were characterized by strong leadership, generous funding, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies, and good timing. The most visible Jewish activists, such as Louis Marshall, were intellectually brilliant. They were enormously energetic and resourceful in their crusades on behalf of immigration as well as other Jewish causes.

This full court press exerted by Jewish organizations included intense and chilling scrutiny of immigration opponents, such as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and of organizations like the Immigration Restriction League. Lobbyists in Washington also kept a daily scorecard of voting tendencies as immigration bills wended their way through Congress. They engaged in intense and successful efforts to convince Presidents Taft and Wilson to veto restrictive immigration legislation.

Much of the effort was done more or less surreptitiously so as not to fan the flames of anti-Jewish sentiment. (Open anti-Jewish feelings were fairly common during this period, stemming from resentment at Jewish upward mobility, the great numbers of leftist political radicals in the immigrant Jewish community, and dislike of the newcomers’ perceived strong ethnic sense.) Jewish organizations supplied the funding for pro-immigration organizations such as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons. Non-Jews from eastern and southern European countries were recruited to protest the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from those areas.

Why members of the Jewish community, which over so many centuries demonstrated such determination to preserve its distinctiveness, should have been so demonstrably active in preventing the preservation of the nation in which they find themselves, is an interesting question.

My hypothesis, advanced in several academic books: it is part of an evolutionary strategy aimed at advancing Jewish interests. As Leonard Glickman of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has put it memorably: “The more diverse American society is, the safer [Jews] are.” (“Community Questioning Open Door,” by Nacha Cattan, Forward, November 29, 2002).

Of course, this does not involve all Jews, and some consciously reject it. But positive attitudes and activism aimed at ending the pre-1965 ethnic homogeneity of the United States have been typical of the entire Jewish political spectrum and all of the main Jewish activist organizations. These efforts were the driving force in favor of liberalized immigration up to the 1965 sea change in immigration law. This pattern continues into the present.

In the 1924 debates, the anti-restrictionists invariably alleged that their opponents saw the issue primarily in terms of “Nordic superiority.” They complained that restrictionists viewed themselves as a superior ethnic group and argued that this view was immoral, and furthermore had no scientific basis.

Imputing motives of racial superiority had some plausibility because such ideas were certainly in the air. For example, in his popular book The Passing of the Great Race (1921), Madison Grant argued that the American colonial stock was derived from superior Nordic racial elements and that immigration of other races would lower the competence level of the society.

But in reality, the contentions the political champions of restriction actually made were quite different—and much more modest. Their basic argument was that, while all ethnic groups in the country had legitimate interests in immigration, the interests of the founding groups made restriction imperative.

The restrictionists actually went out of their way to deny that they believed they were racially superior to other groups. The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

One is struck in reading the 1924 Congressional debate that, while virtually all of the anti-restrictionists raised the issue of Nordic racial superiority, those in favor of the legislation rarely did.

After a particularly colorful comment in opposition to the theory of Nordic racial superiority, restrictionist leader Albert Johnson remarked that

“I would like very much to say on behalf of the committee that through the strenuous times of the hearings this committee undertook not to discuss the Nordic proposition or racial matters.”

Several restrictionists explicitly denounced the theory of Nordic superiority.

Clearly, the reformers did not see the concept as helpful to their cause.

What can be found in the statements of the reformers is actually fear of inferiority. Several representatives from the far West seem to have viewed the Japanese as racially equal or superior, not inferior. One senator stated,

“we admit that [the Japanese] are as able as we are, that they are as progressive as we are, that they are as honest as we are, that they are as brainy as we are, and that they are equal in all that goes to make a great people and nation.”

A congressman described the Japanese as

“a relentless and unconquerable competitor of our people wherever he places himself.”

Apparently, many restrictionists, far from feeling they were members of a superior ethnic group, worried that their people could not compete with Japanese and Chinese.

Nor did the restrictionists view Jews as intellectually inferior. During the 1920s quotas on Jewish admissions to Ivy League universities had become a controversial issue and a focus of Jewish defense organizations. As noted above, Congressman Vaile noted that Jews were “the best businessman in the world.” A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard and the national vice-president of the Immigration Restriction League, advocated quotas on Jewish admission to Harvard.

If anything, restrictionists were worried that the immigration of more Jews from Eastern Europe would result in even more competition between Jews and non-Jews.

And of course subsequent IQ research has shown their concerns to be sound—the average IQ of American Jews is well above the average for whites and is the highest of any known human group.

Restrictionists typically argued that maintaining the ethnic status quo would be fair to all ethnic groups currently in the country. This argument implicitly recognizes that different ethnic groups have different interests in immigration policy.

The restrictionists were concerned that immigration of people of other ethnic groups and cultures would ultimately deprive their own people of political and cultural power. They argued that the interests of other groups to pursue their ethnic interests by expanding their percentage of the population should be weighed against the ethnic interests of the majority, who naturally wanted to retain their ethnic representation in the population.

In the words of the House Majority Report,

“The use of the 1890 census is…an effort to preserve as nearly as possible, the racial status quo of the United States. It is hoped to guarantee as best we can at this late date, racial homogeneity in the United States. The use of a later census would discriminate against those who founded the Nation and perpetuated its institutions.”

The 1924 law also prescribed that, beginning in 1927, the national origins of the immigrants would match their percentage of the population. For example, if 10% of the country in 1920 came from Italy, then 10% of the annual quote of 150,000 immigrants would be reserved for Italian immigrants.

Clearly this was an attempt to achieve an ethnic status quo.

In other words, in the 1920s, both sides were pursuing their perceived ethnic self-interest. Representative Scott Leavitt stated quite bluntly that Jews should respect the desire of other Americans to retain the ethnic status quo:

“The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. [Congressional Record, April 12 1924, 6265-6266]

The House Committee was clearly annoyed that their motives were continually being cast in terms of Nordic superiority and racial discrimination—an interesting sensitivity to find, so many years ago. But the 1924 law was clearly a victory for the northwestern European peoples of the United States. It halted the substantial transformation of the country which had gotten underway over the previous 30 years.

Because of it, the groups dominant when it passed were still (at least superficially) dominant when the 1924 law was overthrown 41 years later.

Around the time the 1924 victory was won, however, a disaster was occurring elsewhere—on the intellectual front. Beginning in the 1920s, the intellectual and moral high ground in the debate was increasingly claimed by the anti-restrictionists.

This was made possible largely by the influence of Franz Boas and his school of anthropology. The Boasians argued that the only differences among human groups are cultural differences, not biological.

Even in the early 1920s, as I have noted, the restrictionists hesitated to use arguments based on ethnic superiority and they were forced continually to deny that this was their rationale. In terms of my hypothesis, I have argued elsewhere that the Boasian School can be explained in terms of evolutionary strategy, as merely another of a series of intellectual movements dominated by Jews and aimed at advancing Jewish interests. These movements were designed to combat anti-Semitism and to de-legitimize the ethnic interests of the European majority of the United States.

What we are seeing now is the long term consequence of these movements: The displacement of the European majority—and an increase in ethnic conflict.

Since the 1965 law opening up immigration on a large scale to all the peoples of the world, the U.S. has become a cauldron of competing racial and ethnic interests. Much of the conflict centers immigration and its consequences, ranging from Muslim women having unveiled photos on their drivers’ licenses to the survival of Christian symbols in public schools.

This shift to “multiculturalism” has been facilitated by an enormous growth of immigration from non-European-derived peoples. Many of these immigrants come from non-Western countries where cultural and ethnic segregation are the norm. In contemporary America, they are now encouraged by public policy to retain their own languages and religions, and may well continue to marry within their group.

The long term result is, inevitably, increased competition and friction between groups.

The idea that there is no biological reality to race inevitably implies that there is no such thing as ethnic interests at all. The reality, of course, is that race does exist and different races and ethnic groups do have different and often competing interests. And, indeed, from an evolutionary point of view, ethnic self-interest is not deluded: people have a very large genetic interest in defending their ethnic group.

Other non-Western countries seem to understand this. For example, despite what the New York Times says, Japan feels no need to allow a deluge of non-Japanese immigrants.

It’s time to exculpate the 1924 law—a law that succeeded in its aim of preserving the ethnic status quo for over 40 years.

The law did indeed represent the ethnic self-interest of its proponents—albeit not “racism,” if racism is properly understood as irrational prejudice.

But the anti-restrictionists also had their own ethnic interests at heart.

And their subsequent successful counter-attack has unleashed the far greater, more savage, and more threatening ethnic competition that we see today.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.

[url]http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_1924_immigration.htm[/url]

Peter Phillips

2004-06-20 12:56 | User Profile

MacDonald's article was pretty mild.

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-20 15:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]MacDonald's article was pretty mild.[/QUOTE]

Excerpted below are the passages I consider the most crucial:

In my research on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I found that the organized Jewish community has been the most important force favoring unrestricted immigration to the U.S. In doing so, the various entities involved have consistently acted to further their own perceived collective interests—interests that are arguably in conflict with those of the majority of Americans.

We shouldn’t blanche at the thought of bringing up the issue of ethnic interests. We all accept that African American leaders like Jesse Jackson are pursuing their perceived ethnic interests. No one would deny that the Mexican-American pro-immigration activists advocating open borders are pursuing their ethnic interests. But somehow it’s inappropriate or “racist” to bring up the fact that Jews and, yes, Europeans have ethnic interests too. And they are all equally legitimate.

....

Why members of the Jewish community, which over so many centuries demonstrated such determination to preserve its distinctiveness, should have been so demonstrably active in preventing the preservation of the nation in which they find themselves, is an interesting question.

My hypothesis, advanced in several academic books: it is part of an evolutionary strategy aimed at advancing Jewish interests. As Leonard Glickman of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has put it memorably: “The more diverse American society is, the safer [Jews] are.” (“Community Questioning Open Door,” by Nacha Cattan, Forward, November 29, 2002).

....

What we are seeing now is the long term consequence of these movements: The displacement of the European majority—and an increase in ethnic conflict.

Taken together, MacDonald's article hits right to the heart of the matter: 1) that racial groups exist and naturally pursue their own interests--and that this is natural and legitimate even for Whites to do, 2) that Jews have defined their interest as that of destroying the White American majority so they can "feel safe," and 3) that multiracialism doesn't work but only breeds Yugoslavia-style conflict. Those three concepts are precisely what White Nationalists have sought to restore to the public debate in this country, and VDARE's publishing of these ideas is an excellent step in that direction. I'm sure the egalitarian power structure in this country doesn't consider those concepts "mild." They constitute the true opposition to the egalitarian paradigm. This is major-league stuff because the public is officially forbidden to think or say those three concepts, especially all at the same time. Kudos to VDARE.

The only way in which the article could be considered "mild" is that it doesn't explicitly say that the solution is to implement a policy of total geographic racial separation, restricting citizenship and residence in this country to Whites only, and deporting all non-Whites including Jews to their lands of ancestral origin (wherever those may be). But it's probably best that readers be allowed to take those last few "connecting the dots" steps themselves. Sure, many people in the meantime during the ensuing debate would propose half-measures, but with critical thought, eventually once everyone accepts the truth and seriousness of the "three propositions" above, it becomes obvious that the only way to permanently guarantee a solution in favor of White America is total geographic separation of the races.

Peter Phillips

2004-06-20 16:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Excerpted below are the passages I consider the most crucial:

Taken together, MacDonald's article hits right to the heart of the matter: 1) that racial groups exist and naturally pursue their own interests--and that this is natural and legitimate even for Whites to do, 2) that Jews have defined their interest as that of destroying the White American majority so they can "feel safe," and 3) that multiracialism doesn't work but only breeds Yugoslavia-style conflict. Those three concepts are precisely what White Nationalists have sought to restore to the public debate in this country, and VDARE's publishing of these ideas is an excellent step in that direction. I'm sure the egalitarian power structure in this country doesn't consider those concepts "mild." They constitute the true opposition to the egalitarian paradigm. This is major-league stuff because the public is officially forbidden to think or say those three concepts, especially all at the same time. Kudos to VDARE.

The only way in which the article could be considered "mild" is that it doesn't explicitly say that the solution is to implement a policy of total geographic racial separation, restricting citizenship and residence in this country to Whites only, and deporting all non-Whites including Jews to their lands of ancestral origin (wherever those may be). But it's probably best that readers be allowed to take those last few "connecting the dots" steps themselves. Sure, many people in the meantime during the ensuing debate would propose half-measures, but with critical thought, eventually once everyone accepts the truth and seriousness of the "three propositions" above, it becomes obvious that the only way to permanently guarantee a solution in favor of White America is total geographic separation of the races.[/QUOTE]

I agree that MacDonald's article works quite usefully at getting to the point through several steps and stages. The problem with MacDonald as I see it is that quite often the meaning gets diluted under piles of dry text. For people who have never thought about the Jewish question, I wonder how they would react upon reading this.

On the question of deportation: Deporting non-whites may be simple but deporting Jews will run into serious problems. Its not easy to pick Jews out physically from American whites (you could pick them out easily in Britain where the contrasts between Jews and Gentiles are much greater). Also, a massive percentage of Jews are married to Gentiles. What do we do with them? These things need to be thought through.

I dont disagree that any future white nation carved out of North America ought not to include ANY Jews. Otherwise History simply repeats itself again.

Walter Yannis

2004-06-20 17:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]I agree that MacDonald's article works quite usefully at getting to the point through several steps and stages. The problem with MacDonald as I see it is that quite often the meaning gets diluted under piles of dry text. For people who have never thought about the Jewish question, I wonder how they would react upon reading this.[/QUOTE]

In my experience, the best results are achieved by starting potential converts out on Israel Shahak's "[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/qid=1087752479/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-6531609-4480623?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]Jewish History, Jewish Religion[/URL]."

Shahak (may he rest in peace) was a Holocaust survivor and an Israeli citizen. His PeeCee bona fides are unassailable, and so his message flies in under our sheeple's doublethink radar.

Shahak explains in very simple terms that classical Judaism isn't a nice religion, that it isn't all about human brotherhood, that the Talmud teaches horrific things about Christ and His Mother, that the Kabbalah is a pagan and satanic work, and that that's just the way that is.

I've seen that book turn folks' thinking around 180 degrees overnight.

Once that emotional ice is broken, then hit them with other things, such as [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226296660/qid=1087752763/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6531609-4480623?v=glance&s=books]Fatal Embrace, Jews and the State[/URL]. That's an in-your-face Jewish nationalist track. Then I like to start talking about David Duke and the very nice book he wrote on related topics.

Save McDonald for later. McDonald is the intellectual foundation, but it makes marketing sense to start with that only after they've made an emotional committment to the idea. Such is my humble advice.

By the way, it's been working pretty well for me. I have several potential converts in the pipe.

Walter

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-20 19:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]I agree that MacDonald's article works quite usefully at getting to the point through several steps and stages. The problem with MacDonald as I see it is that quite often the meaning gets diluted under piles of dry text. For people who have never thought about the Jewish question, I wonder how they would react upon reading this.

Walter's approach is sound.

On the question of deportation: Deporting non-whites may be simple but deporting Jews will run into serious problems. Its not easy to pick Jews out physically from American whites (you could pick them out easily in Britain where the contrasts between Jews and Gentiles are much greater). Also, a massive percentage of Jews are married to Gentiles. What do we do with them? These things need to be thought through.

In broad outlines, here's how I see it. The most obvious Jews can be identified by raiding and acquiring the records and archives of the synagogues, Jewish civic groups, and the like, and working from there. A genealogical research bureau would have to be commissioned to look through public records, marriage licenses, immigration and customs records, newspaper articles (both ethnic Jewish and "mainstream") and the like. It's true that the chameleon-like nature of the name-changing Jew makes this quite a task, but I think huge strides can be made in this direction. There's the possibility we might not root out 100% of them, but at least their power structure will be shattered, and the procedure of beginning with the Jewish groups and the like means the worst ones will be leaving first.

As far as the intermarriage issue, any White found co-habitating with non-Whites will be deported as well, along with any offspring they've produced. They've already turned their back on their people long ago, so what do we owe them? They're getting off easy with that fate, considering that their actions constitute biological treason. And this is just me speaking--the possibility remains that many of the "citizen's councils" overseeing this in the various localities may not be as generous as I am.

darkstar

2004-06-20 19:53 | User Profile

These calls for deportations of Jews are absurd. Simply getting the white majority to publically and collectively recognize the character of the Jewish community would solve 99% of the problem that leftist Jewish activism poses.

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-20 20:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]These calls for deportations of Jews are absurd. Simply getting the white majority to publically and collectively recognize the character of the Jewish community would solve 99% of the problem that leftist Jewish activism poses.[/QUOTE]

So you want them all here in place among our society, as long as we "know" what they're all about? Should I assume you feel the same about Blacks, Hispanics, and so on--we'll be keeping a "rainbow" society? Let me guess, you see no problem if the Blacks were more like Clarence Thomas, right?

darkstar

2004-06-20 20:45 | User Profile

In short: no.

There are a lot more blacks, Latinos, and Asians than there are Jews. I don't want a muliracial society, but I am willing to put up with one. Here I believe the answer is higher white fertility rates, encouragemnt of lower fertility rates among Latinos and blacks, partial racial separatism, and strict control on immigration.

Roy Batty

2004-06-20 21:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]MacDonald's article was pretty mild.[/QUOTE] Vdare does not want to chase off the "uninitiated". To us, it's mild. To the rest who are finding themselves feeling vaguely uncomfortable, feeling something is wrong, looking for answers, Vdare, and MacDonald's article in particular, is an eye-opener. A gateway to realizing the source and extent of our problems. That means a beginning to some solutions. And solutions will be forthcoming.

We have to ease most folks in. They've been brainwashed into becoming knee-jerk Nazi catchers when jewish malfeasance is brought up. The conditioning has to be overcome. Guys running around "seig heiling" and wearing swastika tattoos are not going to win the masses over. But reasoned approaches can win them over. Once they've awakened, there's no turning back. Our biggest problem is fighting 60 years of propaganda.

Okiereddust

2004-06-21 06:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Excerpted below are the passages I consider the most crucial:

Taken together, MacDonald's article hits right to the heart of the matter: 1) that racial groups exist and naturally pursue their own interests--and that this is natural and legitimate even for Whites to do, 2) that Jews have defined their interest as that of destroying the White American majority so they can "feel safe," and 3) that multiracialism doesn't work but only breeds Yugoslavia-style conflict. Those three concepts are precisely what White Nationalists have sought to restore to the public debate in this country, and VDARE's publishing of these ideas is an excellent step in that direction. I'm sure the egalitarian power structure in this country doesn't consider those concepts "mild." They constitute the true opposition to the egalitarian paradigm. This is major-league stuff because the public is officially forbidden to think or say those three concepts, especially all at the same time. Kudos to VDARE.

The only way in which the article could be considered "mild" is that it doesn't explicitly say that the solution is to implement a policy of total geographic racial separation, restricting citizenship and residence in this country to Whites only, and deporting all non-Whites including Jews to their lands of ancestral origin (wherever those may be). But it's probably best that readers be allowed to take those last few "connecting the dots" steps themselves.

It is interesting, your view that the approach of the article, "in not connecting the dots" represents the best approach.This certainly didn't seem to be the approach of much of the doctrinaire WN faction on the [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13722&page=9&pp=15]American Renaissance Thread[/url]. Their view seemed to be that anyone who does not explicitly connect the dots and advocate an all white, all gentile America is a traitor to the cause of White Nationalism. And practically, they operate as such, not only arguing such but vicously personally attacking those people that disagree with them or question their logic and motivation in maintaining such a rigid position (such as Y.T.)

Sure, many people in the meantime during the ensuing debate would propose half-measures, but with critical thought, eventually once everyone accepts the truth and seriousness of the "three propositions" above, it becomes obvious that the only way to permanently guarantee a solution in favor of White America is total geographic separation of the races.[/QUOTE]

Well I would tend to disagree such a solution is obvious, or to advocate such in today's climate at least is necessary or good. Identifying the problem is one thing, determining the best solution in the long or middle term, let alone short term, is not the same. Successful politics is the art of the possible.

I would compare the situation with that in the Middle East. Every Palestinian recognizes, as he did from day one, that Zionism was a great negative for them. But are the hard-line Hamas leaders, in calling for an infatida to the death, presently doing their people the best? I question that.

Pennsylvania_Dutch

2004-06-21 13:47 | User Profile

Really, when it comesdown to it---it's letting the Governor of your state and your Congressman and Senators know in no uncertain terms that you want legal immigration numbers reduced and foreign nationals illegally in the US deported!

I wonder how many of you own personal stationery, or have business, professional, or organizational stationery.

A nice neat handwritten letter is impressive and very personal.

Today, with the computer you can printout your thoughts and send them along to our political talking heads too.

There is more than one way to skin a cat...or a jew...:o)))))))))))

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-22 00:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]It is interesting, your view that the approach of the article, "in not connecting the dots" represents the best approach.This certainly didn't seem to be the approach of much of the doctrinaire WN faction on the [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13722&page=9&pp=15]American Renaissance Thread[/url]. Their view seemed to be that anyone who does not explicitly connect the dots and advocate an all white, all gentile America is a traitor to the cause of White Nationalism. And practically, they operate as such, not only arguing such but vicously personally attacking those people that disagree with them or question their logic and motivation in maintaining such a rigid position (such as Y.T.)

Well I would tend to disagree such a solution is obvious, or to advocate such in today's climate at least is necessary or good. Identifying the problem is one thing, determining the best solution in the long or middle term, let alone short term, is not the same. Successful politics is the art of the possible.

I would compare the situation with that in the Middle East. Every Palestinian recognizes, as he did from day one, that Zionism was a great negative for them. But are the hard-line Hamas leaders, in calling for an infatida to the death, presently doing their people the best? I question that.[/QUOTE]

According to Buchanan in The Death of the West, Palestinians have time on their side--their population is growing fast. The value of Hamas might be the other side of your question "what's the alternative?"--it gives "moderates" more room to obtain concessions they might not have gotten back when the "moderates" were the only "extremists." Plus the attacks of Hamas keep the pressure building, force the Israelis to incur international opprobrium by building "apartheid walls," and the like. The Israeli scientists, having less scruples than we Whites, are rumored to be working on a "genetic weapon" that will wipe out only Arabs. Who knows how it'll all turn out?

I can only speak for me, but I've always been in favor of methodological pluralism. Extremists occupy a valued place in that they make the boundaries of permissible dissent more permeable.

Ponce

2004-06-22 01:50 | User Profile

How to separate the Jews from the whites? hummmmmmmmmmm, I for one would drop a silver dollar on the ground 5'000,000 times (there are 5 millions Jews in the USA) and the first five millions that picks them up are the Jews.

Did you know that there are more Jews in USA that in the paradise of the state of Israel?.

Did you know that 2,000 Jews are leaving the paradise of the state of Israel?.

Only thing is that they are buying land all over the place, even in places like Patagonia in Argentina,,,,,,,, first the Nazis and now the Jews,,,,,,history repeats itself.