Nathan Bedford Forrest
The Right Stuff
November 6, 2016
“There need to be legitimate ways of talking about people who oppose policies recommended by the various Jewish establishments without simply being tarred as ‘anti-Semites.’ Immigration policy is only one example where there are legitimate conflicts of interest. As I write this, we are bogged down in a war with no realizable endgame largely because of the influence of the Jewish community over one area of our foreign policy and because of how effectively any mention of the role of Israel in creating friction between the U.S. and the Arab world – indeed, the entire Muslim world – is muzzled simply by the cry of anti-Semitism. And at home we have entered into an incalculably dangerous experiment in creating a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society in which the intellectual elite has developed the idea that the formerly dominant European majority has a moral obligation to allow itself to be eclipsed demographically and culturally – the result, at least at its inception and to a considerable degree thereafter, of the influence of Jewish interest groups on immigration policy and the influence of Jewish intellectual movements on our intellectual and cultural life generally.”
– Kevin B. MacDonald
In the United States, Jewish intellectual movements and political activism control foreign and immigration policy, vitally compromising American national security. In the Book of Genesis, when Jacob (who tricked his brother, Esau, into transferring his birthright and blessing to him) was confronted by Esau, he divided his tribe: while half would remain with him to fight and die, half would infiltrate Esau’s tribe to spy on their enemies and preserve Jacob’s tribe if it were destroyed. Just as Jacob divided his tribe to secure a future existence for his people, so have his descendants divided their tribe today: an aggressive ethno-state of their own in Israel as well as a subversive diaspora community in the West.
“It’s our duty to defend Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East,” proclaims the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal activist organization founded by the evangelical minister Pat Robertson. “Israel remains America’s most reliable strategic partner in the Middle East, working to defeat common threats and supporting America’s regional and global policy objectives,” claims American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential member of the Israel Lobby and one of the most influential lobbyist organizations in Washington, D.C. Indeed, Israel is the single largest recipient of American economic and military aid, having collected $100 billion over the years.
When Texas Senator Ted Cruz started shilling and stumping for Israel – the cause of so much death, destruction, and displacement in the Middle East – at a conference of Middle-Eastern Christians, he responded to the booing audience by quipping, “If you do not stand with Israel and Jews, then I do not stand with you.” Such is the language which “Judeo-Christian” Americans hold out to the direct descendants of the churches founded by the Apostles.
During his otherwise unmentionable presidential campaign, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham(nesty) joked that due to his massive “pro-Israel funding” from wealthy Jews such as casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, he “may have the first all-Jewish Cabinet in America.” When presidential candidate Donald Trump announced an “America First” foreign policy – which, among other things, now means not fighting a war with Russia over who controls of Syria, the last of Israel’s rivals to power – Republicans and Democrats alike denounced him as “anti-Semitic” and rushed to assure Israel of their loyalty. “The next president of the United States needs to be someone like me who will stand firmly on the side of Israel,” pled Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Not-so-coincidentally, those same wealthy Jews who bankroll Israel-subservient Republicans like Graham are no longer cutting any checks for Trump.
Although the Republicans currently in control of the Congress have been unable to rein in spending or a pass a single law looking out for their constituents – in fact, as usual, they have done quite the opposite – they were, in the midst of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, able to take the unprecedented action of inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their very own head of state from their very own legislature. “This is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to thunderous applause. “But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.” Afterwards, the media hounded the anti-interventionist Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for not clapping with sufficient vigor.
Where did this worship of Israel begin? Kevin MacDonald, a psychologist from California State University, Long Beach, provides the “who, what, where, why, and how” in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, the third book in his three-part study on Jewish the evolutionary strategy.
The Jews were an instrumental force behind American entry into World War II. Despite comprising no more than 3% of the population, Jews controlled about half of the media, which they used to propagandize for the U.S. to join the Allied Powers. Charles Augustus Lindbergh, the famous aviator and champion of the anti-interventionist “America First” movement, believed that World War II was a catastrophe for the white race and Western Civilization. “Western nations are again at war,” warned Lindbergh, “a war more likely to be prostrating than any in the past, a war in which the white race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages of it survives at all.” In particular, Lindbergh criticized the influence of the Jewish media, claiming that “greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and government.” According to Lindbergh, the choice facing Americans was “whether or not you are going to let your country go into a completely disastrous war for lack of courage to name the groups leading that country to war – at the risk of being called ‘anti-Semitic,’ simply by naming them.” For naming the Jew, Lindbergh was indeed denounced not only as anti-Semitic, but also as a Nazi sympathizer. The reputation of a great American hero, as well as the mighty anti-interventionist movement he represented, was ruined. “No one minds his naming the British or the Administration, but to name ‘Jew’ is un-American, even if it is done without hate or even criticism,” remarked Lindbergh’s wife. “Why?”
The reason for Lindbergh’s fall from grace, explains MacDonald, is that in addition to a disproportionate control of the American media, Jews disproportionately controlled Western culture and society through subversive intellectual movements:
By the time of Lindbergh’s speech, Jews not only had a prominent position in the U.S. media, they had seized the intellectual and moral high ground via their control of the intellectual and political movements discussed in Culture of Critique. Not only were Jewish interests beyond the bounds of civilized political discussion, assertions of European ethnic interest became impermissible as well. Such assertions conflicted with the Boasian dogma that genetic differences between peoples were trivial and irrelevant; they conflicted with the Marxist belief that nationalism and assertions of ethnic interests were reactionary; such assertions were deemed a sure sign of psychopathology within the frameworks of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School; and they would soon be regarded as the babblings of country bumpkins by the New York Intellectuals and by the neo-conservatives who spouted variants of all these ideologies from the most prestigious academic and media institutions in the society. There may have been other forces that relegated a nativist mindset to the political and intellectual fringe – Gottfried points a finger at liberal Protestantism and the rise of the managerial state, but it is impossible to understand the effectiveness of either of these influences in the absence of the Jewish movements I describe.
When the Allies triumphed over the Axis, the Jews saw an opportunity to realize their Zionist dream. Zionism was a Jewish racial-separatist movement which began in late-nineteenth century Eastern Europe during the period of the pogroms. According to the Zionists, the only way for the Jews to maintain their distinct ethno-cultural identity was to reclaim their Biblical homeland, even if it meant expelling or exterminating the current Arab population. In the U.S., Zionism was closely tied to immigration liberalization – an ethno-state for the Jews but pluralism for the goyim. “We are profoundly convinced that Jewish survival will depend on Jewish statehood in Palestine, on the one hand, and on the existence of a creative, conscious, and well-adjusted Jewish community in this country on the other,” explained the American Jewish Congress. “Such a creative community can only take place within the framework of a progressive and expanding democratic society, which through its institutions and public policies gives expression to the concept of cultural pluralism.”
In 1947, the British Empire ceded control of those holy lands – known then as Palestine – to the United Nations, where Zionists proposed a partition between the Jews and the Arabs which gave their settlers a disproportionate share of the territory. The State Department, Defense Department, and Central Intelligence Agency were united in opposition to the Zionist partition plan. President Harry Truman, however, hoping to win the Jewish vote – he was facing a primary challenge on his left flank from a Communist obeying the Kremlin’s pro-Zionist line – supported the plan and proved decisive in strong-arming smaller, poorer nations into changing their vote. “I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism,” Truman informed his State Department. “I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” Secretary of State George C. Marshall denounced this “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” adding that “the great dignity of the office of the President would be diminished.” Secretary of Defense James Forrestal deplored Truman’s “squalid political purposes” and demanded that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.” The CIA, with its eye on encroaching Communism, cautioned against the partition, reporting that the Zionists were a threat to “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.” Nevertheless, Truman pushed the partition through the U.N. in 1947, and in 1948 made the U.S. the first country to recognize Israel.
The Zionists never had any intention of honoring the partition, however, and immediately began pushing beyond their borders. “After we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state,” remarked Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, “we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine.” When the Arab League, hostile to the installation of a Western-backed state in its midst, declared war on Israel, the Zionists exploited the opportunity to seize all of Palestine and ethnically cleanse the land of Arabs – what Ben-Gurion called “compulsory transfer.” Since this so-called war of independence, the Zionists have repeated this trick of expropriation, expulsion, and extermination under cover of war again and again.
The ancient city-state of Sparta ruled over the Laconians and Messenians, slaves known as “helots” who outnumbered their masters by twenty to one. Spartan domestic and foreign policy (in particular, the total militarization of Spartan life and renowned martial prowess of the Spartan citizen) was largely devoted to preventing the ever-dreaded helot revolt, especially at the instigation of rival hegemons or foreign powers such as Persia. Israel is in the same position vis-à-vis the Palestinians as Sparta was with her helots. The prevention of the self-determination of the dispossessed Palestinians largely dictate Israeli domestic and foreign policy, making Israel extremely militant at home (overreacting any Palestinian resistance) and meddlesome abroad (goading larger, stronger nations into destroying those who sympathize with or support the Palestinians). As a result, while the U.S. had no national interest in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, she destroyed Iraq and Libya, and is now in the process of destroying Syria, even amid the ongoing civilizational crisis in Europe and at the risk of confrontation with Russia.
What was the cause of all this death, destruction, and displacement? Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya, and Assad’s Syria were anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian states – foes of the Israeli Sparta and friends to the Palestinian helots. Thus, the Israel Lobby – a vast network of Jewish political action committees, Jewish activist groups, Jewish think tanks, and Jewish media outlets – has bribed, blackmailed, and bamboozled Presidents, Congressmen, and the American public into the belief that warring on the Palestinians’ friends and Israeli’s foes keeps the U.S. safe and free.
(As difficult as it may be to sympathize with backwards and barbaric Arabs, remember that the Jews have even less regard for Europeans and if they had the power would destroy us as they destroyed their enemies in the Old Testament).
Chief among the Israel Lobby have been the neoconservatives – predominantly Trotskyite-Zionists who infiltrated and subverted the Old Right, transforming it from a reactionary anti-ideology to a revolutionary ideology. “The Jewish neoconservative movement,” explains MacDonald, “has sought intellectual inspiration from Leo Strauss rather than from Gentile conservative intellectuals such as Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, or James Burnham.” After the fall of the Soviet Union, the neoconservatives, rather than give peace a chance, sought to redefine the basis of American world hegemony from national security and anti-Communism to human rights. “American ideals and self-interest merge when the United States supports the spread of democracy around the globe,” schemed a cadre of Jewish neoconservatives in a seminal policy paper from 1992. “The vision of a ‘new world order’ since 1990 has been a world with one superpower – the United States – in which the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, disputes are settled peacefully, aggression is firmly met by collective resistance, and all people are justly treated.” This new world order of a humanitarian empire has primarily benefited Israel at the expense of the rest of the world, which would be far safer and freer with an alternative Middle East of anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian states than the acutal Middle East of anti-Western, pro-Caliphate states.
Indeed, in 1996, Jewish neoconservatives who would later hold high-ranking positions in President George W. Bush’s Defense and State departments – Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and the Wurmsers – authored a policy paper for Israel which rejected “comprehensive peace” in the Middle East and called for “weakening, containing, and even rolling back” or “removing” the anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian regimes Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
The reason why neoconservative Jews in the punditocracy like William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jonah Goldberg are oy veying *over Trump – and some even defecting to Herself, such as Robert Kagan and Bret Stephens – is because the “America First” Trump is firmly against fighting Russia over Syria and Ukraine. “Trump saying he might not defend NATO makes our other allies doubtful,” fretted Stephens. “Most importantly, Israel.” The war-hawkish Clinton, by contrast, is in favor of fighting Russia over Syria and Ukraine, just as she has been for every neoconservative-designed war throughout her public life. A destroyed Syria and defeated Russia would allow Israel to assume control the Golan Heights unopposed, which she first annexed from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War and held in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That is why, after U.S. President Barack Obama rejected Israel’s request to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territory under the cover of the civil war in Syria, Netanyahu visited the Golan Heights and bellowed, “The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israeli hands!” Like a good *Shabbos goy, however, Cruz rode quickly to Israel’s defense against American national interests. “I applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu’s courage in standing up for the safety of his people,” announced Cruz. “America stands with you.”
The warning of the State Department from 1948 rings truer than ever:
The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the U.N…In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.
The lie that the U.S. is a “proposition nation” based on liberal ideas – equality, democracy, and capitalism – rather than a nation based on blood and soil has been told so often that it has become a sick sort of truth. According to Hillary Clinton, two of our “fundamental American values” are “that we are a nation of immigrants” and “that we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them.” When Donald Trump called for an end to illegal immigration, with all its crime and poverty, Clinton labeled him “un-American” and added that immigrants are “everything that made America great.” While American schoolchildren – the majority of which are now non-white – are not taught about the American Revolution or the Constitution, they are, of course, forced to memorize the following passage from a poem written by the Zionist and Marxist Emma Lazarus, later inscribed upon the base of the Statue of Liberty:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
This egalitarianism is quite different, of course, from Naturalization Act of 1790, signed into law by President George Washington, which restricted American citizenship to “free white persons of good character.” Indeed, Thomas Jefferson’s vision of the North American continent as an “empire of liberty” required not only “a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws,” but also a people of one race – “nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”
During the Congressional debate on the Naturalization Act, Maryland Representative Michael Stone (a planter who had served as a delegate to his State’s ratification convention) stressed the importance of keeping foreign influence out of American politics:
A foreigner who comes here is not desirous of interfering immediately with our politics; nor is it proper that he should. His emigration is governed by a different principle; he is desirous of obtaining and holding property. I should have no objection to his doing this, from the first moment he sets his foot on shore in America; but it appears to me, that we ought to be cautious how we admit emigrants to the other privileges of citizenship…The admission of a great number of foreigners to all the places of government, may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we believe the most pure of all human institutions.
The U.S. began as colonies of the British Empire, settled by Cavaliers in the South, Puritans in New England, Midlanders in the Delaware Valley, and Celts in the Backcountry. Up until 1924, periodic waves of Europeans immigrated to the U.S., although even these waves of Europeans were not always welcomed by Americans. “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?” asked Benjamin Franklin in 1751 of early German immigrants to Pennsylvania. “In short, unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so outnumber us, that all the advantages we have will not in my opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.”
In fact, Americans were even wary of constituting a union with one another, let alone with foreigners. “We see plainly that men who come from New England are different from us,” Revolutionary War veteran Joseph Taylor warned his fellow Southerners at North Carolina’s ratification convention. “They cannot with safety legislate for us.” At the same time up north, Revolutionary War veteran James Winthrop warned his fellow New Englanders to “keep their blood pure,” for they had “acquired their present greatness and preserved their religion and morals” by “keeping separate from the foreign mixtures.”
While Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Taylor, James Winthrop, and other immigration-skeptical Founding Fathers politely confined their concerns to paper, by the 1850s, when the Jeffersonian republic was dead and Jacksonian democracy was in its prime, resistance to immigration became much fiercer. Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, poor, Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Germany flooded American cities, driving up crime rates, welfare costs, and the rolls of the Democratic Party. The American Party, a short-lived nationalist party – the street-level organization of which was depicted in the superb *Gangs of New York *– was eventually absorbed by the Republican Party, which continued to welcome Irish and German immigrants in its war against the Southern Confederacy.
After a large of wave of Southern and Eastern Europeans (Slavs, Italians, and Jews, as opposed to Western Europeans) from 1890 to 1924, the U.S. virtually closed her borders. By instituting a system of national-origins quotas which discriminated in favor of Western Europe, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act was merely intended to maintain the ethnic balance of the U.S. in the 1890 Census, but to the Jews – who had, since the beginning of the 1890-1924 immigration wave, supported multiculturalism and racial diversity in order to weaken the ethno-cultural identity of European-Americans while concealing themselves in a pluralistic-patchwork society – such a restriction of immigration was a serious threat to their perceived interests. Indeed, the Zionist Horace Kallen instructed fellow Jews to “deprecate the importance or even the existence of a common national identity.”
Facing such resistance from Jewish Congressmen, Montana Representative Scott Leavitt made a reasonable appeal to their own point of view:
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 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.
Leavitt’s appeal was to no avail. Those Jewish Congressmen remained against Johnson-Reed Act, including Representative Emanuel Celler, a Brooklyn Jew who repealing the law his lifelong mission.
From 1924 to 1965, the Jews relentlessly undermined not just the Johnson-Reed Act, but the very concept of immigration restriction itself. “In the case of the reversal in U.S. immigration policy, there simply were no other pressure groups that were pushing for liberalized, multi-racial immigration during the period under consideration (up to the enactment of the watershed immigration bill of 1965),” explains Kevin MacDonald. “Nor were there any other groups or intellectual movements besides the ones mentioned in Culture of Critique that were developing images of the U.S. as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society rather than a European civilization.”
At the cultural level, the Jewish media told the lie that the U.S. was a “nation of immigrants” and “melting pot” and poisoned the idea of immigration restriction as “anti-Semitic” and “racist.” As Israel Zangwill, the originator of the term “melting pot” put it, “Tell them they are destroying American ideals.” At the political level, while Jewish lobbying organizations (including Jewish-dominated organizations, such as the American Communist Party and the American Civil Liberties Union) created pressure for immigration liberalization, Jewish lawmakers pushed for exceptions to the rules, such as taking in refugees from Nazi Germany and allowing non-white immigrants from British colonies to count towards the British quota. “We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has typically extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities,” the Jewish judge Simon H. Rifkind testified before the Congress on behalf of Jewish interests. “Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.” At the intellectual level, subversive Jewish ideas and attitudes – the Boasian denial of evolutionary racial differences, the Marxist belief in absolute human equality, the Freudian and Frankfurt pathologization of the politically incorrect, and the elitism of the New York Left – portrayed immigration restriction as primitive and discredited. “If America has any meaning at all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above the trend of our present civilization – the identification of race with State,” argued the Zionist Maurice Samuel, specifically lamenting the Johnson-Reed Act. “America was therefore the New World in this vital respect – that the State was purely an ideal, and nationality was identical only with the acceptance of the ideal.”
After World War II, the Jews even claimed that the Johnson-Reed Act was responsible for the Holocaust, as it had stopped Jewish immigration from European countries which fell to the Third Reich. In 1951, while the Congress debated strengthening the Johnson-Reed Act, Mississippi Representative John E. Rankin delivered an outburst against this Jewish kvetching:
They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation…I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South.
Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other countries I could name.
They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in the country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here.
By the 1960s, the Jews had thoroughly subverted American ethnocultural identity and American national interests, making immigration liberalization a fait accompli. With the groundwork laid – or, alternatively, with the groundwork torn up – the Congress passed the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, named after the New York Jew who had, in his own words “fought against the unjust restriction of immigration.” Tragically, however, the Hart-Celler was intended to be more of a symbolic gesture than anything else – repudiating supposed sins of racism and anti-Semitism – and certainly never intended to radically and irreversibly change the demographics of the country.
For example, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, in his testimony in favor of the Hart-Celler Act before the Congress, aimed to “set to rest any fears that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic makeup of the United States.”
In response to Kennedy, Texas Representative O.C. Fisher objected that the Hart-Celler Act would significantly change immigration and thus significantly change the country:
My chief objection to this bill is that it very substantially increases the number of immigrants who will be admitted each year, and it shifts the mainstream of immigration from western and northern Europe – the principal source of our present population – to Africa, Asia, and the Orient…The elimination of the national origins quota, as proposed here, would do more than change the cultural pattern of our immigration – serious as that may be. It would have a direct effect on the numbers of people who would be pouring in from non-quota countries.
Answering Fisher, Celler countered that neither immigration nor the country would significantly change:
Mr. Chairman, claim has been made that the bill would bring in hordes of Africans and Asians. This is the answer to that false charge. Persons from African and Asian countries would continue to come in as heretofore, but would be treated like everyone else. With the end of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts to countries other than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and Africa will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively, which itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be, comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering the country.
In 1924, South Carolina Senator Ellison DuRant Smith said, “Shut the door.” By 1965, Jewish New York Senator Jacob K. Javits said, “Let’s open the gates.” The consequences of opening the gates, however, are stark and sobering. Since 1965, 59 million immigrants have entered the U.S., nearly triple the next-largest immigration wave of 1890 to 1924. While pre-1965 immigration was virtually 100% European, 85% of these post-1965 Americans were from the Third World, particularly Latin America. From 1965 to the present, immigration accounted for 51% of American population growth, and is projected to account for 82% through 2055. In 1960, the U.S. was 82% white, but today it is only 62% white. If the present pluralization of the U.S. continues, whites are projected to lose their majority status by 2055. Furthermore, of the post-1965 immigrants, 51% are dependent on welfare, as opposed to 30% of blood-and-soil Americans. Of Latinos, which comprise over half of all post-1965 immigrants, 70% are dependent on welfare and, accordingly, 70% identify with the Democratic Party. In the history of the world, there is simply no precedent for a mass-migration and demographic displacement of such scale in such a short period of time. If present trends continue, the U.S. is doomed to either become a left-wing, anti-American, one-party state ruling over growing numbers of hyphenated-American tax-consumers and shrinking numbers of blood-and-soil tax-payers or to Balkanize along sectional and ethno-cultural lines. In any event, there will be blood.
The Nation – the oldest continuously running magazine in the U.S., now taken over by Jewish Marxists – hails the Jewish role in the Hart-Celler Act, celebrates how immigration has changed the country, and hopes that Latinos will be the next immigrant minority to further open the borders:
Recalling the civil-rights history of Hart-Celler, especially in its grassroots movement and electoral shifts, helps us think about immigration reform today. In the post-war years, American Jews, Italian-Americans, and other European ethnics were the drivers of reform. They had allies, of course, and they prevailed only when international and domestic politics aligned, but they made reform imaginable, then necessary, finally urgent. The same could be said about immigration politics today. Latinos are now 18 percent of the US population and Asians are 6 percent, compared to 4 percent and less than 1 percent in 1965 respectively. Their claims for full inclusion—most vividly projected by the “DREAMers”—have won sympathy across a broad swath of Americans. Latinos were the key vote in a half-dozen states that swung the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.
The path to immigration reform may again be long and twisted, but the outcome may be read in the inexorable facts of demography. Trump’s shenanigans and the ugly nativism he has unleashed may be consequential in the short run, but in the long run they are irrelevant.
In addition to the common left-liberal Jews, the rarer neoconservative Jews also contributed to the opening of the borders and the unmaking of the historic American nation. In 1952, the Jewish Harvard professor Oscar Handlin wrote an influential article for the New York-based, Jewish-owned magazine, Commentary. In his article, Handlin repeated the smear that current immigration laws were based on “racist xenophobia” and redefined American identity as “all men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Americans.” Handlin ultimately won a Pulitzer Prize for a history of American immigration and played a key role in the passage of the Hart-Celler Act. Today, with Trump forcing the neoconservative-controlled Republican Party to listen to its anti-immigrant voter base, Commentary – still owned and operated by the Jewish Podhoretz family – continues to defend liberalized immigration and attack those who demand rollback. Paying tribute to the Jewish Emma Lazarus’ Marxist vaporings which the New York Jewish community had placed on the Statue of Liberty, Commentary’s Jewish editor Noah Rothman defends the post-1965 immigration status quo:
Trump’s “plan” is an assault on not merely the illegal immigrants who have violated American laws, but those who have played by the existing rules to come to the United States. The proposal amounts to a declaration of war on America’s immigrant community, an attack on the foundational nature of America’s character as a melting pot for all the peoples of the world, and the inception of a police state that is incompatible with a free republican democracy.
All the while, the same Jews who have advanced immigration liberalization in the U.S. have also downplayed or defended Israel’s own immigration restriction, such as only accepting immigrants with Jewish blood and building a border wall to keep out the Palestinians. “Notice that American Jews have had no interest in proposing that immigration to Israel be similarly multiethnic, or that Israel should have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews,” comments MacDonald. “I rather doubt that Oscar Handlin would extend his statement advocating immigration from all ethnic groups into the United States by affirming the principle that all men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Israelis.”
David Caldwell, a Presbyterian reverend, Revolutionary War veteran, and Anti-Federalist from North Carolina, had the right idea about the Jews back in 1488 – er, that is, 1788:
Mr. Caldwell thought that some danger might arise. He imagined it might be objected to in a political as well as in a religious view. In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said he, this might endanger the character of the United States. Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge that the Christian religion is the best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of those people from the Eastern Hemisphere.
The Final Solution
The final solution to Jewish control of the U.S. government and Jewish subversion of American culture is to realize, as MacDonald has brilliantly and bravely theorized, that the Jews are highly ethnocentric and highly intelligent and, historically, use these strengths for the advancement and protection of their in-group at the expense of the Gentile out-group. This behavior is not a global Jewish conspiracy, but a group evolutionary strategy derived from the Jews’ Eastern ancestry as desert herdsmen who created collectivistic societies, formed joint households, and engaged in between-group conflict. Europeans, by contrast, are descended from Western hunter-gatherers who created individualistic societies, formed simple households, and engaged in between-group cooperation.
MacDonald explains how these evolutionary differences leave the Gentiles vulnerable to Jewish infiltration and subversion:
This suggests the fascinating possibility that the key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency toward altruistic punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily rise up in moral anger against their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy – a manifestation of their much stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers…Thus the current altruistic punishment so characteristic of contemporary Western civilization: once Europeans were convinced that their own people were morally bankrupt, any and all means of punishment should be used against their own people. Rather than see other Europeans as part of an encompassing ethnic and tribal community, fellow Europeans were seen as morally blameworthy and the appropriate target of altruistic punishment. For Westerners, morality is individualistic – violations of communal norms by free-riders are punished by altruistic aggression.
On the other hand, group strategies deriving from collectivist cultures, such as the Jews, are immune to such a maneuver because kinship and group ties come first. Morality is particularistic – whatever is good for the group. There is no tradition of altruistic punishment because the evolutionary history of these groups centers around cooperation of close kin, not strangers.
From this understanding that Jewish interests are opposed to blood-and-soil American interests, a lesson on how to create strong, safe, and free communities may be deduced: while, for blood-and-soil Americans, a shared ethno-cultural identity builds higher trust and thereby promotes social cohesion, the “pluralism” of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism, as devised by Jews, sows conflict and division.