Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Jewish Demand For Non-White Immigration: Is it Biological? watch

    • Thread Starter

    Jewish Support for Open Borders: Is it Biological?

    Is demonizing Whites who work for White racial interests a way that
    Jews advance their racial interests?

    by Kevin MacDonald

    Professor MacDonald is widely known by White activists for his
    acclaimed trilogy on Jewish evolutionary survival strategies.


    The third book in the series, Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary
    Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and
    Political Movements, is regarded by many as the one critical book for
    gaining an understanding the dominant Jewish role in the creation and
    advancement of what we now call multiculturalism, setting the stage
    for the eclipse of the White race, an effort depicted by MacDonald as
    a survival strategy for the Jews as an ethnicity. -- H.R.

    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 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:

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

    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

    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

    ..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

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

    Full article at

    (Original post by interiority)
    Those goshdarn evil Jews, always demonizing everyone!

    You'd better hope people read this thread fast, before the Secret Semitic Global Conspiracy find it and censor it.
    lol or those evil jewish mods delete it

    diclaimer: this is a joke please do delete it
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.