Jewish Demand For Non-White Immigration: Is it Biological?Watch
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.
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
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
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
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
Full article at
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.
diclaimer: this is a joke please do delete it