From: Paul Vogel (nitzke@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 21 2004 - 22:12:54 BST
Hello Folks,
MD Maybe biology and religion can explain Mark's Opposition and links?
He has no problem slandering me with the ad hominem "racist" slur,
and refused to apologize for his slander, so I figure, why not make him
good on it?
Read this article for your own self, and then you might see just
why he and his ilk are "social marxists" and continually lie and
slander COSMOTHEISM, while hiding his vile "religious and
"social-marxist" political agenda of "White Genocide via Miscegenation"
agenda"?
Best regards,
Paul Vogel
http://www.cosmotheism.net
Jewish Support for Open Borders: Is it Biological?
News/Comment; Posted on: 2004-06-20 10:50:39 [ Printer friendly ]
Is demonizing Whites who work for White racial interests a way that Jews
advance their racial interests?
by Kevin MacDonald (pictured)
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 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.
...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.
The Culture of Critique
Read the entire article
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 21 2004 - 22:40:25 BST