Yes Virginia, Jews Suck on Immigration

California Rep. Howard Berman, an F on immigration

District of Corruption

White Americans should feel very proud of the great victory we won last week. We beat back the huge illegal alien “Dream Act” amnesty for the third time in four months.

Southern conservatives in Congress led the way to victory. White conservatives from the West, Midwest, and even New York (like Peter King of Long Island) voted against amnesty and held back the tide while being intimidated with media smears and immoral tactics like hunger strikes.

Unfortunately, one group of Americans voted overwhelmingly for the DREAM Act amnesty: the Jews.

The Jewish Question in the Senate

Virtually every single Jewish member in Congress voted for this amnesty. The Washington Post estimates the Senate is 13 percent Jewish and Congress 8 percent Jewish while the American population as a whole is only 2 percent Jewish.

I could only find 1 Jew in Congress that voted against the DREAM Act amnesty: Virginia congressman Eric Cantor, who represents Culpepper,  and has to pretend to be a “conservative” to be in the Republican leadership in the House.

If you or anyone you know has any doubts that so-called “American” Jewish congressmen are bad on immigration, please go check out their immigration grades at NumbersUSA. The highest grade any Jew in Congress (outside of Cantor in Virginia) is California Senator Barbara Boxer who has a D+.

Yes Virginia, the Jews really are bad on immigration. How do we present this startling fact to mainstream White Americans without coming off as hateful, anti-Semitic, Jew obsessed, Neo-Nazi extremists?

Practical Suggestions

I’m opening the floor to intelligent suggestions. I have some of my own suggestions here:

(1) Present the facts of Jewish support for Third World immigration alone. Don’t try to package this with any of the other negative Jewish programs like loyalty to Israel, sponsorship of neocon wars in Asia, the War Against Christmas, ADL sponsorship of hate crime legislation, the corruption of the Federal Reserve banking system, the Jewish role in Communism, and so on.

It is just too much for one sitting to throw out the whole “IT’S THE JEWS, STUPID” message on people with no experience (outside of Hollywood movies) with the Chosen.

(2) Third World immigration is now a wedge issue. Increasingly, large numbers of White Americans feel very strongly about immigration and amnesty. In Rahmbo’s words, immigration has become a “third rail” of American politics. It has gotten to the point where they will strongly oppose anyone and everyone who supports amnesty and loosening our immigration laws.

For example, White Americans kicked out RINOs like Chris Cannon of Utah who supported amnesty and forced two other RINOs like John McCain and Lindsey Graham to walk back their positions on amnesty and vote for the position of their constituents.

(3) My own advice is that you should just present the “facts of life” regarding who is for or against us on this issue whenever you are working with immigration control activists or mainstream implicit Whites who oppose mass immigration.

Just present the truth in a gentle way and note in passing that all the liberal Jewish Democrats like Al Franken and Barbara Boxer voted for amnesty and open borders with Third World cesspools like Somalia and Haiti. If you get a positive response, try to include the sad truth that neocon Jews like New York City major Michael Bloomberg, Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Norm Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine, The Heritage Foundation’s Libertad, and other conservative publications where Jews are prominent like The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator are also for Third World immigration and working for some way to give amnesty to millions of “diverse” criminals.

(4) Ask ordinary White people if they think Jews in Israel or Jews in America support Muslim immigration to Israel or letting the Palestinians have full equal rights in their communities.

(5) Ask if the Jewish community favors affirmative action for Arabs in Israel and millions of Mexicans, Somalians, Pakistanis moving to Israel to correct the problem of a lack of sufficient “diversity” in the Knesset.

No, I don’t think so.

(6) Once again, you want to come off as an intelligent, principled White Advocate who is on the side of the ordinary White people you are trying to educate. You don’t want to come off as a crazy, Jew obsessed, one trick pony extremist trying to refight the Second World War on the German side.

(7) Try to include some self depreciating humor about your own ethnic group not being so good at something; maybe something  like Flamingo dancing or stand up comedy.

(8) Jews are really bad on immigration. That doesn’t mean you hate all Jews. It’s just that they line up on the opposite side of the political spectrum and this will have serious consequences for our posterity.

You want your audience to understand that if Jewish candidates like Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, Schumer, Levin or Waxman are elected, then yes, America will be flooded of millions of Third World aliens including Muslims like the 9/11 terrorists, the Fort Hood shooter, or the Portland bomber.

Let your audience take it from there. Try to offer some suggestions on where they can research the subject. Start with mainstream sources first. NumbersUSA is a great place for learning about the immigration debate. See also FAIR and CIS. Then move them on down the road to VDARE.

(9) Always listen more than you talk. Keep the topic focused on a single subject like immigration.

You’re discussing amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who will never assimilate and become genuine America. You don’t want to get into an argument about a subject like the Second World War which nothing can be done about.

If the White person you are talking to is getting hot and angry and ranting about America fighting the Second World War to defeat racism and Nazism, gently ask this person if he thinks the “Greatest Generation” – which lived under Jim Crow and fought in segregated units until the Korean War – gave so many lives at Omaha beach and Guadalcanal so that their grandchildren couldn’t attend a safe public school in Los Angeles, California or Chattanooga Tennessee.

What do you suggest?


  1. I was pretty sure Hunter thought he was probably just amongst “some of the boys” when he made a comment about a woman he is into, like 99.9999 percent of men do from time to time, especially when around friends and at ease, but apparently several believe certain mild and quite natural comments should never, ever, under any circumstances be uttered.

  2. “I think we’re safe being ridiculous on Christmas Eve. I’m pretty sure Joe 6-pack isn’t reading up on his politics tonight.” — Spooky

    No matter. I don’t think Joe 6-pack reads Occidental Dissent on ANY occasion.

    “She’s Alaskan fer crying out loud. How many Alaskans identify with the bookish Judaics?” — Solutrean SC

    Jews are everywhere, in every place, and there are ALL KINDS of Jews, of every stripe and sort. They are not by any means all “bookish Judaics”. That’s just one type, out of many.

    As for Sarah Palin, people vote for her and enthuse over her for all the wrong reasons. I’ve had friends say, “She’s hot!” … to which I say, “So what?”

    I don’t know about her family tree, but I’m willing to consider it . (Grandma Beatrice Coleman was probably Cohen, making her grandmothers on both sides Jewish.) There seems to be something vaguely “wrong” there. I’m sceptical — and not just about her tree, but about other things I’ve read. There’s too much vagueness, too many open spots. Usually, if there’s some debate or confusion about whether someone’s Jewish, they probably are. And what is her real religion? With every generation her family keeps changing it. That indicates an instability, or a desire to hide something. Also, she’s perky and bright but not knowledgeable, kind of flaky, and clearly a religious wacko (not uncommon in the South and West); but aside from that, the Israeli flag in her office says everything that needs to be said. I wouldn’t want any “Christian Zionist” sitting in the White House with her finger on the button.

    Furthermore, as Spooky says, the fact that she emerged from out of nowhere – just like Obama – and suddenly was up for election to the second highest office in the land, points to some heavy backing. That’s fishy right there and a give-away sign. Who “discovered” her and promoted her? Out of 300 million people, that’s the best candidate they could find? This flighty air-brain didn’t make it that far, so fast, on her own (as one could also say for Obama).

  3. My opinion of Palin’s rise is prosaic: She just happens to be about the only Republicans out there with any charisma. Now, not being stupid, she curries favor with the principalities of power in order to be elected, or maintain what she already has. She needs either neo-con media organs or liberal media organs on her side to succeed. If she was a Jew, or partially Jewish, I think that would be trumpeted from the highest rooftops. All this is my opinion. I’m perfectly open-minded and willing to alter my opinion about Palin, but it will take more evidence.

  4. >I?”not being stupid, she curries favor with the principalities of power in order to be elected, or maintain what she already has. She needs either neo-con media organs or liberal media organs on her side to succeed.” –Solutrean SC

    That makes sense too. That could well be. At least her advisors would have figured that out, if she herself didn’t. Being from Alaska, she may not be all that canny about how New York/Hollywood/Washington politics operate. But they would know who must be cultivated.

    But as for being partly Jewish, I disagree that they would broadcast it. Why would they? Madeline “Albright” kept silent about being Jewish all her life, even her husband didn’t know – until someone “outed” her. Then she claimed she never had the slightest idea, and dropped the subject. John “Kerry” is Jewish on his father’s side. That was kept as deeply buried as they could manage to keep it, and if anyone mentioned it they were accused of anti-semitism. It was not a topic to be discussed. Even Hillary Clinton had a Jewish grandfather or step-father, something like that; so she grew up in a household that was Jewish-run. That little detail only came out (conveniently) when she was campaigning in New York City. It was never mentioned again.

    The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke* died just last week. With a name like that, no one would ever imagine that he could be Jewish (nor did I). But he was, as I just learned! It turns out that he was German Jewish on his mother’s side, and Polish Jewish on his father’s. They came here (significantly) in the Depression 1930’s when there was almost zero immigration allowed into the United States, except for Jews. Holbooke wasn’t the real family name either, but they claim to have forgotten what the original name was.
    *[Holbrooke was US Ambassador to Germany, Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador to the United Nationa, broker of the Dayton Peace Accords, and many other roles.]

    No, Jews going for high public office do not like to emphasize their Jewishness (except in front of Jewish groups). They play it down. Does Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Jane Harman, Arlen Spekter, etc., etc.? Most people would never even know. And that’s how the pols like it.

  5. “That is how the French can assume that a black African can come to France and become a Frenchman, so long as he learns to speak proper French and which wine to order with his fish. To them, it is cultural. To us, it is bizarre and incomprehensible! We tend to identify a person’s ethnicity VISUALLY. They don’t.” (-N)

    That is a funny theory, but it isn’t true. No one thinks of Blacks living in France as French people. Black immigrants don’t care about French wine, but it wouldn’t make any difference if they did.

    In the past, the English may have been more race conscious than the French and the Spanish. In Canada, I think a number of French people had children from Indian women. Today, the difference in behavior between white people from different countries probably depends on the amount of propaganda they are exposed to by the media.

    “Ernest Renan’s famous conference at the Sorbonne, “What is a Nation” (1882): According to Renan’s republican conception, a nation-state is not composed of a single homogeneous ethnic group, but of a variety of individuals willing to live together. Renan’s definition, which forms the basis of the French Republic, is diametrically opposed to the German ethnic conception of a nation, first formulated by Fichte.”

    In his 1882 conference, Renan deliberately talked rubbish, on account of Alsace. He had to, in order to keep his job in Paris. Alsace is a part of Germany that was annexed to France in 1648, under Louis 14. Then, in 1871, Alsace was reunited to the rest of Germany, against the wishes of the French government. So, in his 1882 conference, Renan had to say that nationality is not about blood, culture, or history, even though it is.

    “Under French law passed after the Vichy regime, it is forbidden to categorize people according to ethnic origin.”

    I don’t think there is any such law. Here is what I found in wikipedia (rough translation) :

    In 2007, the bill pertaining to the control of immigration, integration and asylum had a clause allowing to count members of ethnic groups. The clause met heavy opposition. In October 2007, more than 60 members of Parliament and more than 60 members of the Senate referred the matter to the Constitutional Council. In its decision of November 2007, the CC ruled that article 63 was not consistent with the French Constitution [. . .] . On the substance of the case, the Council added that, even if procedures that are used to study and measure diversity, discrimination and integration may deal with objective data, they cannot rely on race or ethnic origin, without breaching the principle stated in article one of the Constitution.

    And here is article 1 of the French Constitution: “France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion.”

    The idea that article 1 forbids the collecting of ethnic statistics is absurd, and is a very recent idea. I think it is another case of Jewish influence and misinterpretation. The Constitutional Council is made up of 9 members. In 2007, 3 of them were Jewish: Jean-Louis Debré (the president), Dominique Schnapper, and Pierre Joxe. Another one was named Steinmetz (?). Two other ones (Canivet and Pezant) were appointed by Debré. Pezant, used to write for the magazine “Pouvoirs”, which is clearly linked to Jewish circles. (As former presidents of France, Chirac and Giscard are also members of the Council. I don’t suppose they take part in the debates, but maybe they are still allowed to vote.)

    “Thus, the French government’s assimilationist stance towards immigration as well as towards regional identities and cultures, together with the political heritage of the French revolution, has led to the development of a French identity which is based more on the notion of “citizenship” than on cultural, historical or “ethnic” ties.”

    The French revolution led to a bloody dictatorship. The idea was that people should obey the orders from Paris or be guillotined. People who didn’t speak French were told to learn “the universal language of liberty”. But there was no mention of replacing the French with Arabs and Africans. Jewish activists will say that today’s race-replacement policy is consistent with the ideals of the 1789 revolution, but this is not true. However, by trying to destroy natural society, the 1789 revolutionaries did make the job easier for the race-replacers. There would have been more resistance from an undamaged traditional society.

  6. “Under French law passed after the Vichy regime, it is forbidden to categorize people according to ethnic origin.”

    I don’t think there is any such law.

    Well, the quotes I gave were from Wiki. So your argument is with Wiki, not me. I can fully understand that such a law was passed in the aftermath of WW2. It figures. The Jews (and communists) came into power then, and they set about mopping up the opposition. They did everything they could to cancel out the effects of the Vichy government. (Commonly called “regime”.) At that point, the racial “minorities” and non-Europeans really took charge of France, though it did not begin to become apparent until 20–30 years later.

    “That is a funny theory, but it isn’t true. No one thinks of Blacks living in France as French people. Black immigrants don’t care about French wine, but it wouldn’t make any difference if they did.”

    My remark about the fish and wine was only facetious; but nonetheless, assimilation is the official stance of the French government and has been for a long time. It still is. The reigning idea is that anyone can be French. In their past, they only had other Europeans to assimilate, so that was easy. But French people that I have encountered (in France) all take the same view, which is the official view. I have met no one who takes the opoosing view. Of course, maybe they can’t or don’t dare; I realize that. But that shopkeeper in Toulouse who considered all English-speakers as “English” expressed that linguistic/cultural view very well. In fact, the French press and government refer to us all the time as “Anglo-Saxons” — (a people who actually passed into history as a nation in 1066). But you can be an American or Australian — of Greek or Polish or Finnish ancestry — and yet to the French you are an “Anglo-Saxon” if you speak English. We don’t even call ourselves that. But as that shopkeeper said, “You’re all the same thing to us.” Language is the determining factor.

    I have seen blacks on French television panels arguing insistently that they are French! And complaining that they are not sufficiently recognized and treated as French. (“Car je suis français!”). No one argued with them or told them that they are not French (which probably would have meant a jail sentence). Poor things, they have been sold a phony bill of goods, and they actually BELIEVE it. They think, and insist, that they ARE French.

    I find extremely significant this sentence (quoted from the Wiki article): “The idea of French ethnicity is not one which informs mainstream discourse in France.”

    Exactly so! I also find extremely interesting the difference between the opposing French and German views of nationality. That explains a great deal in modern history. I am with the German philosopher Fichte, who emphasized ancestry/ethnicity, rather than the Frenchman Renan, who emphasized language/culture. You make an interesting point about the Sorbonne conference following the loss of Alsace-Loraine by only a decade, a time when that loss, considered a military disgrace, was still chafing bitterly on the French psyche.

    But it goes back well before that. French replaced Latin as the offical language in 1539 (ordonnance of Villers-Cotterêt), Since then, France (unlike England) has always emphasized the importance of the French language (essentially the language of Paris) and has employed it as a conscious tool of policy to impose unity and a sense of national identity upon a scattered population. Otherwise, you had a just disparate collection of Basques, Catalans, Bretons, Provencals, Alsatians, Flemings, Corsicans, etc. Germany did not have to do that, nor did England. Those countries were already populated by essentially the same stock of people speaking the same language. And France, from way back had to get used to foreign rulers like Cardinal Jules Mazarin (Giuliano Mazzarino), and Maria di Medici. Germany did not have those either, Nor did England (up until the Hanoverians and Windsors). After all, you could hardly be anti-foreign when your rulers were foreign! So they had to stretch the idea of who was French.

    And then we come to Napoleon. I have alienated some very indignant Frenchmen by the suggestion that Napoleon was not really French (which he was not, in fact… but don’t tell a Frenchman that!) He didn’t have a drop of French blood, but he was educated and raised in France. So that’s good enough for them. He is the embodiment of the idea that anyone can be French.

    In the stuggle of ideas today, though I regret to say it, it seems that Renan’s French vision of nationality is slowly winning out in all the western countries, while Ficthte’s German view is stained by the nazi taint and made to seem illegitimate. In the rest of the world, the non-white world, the German view of ethnicity seems to hold. It’s the logical view. Try telling a Chinese (or Japanese, or Saudi ) that ANYONE can be Chinese (or Japanese, or Saudi)! Of course, the Jews love the French view and have every reason to promote the notion that anybody can be anything and that your nationality is no more significant than your ZIP code. To them, it’s just a matter of where you live. It suits their purposes very nicely and undermines the identities of whatever host countries they are in.

    But not everyone can be an Israeli!

  7. N: I first got an inkling that there was a Jewish problem when I somehow must have gotten on a list of Jewish voters. Suddenly, all the campaign literature in my mailbox mentioned that the candidate with the White-sounding name was a member of this or that synagogue. Candidates with obviously Jewish names only ran in Jewish districts.
    You are right, Jews want their fellow tribesmen to know who they are and give unconditional support, but they want to conceal their race from Whites. Among themselves they trumpet their dominance, but most of them are afraid of stirring up trouble if the Goyim ever realize who owns Washington.

  8. Jews have very good “antennae” or “radar” for recognizing another Jew. A slightest little hint will do it. Code words, jokes, casual references artfully dropped, will instantly remove any lingering doubt. On the contrary, most gentiles couldn’t be more obtuse. The probing hints don’t register, and the thought would never even cross their minds.

    To Jews, probably one of the first and most important questions in their minds, upon meeting another person is: “Is he Jewish?”

    On the other hand, with most gentiles, it is the last and least important. Indeed, for most, it wouldn’t even occur to them.

    If it did, they’d feel guilty about it, because they’ve been taught … “Shame on you! You’re not supposed to think that way. That isn’t nice.” But for Jews, it’s alright to think that way. It’s even expected.

  9. 99% of the time I can tell if someone is Jewish in about 3 sentences. Or worse, Christian Zionist. People absolutely must develop this level of discernment. You have to know where people stand on a very fundamental level so you don’t get yourself confused. If people are coming from flawed foundations you’re just not going to change their mind no matter what you say. So it’s important not to invest too much. You’ve got to just move on. Don’t let it drag you down. Live and let live. Build your power base and marginalize the rest. Most of the middle will come around when it’s easier to do so than not. Our cause is as legitimate as any other. I personally love Jews. I feel I regrettably have many now seemingly innate Jewish psychological characteristics. Perhaps from growing up with American pop culture or from having many close Jewish friends while growing up. But that does not mean their preferred socio-political economic paradigm is any more valid than mine. Or even, as avowed members of a distinct naton within our borders with competing desires, they even deserve a seat at the table. But that does not mean they aren’t a great people in their own right. They don’t get where they are by being unlikable. So learn who they are (and and their fellow travelers – who are EVERYWHERE), how they further the desires of their own ancient and strange God through their discourse, and move on. You are not responsible for their problems. They may own the world, but the Truth is far more valuable.

Comments are closed.