Asians Know the Score on the Jews
by Ian Mosley
February 15, 2009

An Australian News article reports “A Chinese bestseller titled The Currency 
War describes how Jews are planning to rule the world by manipulating the 
international financial system. The book is reportedly read in the highest 
government circles. If so, this does not bode well for the international 
financial system, which relies on well-informed Chinese to help it recover from 
the present crisis. Such conspiracy theories are not rare in Asia. Japanese 
readers have shown a healthy appetite over the years for books such as To Watch 
Jews is to See the World Clearly, The Next Ten Years: How to Get an Inside View 
of the Jewish Protocols and I’d Like to Apologise to the Japanese - A Jewish 
Elder’s Confession.”

The Japanese were provoked into World War Two contrary to what is taught in the 
public schools. FDR cut off oil to the Japanese, funded an illegal CIA-run air 
force (the Flying Tigers) that fought the Japanese in China and FDR delivered 
an un-Constitutional ultimatum (which he had no authority to give) to the 
Japanese in November 1941 demanding that they stop their war with China. All 
these actions convinced the Japanese that war with the US was inevitable. The 
Jews wanted FDR to provoke war with the Japanese as a back door entry into the 
war with Germany.

The Japanese started the war attacking US military facilities in Hawaii. The US 
ended the war by mass-murdering Japanese civilians with two atomic bombs. After 
the war, the US imposed a capitalist-style democracy on Japan that pretty much 
erased most of their culture. The “Protocols of Zion” are a plot uncovered by a 
Russian intelligent agent over 100 years ago that gives a detailed plan for 
Jewish world domination. It describes how the Jews will use their control of 
the mass media to control politicians and push Gentile governments into war for 
Jewish interests. Henry Ford said that the Protocols “fit history” and Jewish 
control of the news media has been a fact for many, many decades.

The Australian News continues “The Chinese picked up many modern Western ideas 
from the Japanese. Perhaps this is how Jewish conspiracy theories were passed 
on as well. But Southeast Asians are not immune to this kind of nonsense 
either. Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed has said that ‘the 
Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.’ And a 
recent article in a leading business magazine in the Philippines explained how 
Jews had always controlled the countries they lived in, including the US today… 
unlike European or Russian anti-Semitism, the Asian variety has no religious 
roots. No Chinese or Japanese has blamed Jews for killing their holy men or 
believed that their children’s blood ended up in Passover matzos. In fact, few 
Chinese, Japanese, Malaysians, or Filipinos have ever seen a Jew, unless they 
have spent time abroad. So what explains the remarkable appeal of Jewish 
conspiracy theories in Asia?”

Isn’t it odd how the same accusations against the Jews keep cropping up in 
every era and every nation and every culture where they make their appearance? 
The Chinese are intelligent people capable of observing the Western world as it 
is, not as the Jewish media tells them it is. Perhaps the reason for their 
belief that Jews control Western governments stems from the fact that they 
don’t have Jews peering over their shoulder telling them what they can and 
cannot believe.


Source with hyperlinks : http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=1723

--------------------------------

Are Some States Beginning to Revolt against Obama?
by Jeff Davis


The mainstream media thoroughly covered up Obama’s militant support of partial 
birth abortion and finishing off what-Obama-once-called “temporarily alive” 
babies. Obama got nearly half of the Catholic vote thanks to the Jewish media 
keeping this information from the public (and let’s not forget their incredible 
silence on the issue of Obama NOT being a US citizen). Unfortunately, the 
mainstream media has helped to elect the pro-abortion Barack Obama president. 
You’d think most anti-abortion activists would give up on any serious attempts 
to challenge the issue of abortion given the current occupant of the White 
House. Thankfully, that is not the case. Some politicians in North Dakota are 
showing that they couldn’t care less that Obama is president, and they’re going 
on the offensive.

An article from KXMC-TV reports “North Dakota’s House of Representatives has 
passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. The House voted 51-41 this 
afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person. 
That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being 
considered murder… Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning 
abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed. He also 
sponsored today’s bill and says it is compatable (sic) with Roe versus Wade - 
the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion. ‘This is the exact 
language that’s required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge 
can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that’s what this does.’ 
But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, 
trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme 
Court decision that legalized abortion. ‘People who presented this bill, were 
very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to 
put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade.’ The bill now 
goes to the North Dakota Senate.”

We must accept that for the foreseeable future, the federal government is in 
the hands of people who are the most absolute and bitter enemies of White 
people and the civilization that White people have built. Under Bush Junior and 
the neocons, there were occasional pockets of conservative thought and policy 
in the government. The Immigration Department would occasionally conduct raids 
as media events. Now that Obama is in office, even these token raids have 
stopped.

Despite Obama’s presence in the White House, it is still possible that 
something might be accomplished through state and local governments. These 
governments are showing signs of independence. One of the most fascinating 
developments since Obama took office and began his “Mugabe Plan” to fight the 
recession by spending money, 21 states have passed sovereignty resolutions 
proclaiming their right to act independently of the federal government. Of 
course, no state has yet shown the moral courage to secede from the Union in 
recent times, but this might very well lead to it.

Remember the Civil War was about MONEY, not slavery. The federal government 
prior to the Civil War was getting two-thirds of its revenue from taxes on the 
South. With the coming bankruptcy of the United States, more and more regions 
of the country will NOT want to be part of the United States with its 10 or 20 
or 30 trillion dollars in debt. Many politicians did NOT support the bail out 
of Wall street and the banks and they don’t support giving Obama a blank check 
to generate deficit spending as he sees fit –and Obama is looking more and more 
like Robert Mugabe, the failed ruler of Zimbabwe every day.

Source : http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=1735

--------------------------------

The Jewish Led Alien Invasion

Give me your tired, your huddled masses,
Yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
— Emma Lazarus

The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to 
displacement and eventually to consignation on reservations. Similarly, 
relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the interests of the 
Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. 
It laid the foundation for the Zionist State.Any tribe, race or nation desiring 
to preserve its culture, group interests and sovereignty must preserve its 
predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations 
have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest 
civilizations, and every modern nation has sought strict control of its borders 
and immigration.

Most Americans view the Indian historical record of resistance to European 
colonization as morally justifiable, but in the skewed ethics of today, some 
find European-American attempts to preserve our unique genes and culture from 
non-European immigration - morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, despite 
pervasive propaganda promoting multiculturalism and the media-touted joys of 
diversity, opinion surveys in America show overwhelming opposition to 
unrestricted immigration. Similar public sentiment holds true in every European 
nation.

It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the 
majority’s wishes and began a policy that discriminated against potential 
European immigrants, and encouraged massive non-European immigration. From that 
time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce 
our immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood 
of non-White immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigration and higher non-White 
birthrates have transformed the American population from almost 90 percent 
European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. 
The U.S. Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, 
well within the lifetime of many reading these words, European Americans will 
be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most of 
America’s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. 
Policies similar to those enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of 
non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain; North Africans and Asians into 
France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into Scandinavia, 
Spain, and Italy.

As I grew racially aware, it was certainly obvious to me that the new 
immigration policies of the United States and Europe would greatly damage 
Western societies. Only a short time after the change in immigration policy, 
crime problems escalated in all the affected nations. The quality of education 
suffered and social welfare problems increased. As this planned racial 
transformation accelerates, these ills will reach catastrophic proportions.

What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The 
individual foreigners who could benefit from the economic opportunities 
afforded by the Western societies had little political or economic clout while 
outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over 
immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening 
America’s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the 
poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter.

By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive 
non-European immigration poised the greatest short and long-term threat to the 
America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of 1965, unless repealed, 
would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I 
read pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change 
America’s immigration laws. I contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans 
attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot, and who had already 
taught me a lot about the immigration issue.[869]

Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He 
explained the history of American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus 
lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked me, “Whose interest 
could have been served in having America flooded with ‘wretched refuse’?” He 
quickly answered his own question. “It was in the perceived interest of a 
cohesive people who use racial solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want 
only for themselves. The efforts to change the American immigration law and 
ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by 
Jews.”

Smith explained that Emma Lazarus — like many other immigration activists — was 
a Jewish partisan who supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist 
state in Palestine, but who supported “diversity” for America. He pointed out 
to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the 
Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original 
connection with immigration and predated the Ellis Island immigration center. 
It was a gift from France to commemorate the American Revolution, not to honor 
the arrival of “wretched refuse” on America’s shores. It is instructive to note 
that this beautiful statue of European Womanhood faces not to Africa, Asia or 
South America, but the land where she was born, France and Europe itself.

Emma Lazarus had been best known for her fulminations against Russia’s pogroms 
following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881. The irony is rich: A 
Jewish supremacist dedicated to the creation of an elite Jewish State in 
Palestine was anxious to turn America into a refuge for the castoffs of the 
world. Drew Smith owned many books on the immigration issue, including some by 
Jews, in which he had underlined important passages. I borrowed them and 
passionately delved into them.

Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) 
the effort to liberalize American immigration and defeat restrictionist 
legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed legislation that simply 
attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, 
even though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population 
as well as in Congress, they did not attempt to increase their own percentage 
of the American population, but simply sought to fairly maintain each group’s 
status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates 
of open immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain 
America as an ethnically European, Christian nation. In the House of 
Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler led the 
fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in 
later years Jacob Javits coordinated the effort.

In the early struggles, Representative Leavitt clearly outlined the Jewish 
involvement in remarks before Congress.

    The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be 
condemned…. 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 recognize and 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. (Congressional 
Record, April 12, 1924.)[870] 

Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the 
New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, 
quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel Zangwill as suggesting that 
America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes 
about the Jewish influence.

    Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the 
endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. 
Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on 
the Immigration Commission’s bill…. The systematic campaign in newspapers and 
magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist 
fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal 
Immigration League and its numerous publications.[871]

In 1924 Congressman Knud Wefald pointed out the Communist ties of many of the 
Jewish immigrants and stated that many Jews have no sympathy with our old-time 
American ideals.”

    The leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into 
the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time 
American ideals … who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy 
through the disservices they render us.

    Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on 
the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible 
film stories [and] they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines 
and newspapers. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.[872]

The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo 
of America was the Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was 
led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and Lehman. Every major Jewish 
organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose it, 
including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, 
National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional 
debate, Francis Walter noted that the only civic organization that opposed the 
entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler noted that 
Walter “should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular 
faith who are opposing the bills.” (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[873]

When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, 
he emphasized that in supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he 
represented “the entire body of religious and lay opinion within the Jewish 
group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.”[874]

It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John 
Rankin during the debate. Today such truthful comments by any elected official 
would bring a torrent of abuse that few could withstand.

    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 this country and trying to 
force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no 
telling what will happen to them here. (Congressional Record, April 23, 
1952.)[875]

Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s 
came to fruition when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in 
immigration becoming 90 percent non-European. America went from an immigration 
program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the United 
States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier 
legislation, Jewish representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish 
lobbying organizations led the assault. It succeeded because during the 41 
years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually all 
spheres of American life.

In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called “Let’s Open Our 
Gates.”[876] that called for massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and 
Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of the bill in 1965. 
Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish 
Congress initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised 
President Eisenhower for his “unequivocal opposition to the national quota 
system.” In a 1956 editorial they praised him for “courageously taking a stand 
in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a 
position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and 
other Jewish agencies.”[877]
 

Jewish Motivation Behind Immigration

It would have been stupid and counterproductive for the Jewish organizations 
that pushed for open borders to admit that they were motivated by interests 
that conflicted with those of non-Jewish Europeans. They promoted open 
immigration as “patriotic.” From the early days of the century, they made 
public pronouncements that multiculturalism and diversity would be beneficial 
to the United States, cleverly masking their strategic motivations.After the 
passage of the open immigration statutes of 1965, Jewish authors such as Naomi 
W. Cohen felt much safer in revealing some of the real Jewish reasons for 
promoting such policies. She wrote that, beginning with the persecutions in 
Russia in the 1880s through the Nazi occupation of Europe and into the Cold War 
tribulations in Eastern Europe, open immigration in Western nations served 
Jewish interests because “survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in 
other lands.”[878] Cohen also wrote that a U.S. internationalist foreign policy 
serves Jewish interests because “an internationally minded America was likely 
to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries”[879] Perhaps even more 
important, Cohen intimated that Jews saw open immigration policies as breaking 
down the homogeneity and unity of America, creating a pluralistic society in 
which Jews could thrive.In his monumental book A History of Jews in America, 
Howard Sachar notes that pluralism supports “legitimizing the preservation of a 
minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society.”[880] So, in 
effect, by breaking down the integrity and cohesion of America, Jews could 
increase their integrity and cohesion. Sachar goes on to explicitly show how 
pluralism intensifies Jewish solidarity:

    But Kallen’s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing 
the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host 
society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an educated Jewish 
second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal 
endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived anti-Semitism, 
through the shock of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism 
in the post-World War II years swept through American Jewry with a climactic 
redemptionist fervor of its own.[881]

Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell 
Alone that major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically 
homogeneous nations and that “ethnic and religious pluralism serves external 
Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups… and it 
becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles 
united in their opposition of Judaism.”[882] [883]

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles 
Silberman writes that

    American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, 
one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of 
a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious 
and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of 
homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse 
“gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social 
issues.” [884]

John Higham, in his book Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, states 
in clear terms that Jewish-sponsored changes in immigration law were a defeat 
of the political and cultural representation of “the common people of the South 
and West.”[885]

During the decades leading up to opening the borders in 1965, Jewish groups had 
piously stated that there should be no discrimination against any group in 
immigration and that such could only be good for America. But, Richard Arens, 
staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran 
Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters 
of open immigration, hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed 
unfavorable to their own interests.

    One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 
act is “discriminatory” and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient 
number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the 
approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in 
pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel.[886]

Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their 
homes in Israel, they also oppose their coming to the United States. Do they 
see the displaced Palestinians as potential political opponents? Jewish groups 
clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but 
not those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their 
dedication to multiculturalism is purely a strategic one; they want groups 
coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and destroy 
its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat.

Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the 
demographic invasion and dissolution of America. While the Jewish media 
demonize as “racists” those who oppose the flood of non-White immigration into 
America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel’s immigration policy that 
excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the 
wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to 
their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in refugee camps that are 
little more than concentration camps of want and squalor.

A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential 
newspaper in America, the Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of 
Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state when it is not Zionist enough 
for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize 
another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural 
heritage:

    They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more 
pluralist society by adopting a formula for citizenship based on residence than 
blood ties.

    Equally distressing is Bonn’s failure to revise an outdated naturalization 
law rooted in ethnicity. Under the existing system, a Turkish guest worker who 
has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German fluently is denied the 
citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove 
German ancestry. [887]

Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, 
is Israeli immigration law so different?

Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal’s open 
immigration advocacy. Only Israel’s immigration policy — the most draconian of 
all — is immune from criticism. In America, Rosenthal identifies himself as the 
offspring of an illegal immigrant (his father) and even lauds the immigration 
of Haitians, many of whom are drug users and HIV-positive.

    Almost always now, when I read about Haitians who risk the seas to get to 
this country but wind up behind barbed wire, I think of an illegal immigrant I 
happen to know myself, and of his daughters and his son [himself]….

    Even reluctantly recognizing some economic limitations, this country should 
have the moral elegance to accept neighbors who flee countries where their life 
is terror and hunger, and are run by murderous gangs….

    If that were a qualification for entry into our Golden land, the Haitians 
should be welcomed with song, embrace and memories.[888]

As a chronic reader of The New York Times, I have yet to read a Rosenthal 
editorial calling for the acceptance into Israel of the million or more 
Palestinians who are forced by Israel to live in the dire poverty of the 
refugee camps. Nor has Rosenthal ever called upon Jews to welcome Palestinian 
refugees into Israel with “song and embrace.” Rosenthal is not stupid, but he 
is profoundly hypocritical. He knows that making full citizens of all the 
Palestinians currently in Israel and all those in refugee camps outside its 
borders would quickly sweep away the Zionist political state in the same way 
that non-European immigration erodes the America of our forefathers.

On the other side of the coin, Rosenthal knows that Israel could not have been 
created but for their emigration-invasion of Palestine. Looking at the 
historical record, should Palestinians have welcomed the Jewish immigrants with 
song and embrace? Rosenthal has no more regard for traditional Americans 
anymore than he has for the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is now 
called Israel. He has only one overwhelming concern: Jewish Supreamcism.

Rosenthal is proud of what he and many other Jews are: aliens as much as the 
wetbacks with whom he identifies. He lives here, partaking of all the 
advantages of American citizenship, but he will not — and cannot — become a 
real American who places the interests of America above those of the Zionist 
agenda.

As the Jews become more brazen in their exercise of power, some now boast of 
their role in dispossessing the European-Gentile American. Earl Raab, executive 
director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate 
of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and writer for the San 
Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote:

    It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed 
to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its 
political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in 
effecting those changes.[889]

Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once 
that has happened, he looks forward to “constitutional constraints” 
(restriction of freedom of speech?):

    The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American 
population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be 
American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party 
will be able to prevail in this country.

    We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic 
bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but 
the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and 
makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. 
[890]

As Raab says, Zionist Jewish activists who have supported an exclusively 
Jewish-run national state have been nourishing massive nontraditional 
immigration into America, and they look forward to the time when the voting 
demographics of the United States reflect that transformation.

I wonder if Zionist Israel Zangwill — who coined the term “melting pot” — 
envisioned his Jewish state as a melting pot of Jew and Arab; of Islam and 
Judaism. Given the ethnocentrism of Zionism, I rather doubt it. One American 
cartoonist wrote that the problem with a melting pot is that “The bottom always 
gets burned, and the scum rises to the top.” It is true that America has seen a 
melting of the different nationalities of Europe into a traditional American 
majority, but in spite of the pervasive race-mixing propaganda of the Jewish 
media, there has been no great melting of the White and Black, and only 
marginal melting of the Mestizo and Anglo elements. However, what these 
Zionists have not yet been able to accomplish through their advocacy of 
miscegenation, they are in the process of achieving through massive immigration 
and differential birthrates.

Jews have also promoted, through “zero-population” advocates such as Paul 
Ehrlich, smaller families among the natural leaders of the American majority. 
Jewish promotion of the women’s liberation movement and abortion on demand has 
lowered the birthrate of America’s most productive and educated classes. Their 
blunt desire is the dissolution of the European race in the West by any means 
necessary. Continued massive non-European immigration satisfies
these aims.

In summary, massive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective 
weapons of organized Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European 
American. We cannot win this life and death struggle until our people realize 
that we are in the midst of a war — and our side is suffering great losses. To 
lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and 
freedoms. It would mean nothing less than the destruction of the very genes 
that have made possible all the social, cultural and spiritual creations that 
distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in 
the hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide 
of our people. The time is late. We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We 
must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture bequeathed to us by 
our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of 
our children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we 
must fight for our right to live.

America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of 
Palestine. Jewish Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment 
media, they control our elections and politicians, and now they are 
orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a 
politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of 
Palestine have suffered that fate. They seek to make our country into a tower 
of Babel in which they will occupy the top floors.

Not only are Americans on the road to oblivion from immigration, but so are our 
brethren across Europe. Indeed, many nations are under the Jewish Supremacist 
drive toward globalization, and the destruction of any sort of ethnic or 
national pride and cohesiveness that could pose a threat to their hegemony. 
They seek to remake the world into an unremarkable mass of atomistic, 
deracinated individuals incapable of collective resistance.

If we remain silent in this critical time in our people’s history, our people 
will be extinguished and silent forever.

This maxim is not only true for Europeans and Americans, but for all the 
peoples of the Earth.
 

References

869. Smith, Drew L. (1971). The Legacy Of The Melting Pot. North Quincy, 
Massachusetts. Christopher Publishing House
870. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,265-6,266.
871. Ross, E. A. (1914). The Old World And The New: The Significance Of Past 
And Present Immigration To The American People. New York: The Century Co. 
p.144..
872. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,272.
873. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 2,285.
874. Joint Hearings Before The Subcommittees Of The Committees On The 
Judiciary, 82nd Congress, First Session,
On S. 716, H. R. 2379, And H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951. 563
875. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 4,320.
876. Javits, J (1951) Let’s Open Our Gates New York Times Magazine July 8. p.8, 
33.
877. Congress Weekly. (1956). Editorial of February 20. p.3
878. Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not Free To Desist: The American Jewish Committee 
1906-1966. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society Of America.
879. Ibid. p.342.
880. Sachar, H. (1992). A History Of Jews In America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
881. Ibid. p.427.
882. MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A 
Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
883. MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An 
Evolutionary Theory Of Anti-Semitism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
884. Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain people: American Jews and Their Lives 
Today. New York: Summit Books.
885. Higham , J. (1984). Send These To Me: Immigrants In Urban America. 
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
886. Bennett, M. T. (1963). American Immigration Policies: A History. 
Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press. p.181.
887. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9.
888. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9.
889. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). July. 23.
890. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). Feb. 19.

Source : 
http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-chapter-24-the-jewish-role-in-immigration_2518.html



-------------------------------------

You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to Lawrence 
Auster's
Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know 
by calling to 1 212 865 1284

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY  10025
Contact : lawrence.aus...@att.net
-------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list
vcs-pkg-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/vcs-pkg-discuss

Reply via email to