© 2006 Joseph George Caldwell. All
rights reserved. Posted at Internet web
sites http://www.foundation.bw and http://www.foundationwebsite.org
. May be copied or reposted for
non-commercial use, with attribution. (
Commentary on recent news, reading and events of personal interest.
The Immigration Act of 1965
It is an historical fact that Senator Ted Kennedy was a
principal proponent of the Immigration Act of 1965, which has led to the
The following editorial by Georgie Anne Geyer appeared in
Immigration Act gave us just what proponents said it wouldn’t
Forty years ago, Sen. Ted Kennedy made some famous comments about immigration control that rival those of Neville Chamberlain predicting "peace in our time" on the eve of World War II.
When the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 was passed, the always cocksure "Teddy," one of the most perfervid supporters of "new egalitarianism," told Congress: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Second, the ethnic mix will not be upset ...."
Now, on the 40th anniversary of the
bill that transformed
At this point in the meeting,
lending artistic irony, a film was shown of an interview with Norbert Schlei,
one of the drafters of the bill in the attorney general's office at that time.
"We believed the bill would have negligible effects on the
Then he smiled – a big, wholly unapologetic smile. "It surely didn't turn out that way," he summed up.
How nice of him to say so! What the
bill did was to take quotas away from mostly Europeans (until then, immigrants
were taken according to their percentage of the American people) and open
It was so "successful" – in its non-intent
– that analysts at the FAIR meeting predicted that by 2050,
Other specialists, like the
prescient political economist and author Pat Choate, convincingly developed the
idea that along with the massive immigration over the past 40 years, the North
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which was supposed only to accelerate
trade between the two
Two-thirds of Americans say consistently, in polls and surveys, that they want to reduce immigration. Their voices are becoming rightly impatient. Of course, there is a lot of talk – from the White House as well as Congress – about controlling immigration. There are currently three bills before Congress, two of which would only bring more illegal aliens here through "guest worker" programs that would easily become permanent.
But it is doubtful now that any of them will pass (probably blessedly so). The Washington Times reported Monday that new and salacious scandals (sex for green cards was one of the accusations) are being outlined to congressional committees about the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. It's clear that the service does not have the capacity to oversee any guest worker program.
And yet, there doesn't seem to be the desperately needed serious national debate on this crucial subject.
At the end of the meeting, FAIR
President Dan Stein turned to me and asked: "How, in the wake of the
I had no answer.
Georgie Anne Geyer is a foreign correspondent with Universal Press Syndicate.
[End of Geyer editorial.]
Ms. Geyer is also the author of the book, Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship (The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996).
I lived in the
Some time ago, one of my readers sent me a note, stating
that I was quite wrong in my assessment and characterization of the forces
behind the Immigration Act of 1965. My
reader informed me that the primary force behind the Immigration Act of 1965
was the Jews, not the Catholics. As
backup for his position, he cited three books by Prof. Kevin MacDonald of
California State University at Long Beach: The
Culture of Critique (1st Books, 1998, 2002); A People That Shall Dwell Alone (Praeger
Publishers, 1994; Writers Club Press, 2002); and Separation and Its Discontents (1st Books, 2004). Quoting from the cover of The Culture of Critique, “I describe
Jewish efforts to shape
Following are a number of selections from The Culture of Critique (and from the preface to the first paperback edition).
“In the end, the 1965 law passed because it was advertised
as nothing more than a moral gesture that would have no long-term impact on the
ethnic balance of the
“The best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy. A major theme of CofC is that this is exactly what Jewish intellectual movements have done.”
“Individualist societies are therefore an ideal environment for Judaism as a highly collectivist, group-oriented strategy.”
“A principal theme of CofC
is that Jewish organizations played a decisive role in opposing the idea that
“My view is that Judaism must be conceived primarily as an ethnic rather than a religious group.”
It was a little surprising to me that MacDonald did not
elaborate on this, as others have. When pro-immigration
Jewish are confronted with the question of how they can prescribe mass
immigration and culture destruction for the
Continuing with quotations from MacDonald’s CofC: “The Internet is a major gap in
[Jewish] control of the major media, but Jewish organizations have taken the
lead in attempting to censor the Internet.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) distributes a compact disk titled,
“Digital Hate 2001” that lists over 3000 “hate sites on the Internet.” Both the
“The other side of the coin is that Jews have often reacted
quite negatively to Jewish writers who portray Jewish characters as having
negative or disapproved traits. For
example, Philip Roth [author of Portnoy’s
Complaint] has been extensively criticized by Jews and Jewish organizations
for portraying such characters in
In Chapter 7 of CofC,
MacDonald continues: “The Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy
“There is also evidence that Jews, much more than any other European-derived ethnic group in the United States, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a mechanism for ensuring that the United States would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous society.”
MacDonald quotes Earl Raab: “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.”
MacDonald continues: “Because liberal immigration policies are a vital Jewish interest, it is not surprising that support for liberal immigration policies spans the Jewish political spectrum.”
“Similarly, [D. A.] Hollinger notes that Jews were more
influential in the decline of a homogeneous Protestant culture in the
“The Jewish effort toward transforming the
“Of particular interest here is the ideology that the
“Throughout the almost 100 years prior to achieving success with the immigration law of 1965, Jewish groups opportunistically made alliances with other groups whose interests temporarily converged with Jewish interests (e.g., a constantly changing set of ethnic groups, religious groups, pro-communists, anti-communists, the foreign policy interests of various presidents, the political need for presidents to curry favor with groups influential in populous states in order to win national elections, etc.).”
“The family-based emphasis of the quota regulations of the 1965 law (e.g., the provision that at least 24 percent of the quota for each area be set aside for brothers and sisters of citizens) has resulted in a multiplier effect that ultimately subverted the quota system entirely by allowing for a “chaining” phenomenon in which endless chains of the close relatives of close relatives are admitted outside the quota system: ‘Imagine one immigrant, say an engineering student, who was studying in the United States during the 1960s. If he found a job after graduation, he could then bring over his wife [as the spouse of a resident alien], and six years later, after being naturalized, his brothers and sisters, husbands, and children. Within a dozen years, one immigrant entering as a skilled worker could easily generate 25 visas for in-laws, nieces, and nephews (McConnell 1988b, 98).’”
“In a highly revealing discussion of the bill before the
Senate, Senator Sam Ervin (Cong. Rec.,
89th Cong., 1st Sess., 1965, 24446-51) noted that “those
who disagree with me express no shock that
“The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable
to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along: The Census
Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples will no longer
be a majority of the population of the United States. Moreover, multiculturalism has already become
a powerful ideological and political reality.
Although the proponents of the 1965 legislation continued to insist that
the bill would not affect the ethnic balance of the
Addressing the issue of Jewish pro-immigration efforts in
other Western countries, MacDonald observes: “It is remarkable that the sea
change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred approximately the
same time (1962-1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes
of elites rather than of the great mass of citizens. In the
“As in the
“At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to
expand demographically and politically in the
“As discussed at several points in this volume, the radical individualism embodied in the Enlightenment ideal of individual rights is especially problematic as a source of long-term stability in a Western society because of the danger of invasion and domination by group strategies such as Judaism and the possibility of the defection of gentile elites from the ideal represented in the other two models of social organization.”
MacDonald’s books are long and detailed, and I do not intend
to present or even summarize his arguments here. The main point of his writings that relates
to passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 is that Jewish organizations promoted
it and the inevitable destruction of then-US culture that it portended, whereas
they absolutely forbid the destruction of their own culture and nation (
One cannot but be amazed at the incredible hypocrisy involved in their program to destroy American culture, in view of Israel’s own rigid immigration policies and racist / apartheid policies (e.g., the genetic system used to allot housing: first choice to Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel for many years, second choice to Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, third choice to Ashkenazi Jews from the United States, fourth choice to Sephardic Jews, and last choice to Muslims, Druze and Christians (see David Icke, Tales from the Time Loop, Bridge of Love Publications, 2003).
Based on MacDonald’s in-depth research, it does indeed appear that passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 was primarily enabled by Jewish efforts, and that my attributing its passage largely to Senator Ted Kennedy was in error.
The Assault on White Christian Culture
Since my reader wrote me, I have perhaps been sensitized to
the issue of attacks on white Christian culture by the
During the time of celebration of Martin Luther King’s holiday in January, there was much coverage of the life and times of the man. As chance would have it, I happened to watch the movie, Nixon, directed by Oliver Stone, a few weeks ago. The movie contains a scene in which FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover is decrying King’s womanizing, comparing his morals to those of a “tomcat.” The interesting thing to note is that, in all of the media coverage of King last month, no mention was made in anything that I read of his womanizing. This fact is in stark contrast to press or movie coverage of John F. Kennedy, that rarely fails to make significant note of his womanizing and alleged affair with Marilyn Monroe. This difference is notable because of the fact that Kennedy was simply a politician, whereas King was a pastor of a church and an ordained minister. As a religious leader, King had a responsibility to follow the moral rules that he was preaching. Kennedy was not a religious leader – he was, quite simply, a politician – and was under no such strictures or moral obligation. Yet the press and the movies, which are controlled by Jewish interests, make much of Kennedy’s womanizing and suppress King’s womanizing completely. This seems strange indeed.
It is possible that the media’s reluctance to say anything publicly about King’s womanizing was a sign of respect for Mrs. Coretta Scott King, Martin’s widow. Time will tell if this is the case.
MacDonald comments on the relationship of Jews to blacks:
“Cruse also points out the asymmetry in black-Jewish relations: While Jews have
held prominent roles in black civil rights organizations and have been actively
involved in funding these organizations and in making and implementing the
policies of these organizations, blacks have been completely excluded from the
inner workings and policy-making bodies in Jewish organizations. To a considerable extent, at least until
quite recently, the form and goals of the black movement in the
I skimmed through MacDonald’s books, and he certainly
presents some interesting facts and arguments.
He observes, for example, that
The point that I am leading up to here is that there seems
to be a constant attack, in the media, against the character and morals of
white Christian Americans. Why, for
example, do the media never comment on King’s womanizing, but always does on
Kennedy’s, when just the reverse would be expected (since King was a pastor and
Kennedy was a politician)? Why do so
many movies stress homosexuality between white males? The current movie,
Here is a segment of a recent issue of The Stroller column, from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal newspaper (
In the 2006 issue of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal’s Physicians and Health Care Source, the
front cover features four medical professionals. The three in the foreground are a Chinese, a
black, and a white female. In the
background is a white male. The picture
clearly symbolizes the marginalization of the white male in
The title to this piece is, “The Relentless Attack on White Christian Culture; or, Was America Destroyed by the Jews?” With respect to the first part of the title, it does appear to me that the entertainment media, which are strongly controlled by Jewish interests, are continually picking away at white Christian morality. But that seems to be very salable merchandise in today’s television and book market, so one can hardly fault the vendors any more than the sellers – similar, one might say, to the market in illegal drugs.
But what about the
second part of the title: “Was America Destroyed by the Jews?” At once, it should be recognized that the
question is ill-posed. First, because it
does not define the word “destroyed,” and second, because “the Jews,” like any
other racial, ethnic, political, social or religious group, are not a
monolithic group of people all having the same interests or motives. What I mean by “destroyed” is that (1) a
significant portion of America’s environment has been destroyed (converted from
natural to urban use) by the addition of 100 million people to the country
since passage of the Immigration Act of 1965; and (2) America is no longer
controlled by a single dominant culture, viz, the white Protestant culture of
the early twentieth century. In this
sense, America has clearly been destroyed, since (1) the environmental
destruction caused by mass immigration has in fact taken place; and (2) the
formerly dominant culture is in fact no longer in control of the country. With respect to the phrase “by the Jews,” I
would comment that while Jewish culture is strong, I am sure that there are
many individual Jews and Jewish organizations that do not give any thought to the
environment, to immigration policy, or to degenerate literature (movies and
books). A more specific formulation of
the question would be, “Was the American environment damaged, and were the political
and social power of
Once again, some Jewish
organizations certainly picked away at
Because American communications media, including the Internet, are controlled by Jewish interests, it is relevant to ask whether my opinion that Jews were not responsible for the destruction of America is sincere, or tempered or motivated by my awareness that saying something negative about the Jews may cause my website to be shut down, or removed from major search engines, such as Google, or major search websites, such as Yahoo. I assure you that my opinion in this matter is sincere. Consider the following allegory: Suppose that a man has built a successful family business, in which he employs his wife and children. Suppose that a member of the firm, who is not a member of the family, presses year after year that the business should expand greatly, by taking in stockholders, directors and many additional employees who are not members of the family. Suppose that the owner of the firm eventually relents, and does so. And, finally, suppose that after years of expansion, the new stockholders and directors assume control of the firm, strip the founder of his control, and demote the owner’s children. Although the firm still exists, and is in fact much larger, the founder has now lost his firm and has squandered the birthright of his children. Who is to blame for his misfortune? Is it the man who pressed the former owner to dilute his control and his children’s ownership by taking in new stockholders, directors, and employees? Or is it the founder, who followed his advice? In my view, the founder is responsible. No one held a gun to his head. For whatever reason he was convinced to jeopardize his firm and family’s security, his decision was freely made. He is to blame. It may be unfortunate that he accepted as an employee someone who gave him advice that resulted in the eventual loss of his firm and his children’s birthrights, but that was his decision. The employee who gave him the advice that resulted in his family’s downfall achieved his goal, and the foreign directors, stockholders and employees certainly benefited from his advice. The man and his family were destroyed by this advice, but it was their decision, and theirs alone, to take it.
In my view, this allegory characterizes well what has
The passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 led quickly to
the destruction of American culture and the American environment. Despite the protests that you hear today that
no one could have seen this coming, it was strongly emphasized by opponents of
the Act that this would happen. This
attempt to escape blame for destroying American culture and environment is as
sorry as the attempt of today’s leaders to escape blame for the September 11
attacks on the
If you are a descendent of the European-derived culture in