"Pierre Simon submitted an article on the Jewish desire for multiculturalism and high levels of immigration. Since it fit well with my material in The Culture of Critique, I decided to combine this material. I hadn’t seen the quotes from Bret Stephens, Elie Wiesel, George Soros, and Anthony Blinken comments on multiculturalism and am grateful to Simon for including them." Kevin MacDonald

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

The attacks on Whites come from every direction, and replacement immigration, multiculturalism, feminism, porno, LGBT+ promotion, discrimination against Whites in education and on the job-market, and hate-speech laws are just some aspects of the endless persecution of the race that created the greatest civilization known to man.[1]

Ethnic and religious pluralism also serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously or ethnically homogeneous (see Separation and Its Discontents). Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of anti-Semitism in the United States compared to Europe was that “Jews did not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists” (Higham 1984, 156). Although ethnic and cultural pluralism are certainly not guaranteed to satisfy Jewish interests, it is nonetheless the case that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies have been perceived by Jews as more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles.

Indeed, at a basic level, the motivation for all of the Jewish intellectual and political activity reviewed throughout this volume is intimately linked to fears of anti-Semitism. Svonkin (1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974, 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when’” (p. 15). Isaacs, correctly in my view, attributes the intensity of Jewish involvement in politics to this fear of anti-Semitism. Jewish activism on immigration is merely one aspect of a multipronged movement directed at preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Western societies. Other aspects of this program are briefly reviewed below.

Explicit statements linking immigration policy to a Jewish interest in cultural pluralism can be found among prominent Jewish social scientists and political activists. In his review of Horace Kallen’s (1956) Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea appearing in Congress Weekly (published by the AJCongress), Joseph L. Blau (1958, 15) noted that “Kallen’s view is needed to serve the cause of minority groups and minority cultures in this nation without a permanent majority”—the implication being that Kallen’s ideology of multiculturalism opposes the interests of any ethnic group in dominating the United States. The well-known author and prominent Zionist Maurice Samuel (1924, 215), writing partly as a negative reaction to the immigration law of 1924, wrote, “If, then, the struggle between us [i.e., Jews and gentiles] is ever to be lifted beyond the physical, your democracies will have to alter their demands for racial, spiritual and cultural homogeneity within the State. But it would be foolish to regard this as a possibility, for the tendency of this civilization is in the opposite direction. There is a steady approach toward the identification of government with race, instead of with the political State.”

Samuel deplored the 1924 legislation as violating his conceptualization of the United States as a purely political entity with no ethnic implications:

We have just witnessed, in America, the repetition, in the peculiar form adapted to this country, of the evil farce to which the experience of many centuries has not yet quite accustomed us. If America had any meaning at all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above the trend of our present civilization—the identification of race with State. . . . America was therefore the New World in this vital respect—that the State was purely an ideal, and nationality was identical only with acceptance of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire point of view was a mistaken one, that America was incapable of rising above her origins, and the semblance of an ideal-nationalism was only a stage in the proper development of the universal gentile spirit. . . . To-day, with race triumphant over ideal, anti-Semitism uncovers its fangs, and to the heartless refusal of the most elementary human right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly insult. We are not only excluded, but we are told, in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws, that we are an “inferior” people. Without the moral courage to stand up squarely to its evil instincts, the country prepared itself, through its journalists, by a long draught of vilification of the Jew, and, when sufficiently inspired by the popular and “scientific” potions, committed the act. (pp. 218–220)

A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab, who remarks very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.[2] Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (1995, 91). Or more colorfully:

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 [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to 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. (Raab 1993b, 23)

And Boston Globe writer, S. I. Rosenbaum, who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”[3]

The “diversity-as-safety” argument was made by Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that has advocated open immigration to the United States for over a century. Glickman stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.”[4] At the present time, the HIAS is deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa to emigrate to the US.

Positive attitudes toward cultural diversity have also appeared in other statements on immigration by Jewish authors and leaders. Charles Silberman (1985, 350) notes, “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 U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”[5]

Similarly, in listing the positive benefits of immigration, the director of the Washington Action Office of the Council of Jewish Federations stated that immigration “is about diversity, cultural enrichment and economic opportunity for the immigrants” (in Forward, March 8, 1996, 5). And in summarizing Jewish involvement in the 1996 legislative battles over immigration, a newspaper account stated, “Jewish groups failed to kill a number of provisions that reflect the kind of political expediency that they regard as a direct attack on American pluralism” (Detroit Jewish News, May 10, 1996).

Because liberal immigration policies are a vital Jewish interest, it is not surprising that support for liberal immigration policies spans the Jewish political spectrum. Sidney Hook, who along with the other New York Intellectuals may be viewed as an intellectual precursor of neoconservatism, identified democracy with the equality of differences and with the maximization of cultural diversity (see Ch. 6). Neoconservatives have been strong advocates of liberal immigration policies, and there has been a conflict between predominantly Jewish neoconservatives and predominantly gentile paleoconservatives over the issue of Third World immigration into the United States. Neoconservatives Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an article by a paleoconservative concerned that such immigration would eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants (see Judis 1990, 33). Other examples are neoconservatives Julian Simon (1990) and Ben Wattenberg (1991), both of whom advocate very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, so that the United States will become what Wattenberg describes as the world’s first “universal nation.” Based on recent data, Fetzer (1996) reports that Jews remain far more favorable to immigration to the United States than any other ethnic group or religion.

As noted by Jewish journalist Charles E. Silberman, American Jews are committed to these types of actions, “because of their historically held belief that Jews are safe only in a society that accepts a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.”[6]

In the same line of thought, Jewish New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner, neoconservative Bret Stephens, is convinced that

Jews can only prosper and be safe in the world when liberal values are the dominant values, by liberal I don’t mean Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, I mean liberal in the classical sense, the respect for pluralism, the accent on tolerance, the emphasis on individual liberties, those canopies of values that are the DNA of what we call liberal democratic society. The Trump administration represents a substantial and dangerous regression from these values. I think the comments, the attitude of this administration towards immigration, Mexican immigration, Latin American immigration, are a scandal. Being anti-immigrant seems to me contrary to the ethos of liberal values that have been so beneficial to us Jews. This reversal of liberalism, not only with regard to immigrants, but also with regard to attitudes towards the media, rudeness and the assault on the fundamental institutions of government, is in the long term, I believe, dangerous for the Jews, because I find it hard to think of illiberal orders in the past that did not revolt against the Jews, and I find it hard to think of populist orders in the past that did not end in a revolt against the Jews […].[7]

As a Jew, George Soros, one of the staunchest promoters of multiculturalism and sexual diversity, only feels comfortable and free to act as he wishes in multiracial, multiethnic, and pluralistic countries. In countries Balkanized into several sexual, ethnic, and racial enclaves where minorities can live freely according to their particular customs and where the most decadent mores are allowed, Jews in this mess feel like fish in water. “My father,” explains Alex Soros “is convinced that a Jew can only feel safe in a world where all minorities are protected. You fight for an open society because as a Jew you can only live in that kind of society, unless you become a nationalist and fight only for your own rights in your own country,”[8] as in Israel, for example…

Elie Wiesel expressed this idea very well in his Memoirs, notes French writer Hervé Ryssen in his book Le fanatisme juif (Jewish Fanatism):

I spent a Shabbat with a Jewish family in Bombay,” he writes. I went to the synagogue. The Jews proudly told me about their success. The Sassoons and the Kadouris are wealthy families, dynasties, but it would never occur to anyone to hate them because of their origins or their Jewish ties; there are so many ethnic groups, so many languages, so many cultures, so many traditions in this vast country that the Jews do not stand out as a particular group.[9]

This is how you have to interpret Anthony Blinken’s statement on the importance of promoting LGBTQ+ rights globally. In order to prevail and realize its hegemonic goals, the Jewish ethnicity needs to create a Jewish-friendly world. In the following quote, we have introduced in parentheses the real meaning behind this statement. This is double-think at its best. Jews such as Charles E. Silberman, Bret Stephens, George Soros, and Elie Wiesel cited above, are like fish in the water in the kind of countries described below, with my interpolations:

Defending and promoting LGBTQI+ rights globally is the right thing to do, but beyond that, it is the smart and necessary thing to do for our country [for Jews], for our national security [national security of Jews], for our well-being [the well-being of Jews]. And why is that ? It’s pretty basic. If you look around the world and look at countries that respect the rights of the LGBTQI+ community, they are more stable [unstable], they are healthier [morally and physically decayed], they are more prosperous [impoverished, indebted], they are more democratic [they are more vulnerable, weakened, and more philo-Semitic as a result]. Those who don’t are not [those who don’t are too strong and antisemitic]. And that’s a pretty fundamental thing, because a world of stable [unstable], healthy [unhealthy], prosperous [impoverished], democratic countries [more vulnerable, weakened and more philosemitic] is a world that’s good for the United States [the Jews]. A world that presents the opposite [strong and morally healthy] is not [good for the Jews]. And there is a direct correlation—a direct correlation—between countries respecting these rights and the health of their societies [health of the Jewish society], as we see every day.

British aristocrat Anthony M. Ludovici,

[…] there are no reasons, either anthropological or historical for considering the Jews as other than a definite, highly specialized type of humanity. From their Bedouin ancestors they have inherited certain characteristics, of which some have been retained to a notable extent unaltered to this day. Their retention of these ancestral traits has been favoured partly by the circumstances of their history as a people and partly by the original momentum possessed by the traits themselves. Among the more salient of these traits: A latent tendency to a democratic and Liberal outlook, which becomes active and militant when Jews are faced with the problem of establishing themselves among a Conservative people. This democratic and Liberal tendency has two possible roots — the habit of individual freedom and of owing obedience to no man in a nomad state; and the recognition by the Jews, when they find themselves faced by a Conservative people or a people organized on aristocratic lines, of the usefulness of siding with and supporting all those elements in the land which are undermining the Conservative and aristocratic traditions.[10]

https://www.unz.com/article/the-jewish-interest-in-multiethnic-immigration-and-multiculturalism/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

GUSNOTE: ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING and nothing HERE... BUT IT IS FASCINATING TO SEE WHERE HISTORY IS BEING MANIPULATED TO SUIT THE VALUES OF CERTAIN GROUPS OF HUMANS...

WE NEED TO REVISIT: 

AND HIS BOOK:

In a lively challenge to mainstream history, Michael Parenti does battle with a number of mass-marketed historical myths. He shows how history's victors distort and suppress the documentary record in order to perpetuate their power and privilege. And he demonstrates how historians are influenced by the professional and class environment in which they work. Pursuing themes ranging from antiquity to modern times, from the Inquisition and Joan of Arc to the anti-labor bias of present-day history books, History as Mystery demonstrates how past and present can inform each other and how history can be a truly exciting and engaging subject.

"Michael Parenti, always provocative and eloquent, gives us a lively as well as valuable critique of orthodoxy posing as 'history.'"—Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States

"Deserves to become an instant classic."—Bertell Ollman, author of Dialectical Investigations

"Those who keep secret the past, and lie about it, condemn us to repeat it. Michael Parenti unveils the history of falsified history, from the early Christian church to the present: a fascinating, darkly revelatory tale."—Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Pentagon Papers

"Solid if surely controversial stuff."—Kirkus