Jukraine and the Great Kvetching...
Forgive my French
Translation . . .
Forgive my French . . . Fuck you and your Jewish god.
Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
I am forced to write in several languages because: 1. Most people in the United States have been brainwashed into believing that Jews are their salvation; and 2., their English is shit and they can't stay silent long enough to hear or see what's obviously going on around them . . . I think the elections are fake, just a show, the Jews own the media. Communism is a Jewish ideology that came from London, Marx spent most of his life there.
"I know that there are Jews in the English colonies. These Marranos go wherever there is money to be made... But whether these circumcised men who sell old clothes pretend to be of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, quite simply, the greatest scoundrels who have ever soiled the face of the earth." — François-Marie Voltaire
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and communist universalisms are recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. These are the same ideals . . .
The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and that are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, in our universities, and on our streets, have ended up reducing our bio-symbolic identity and ethnic pride to their minimal expression.
I am Jean-Marie Le Pen . . .
Jewish bankers flood Europe with Muslims and America with Third World rubbish . . . Exile as a punishment for people who preach sedition should be restored to the legal framework of the West . . . Judaism, Christianity and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally foreign to Europe and its peoples.
Frankly, I don't care if the Pope or any other Christian bigoted lunatic says we need to "spread the other cheek" . . . French religious police like Saudi Arabia? No kidding . . . The religious police arrest you for criticizing Jews and Muslims . . . The occupied Jewish French government has put Jean-Marie Le Pen in jail for criticizing Islam!
Freedom of expression in France? Bull shit!
If the people who wear the hijab-douchebags have indeed set fire to Notre-Dame, they have done us a great service, more than three thousand pederasts have worked in the French Catholic Church since 1950 . . . The Vatican has a "spread the other cheek" policy for altar boys . . . Islamic birth control is a bomb attached to a ten-year-old child . . . The term "moderate Muslims" simply means that they have no ammunition left . . . Satanism is a Jewish cult. . . . We national socialists came to liberate Paris; we did not destroy it.
Who bombed the Orthodox Christian Serbs for the Muslims? North Atlantic Terrorist Organization!
❝. . . the entire establishment of the Western world is attacking Russia in unison. The propaganda machine is in full swing to incite the whole world to hate Putin and take Ukraine's side in the war. The same propaganda machine that wants nothing but you, as a white person, stop having children and instead focus on your career, mix up the races, or go gay. What this establishment wants you to think is often a very good indicator of what you absolutely shouldn't think, and by this measure, Russia seems to be the 100% supportive camp.
From a global geopolitical perspective, if we start from the unlikely idea that this conflict would lead to a third world war, then all the pro-Zionist liberal monster nations like Britain, France, Germany, the United States and, of course, Israel itself would side with Ukraine, while more traditional and sovereign anti-Zionist forces would likely line up behind Russia. Remember my words when I say that the Nordic Resistance Movement will NEVER stand on the same side as Israel or the Zionist entity that the United States represents today – no matter the problem or conflict!
If we look at the situation from a revolutionary point of view, it is also natural to support Russia. By challenging the United States and the Western world, one is acting against the status quo – the current situation that must be destroyed in order for real change to take place and for us National Socialists to make real progress. The more the current powers that be are challenged and the harder the global economy is fought, the greater the risk of widespread disruption, which is a necessity for the Nordic Revolution to become a reality. Please note that I do not mean to say that the upcoming changes will necessarily be better for us; However, in the dramatic situation we find ourselves in, we must see hope in any potential radical change that arises in the global environment.
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/which-side-are-we-on-in-the-ukraine-war/
Mammonism and Bolshevism are Jewish half-sisters . . .
No country is leading its own course in this invasion because it is a UN-led political agenda driven by the Jews and their puppets (the politicians). Most people simply do not know or understand that this is a political agenda. However, some come to understand that politicians are deliberately working to import Muslims and replace people, but that's it, they are like a computer that can't work because the program doesn't allow it.
People sometimes ask why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does a movement that has often been openly anti-religious take the side of a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has ever claimed to represent? Part of the explanation is that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
The three ideologies have some key elements in common. Their entire worldview is based on an intra-group/out-group concept: the Chosen Race/the Goyim, the believers/kuffar, the workers/exploiters. Within-group/out-group polarization is represented in terms of purity. In some cases, it's quite literal: the outgroup is considered a physically contaminating influence. In other cases, the impurity of the outgroup is less tangible. They are pathologized and dehumanized, portrayed, often with the help of metaphors of disease, as immoral, bestial, even demonic: Islamophobes, anti-Semites, capitalist exploiters.
The Marxist program of drastic controls, so repugnant to the Western free spirit, was not an obstacle to the acceptance of Marxism by many Khazar Jews, for the Babylonian Talmud under which they lived had taught them then to accept the absolutist dictation of everything from their immorality to their commercial practices. Since the Talmud contained more than 12,000 checks, the regimentation of Marxism was acceptable – provided that the Khazarian politician, like the Talmudic rabbi, exercised the power of the dictatorship.
Details of the story . . . We, the National Socialists, came to liberate Paris, we did not destroy it.
NATO – an anti-white, anti-family institution . . .
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations were created with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the first organizations created for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization," or NATO, which can be considered the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO produced reports accusing nationalists of being responsible for a number of modern problems and warning of the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on the race in which the alliance's leaders pledged to counter "homogeneous attitudes" and use NATO's "collective intelligence" to this end.
In fact, NATO is so committed to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words. restructured to be more anti-white and composed of fewer white employees and managers.
https://nordfront.se/nato-en-antivit-och-familjefientlig-institution
Zionist whores opening their assholes . . .
Ilhan Omar (Democrat-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (Democrat-MI) have every right to say what they want about Israel and the genocide of the Palestinians as elected members of the US House of Representatives; they have never taken an oath to serve Israel . . .
I voted for Ron Desantis (R-FL) to be governor of Florida, not ambassador to Israel.
The recently ousted Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who needed at least a dozen House votes to be elected speaker, traveled to Israel immediately after his election, telling the Israeli Knesset that the U.S. is resolutely committed to supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Was he also a candidate for the speaker in the Israeli Knesset?
Following his eviction . . . McCarthy (R-CA) went abroad again, this time to England, and expressed his open contempt for the white Republicans who make up the majority of the GOP and praised the Democrats for their diversity during a debate in Oxford following his ouster.
Is he now a candidate for the post of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?
Nevertheless, he is free to go on media tours to denigrate whites and lobby on behalf of Israel, as he has now resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives . . . I can only conclude that RINO's collective anger at former President McCarthy is solely about the Israelis who hijacked the war machine of the American deep state.
This has become so painfully evident, especially when someone like Nikki Haley waves her finger and shouts at Vivek Ramaswamy during a presidential debate on live national television when the issues of this Ukrainian war against Russia and any mention of Israel are concerned, that the U.S. government has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Israeli Political Action Committee.
It seems that Don Rumsfeld was right when he said, "Europe has shifted on its axis," it was the bad side that won the Second World War, and it is becoming clearer every day . . .
What has NATO done to defend Europe? Absolutely nothing.
My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh or some ethereal Teutonic bogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv.
The Role of Jewish Intellectuals in U.S. Immigration Law Reform
by Kevin MacDonald
IN BRIEF: The role of Jewish activism in the upheavals that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I answer several reputable questions related to Jewish influence, in particular the "default hypothesis" that IQ and concentration in urban areas explain the influence and role of the Jewish community in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1965 in the United States.
The new era that began after World War II saw the emergence in America of a predominantly Jewish elite that exerted influence on a range of converging issues such as immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture, allowing for a near-unanimous consensus where one least expected it.
Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement was widespread, ranging from intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs to recruiting and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; by exercising a dominant influence on Congress and the executive, it was a question of overthrowing the objective of an ethnic status quo considered too favourable to the maintenance of a relatively homogeneous white society.
Keywords: Jewish influence – Immigration Act of 1965 – Ethnocentrism – Antisemitism
[Editor's note: the beginning of the article is skipped to get as quickly as possible to the main subject, the role of the Jewish intelligentsia in opening the floodgates of immigration and miscegenation, the history of which is as follows:
1900 – Birth of Boasian anti-racist anthropology, author Franz Boas, an Ashkenazi Jew born in Germany and left for the USA: his emulators will be mostly Jews.
1924 – First restrictive immigration law, it is based on a principle of quotas proportional to the weight of the ethnic groups already in place, the purpose of the law is to maintain the predominantly white ethnic status quo, the Jews are against this system which blocks both the level of immigration and its ethnic composition.
1952 – Truman establishes the PCiN, the Presidential Commission on Naturalization and Immigration, with Jews predominating, the goal is clearly to blow up the quota system and thus the ethnic status quo, the danger becomes clearer.
1952 – Second law, still of restrictive inspiration: the quota system is opened up to other countries, but the quotas are limited, and the system itself is preserved, a rearguard victory for the restrictionists.
1958 – Kennedy publishes his book A Nation of Immigrants – the book is actually written by a Myer Feldman, a Jewish intellectual.
1961 – First serious breach of the quota system, family unification in American, family reunification works even if the quota has already been reached, moreover, it is cascading: a relative brings a relative who brings a relative...
1965 – The quota system falls, there is only a global quota, governed by the principle of first come, first served.]
1 – The rise of a predominantly Jewish elite in postwar America and its influence on immigration policy.
Regarding Boasian anthropology, as Gelya Frank (1997: 731) has noted, "The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology, and then among anthropologists of subsequent generations, has been constantly obscured by the official history of the discipline." Boas and his mostly Jewish students are the originators of anti-race theories and their dominant hold on American university campuses. In 1919, Boas could argue that henceforth "most contemporary anthropological research conducted in the United States was carried out by his students at Columbia University" (in Stocking, 1968:296). In fact, from 1926 onwards, all the major anthropology departments were run by followers of Boas, the vast majority of whom were Jews.
2 – Jewish identity in pursuit of its own interests
The analysis of Jewish influence necessarily involves the recognition of a Jewish identity in pursuit of its own interests as the driving principle of its currents and organizations.
Here, for example, is a small sample of Freud's views on Jewish identity as a source of the psychoanalytic current (Kevin MacDonald – Culture of Critic [CofC]:111). In a 1931 letter, he described himself as "passionately – fanatically – a Jew." Elsewhere, he writes that he finds "the attraction of Judaism and the Jews truly irresistible with all its dark powers, all the more powerful because they cannot be grasped by words. He evokes the "unspeakable impulses linked to his identity and the strong awareness of a secretly shared inner identity" (in Gay, 1988: 601).
… Gay (1988: 601) thinks that Freud was driven by a belief that his identity resulted from his phylogenetic inheritance [formed in the course of history as an internal Lamarckian process – and not simply because others considered him to be Jewish]... Freud and his fellow students felt a sense of racial closeness to each other and of a radical otherness with non-Jews (Klein, 1981: 142; see also Gilman, 1993: 12f).
It seems to me that all this testifies to his Jewishness. Regarding his sense of Jewish interest, Freud expressed his messianic hopes that one day an "understanding between Jews and anti-Semites on the basis of psychoanalysis" would materialize (in Gay, 1988: 231), a quote that makes it clear that psychoanalysis was seen by its founder as a means of putting a final end to anti-Semitism. This kind of messianic consideration was common among the Jews of fin-de-siècle Vienna who sought to bring about a "supranational and supra-ethnic" world (Klein, 1981: 29). These intellectuals "thus often disguised as universal humanitarianism their own conception that the Jews were responsible for the fate of humanity in the twentieth century" (Ibid.: 31).
3 – Mixed Marriage [FG: skipped passage, it is a matter of pointing out that Jews avoid mixed marriage more than any other ethnic group in the USA, we know that it is legally discouraged in Israel, see Israel, Citizenship and Blood Protection Laws]
4 – Jewish hypocrisy?
Naturally, everyone will understand that these generous universal principles are subject to adaptation well understood to the context and that there can be no question of applying them without regard for the possible consequences. The ADL [Anti-Defamation League = Jewish assiciation equivalent to Licra] recently condemned Tucker Carlson, a personality in the American media world, for having evoked the fact that American voters were being replaced by immigrants, judging that these remarks were "part of a supremacist position according to which the white race is endangered by an inexorable tide of non-whites, a particularly racist, anti-Semitic and toxic position" (see Moore, 2021). Carlson responded point-blank by denouncing the ADL's attitude on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the eventual one-state solution. There, as if by chance, it appeared to be simple common sense for the ADL to declare that, given the present realities and the history of historical antagonisms, a one-state solution was doomed to failure. With a prolific birth rate among Palestinians, added to a possible return of refugees and their descendants scattered around the world, Jews would quickly be outnumbered in their own country, in such a situation they would become politically – and even physically – vulnerable. It is therefore unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to subvert its sovereignty and identity on its own soil (ADL, n.d.).
Given the long history of racial tensions in America, the current upsurge in interracial violence, the pre-eminence of critical currents of thought in race theory that spend their time pathologizing white people in the media and the education system, (DiAngelo, 2018; Kendi, 2019), it might seem just as reasonable to think that the white population is also becoming a vulnerable minority.
5 – The role of Jews in the development of U.S. immigration policy
The main purpose of the CofC [Culture of Critique = Kevin MacDonald's trilogy] is the emergence in the early years of the era that opened up with the end of the Second World War of a new centre-left elite, essentially Jewish, which is gradually taking over the entire media, academic and political field — the latter not only being influenced by the first two, but also by the largesse of a Jewish financial power at its peak. The removal of the former White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) elite is a theme addressed by Eric Kaufmann in The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (2004) (criticized by MacDonald, 2015–16), and also addressed by David Hollinger (1996: 4) in a note on "the transformation of the ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews in the period from the 1930s to the 1960s." by the Jews from 1930 to 1960) and in a note on the weight of Jewish influence on the secularization trend of American society and its evolution towards a cosmopolitan ideal (11); Hollinger (1996: 160) points out that "one of the major protagonists of the culture war that raged in the 1940s was a secularized, predominantly Jewish, resolutely center-left intelligentsia, solidly entrenched in the departments of philosophy and social sciences."
Lipset and Ladd (1971), based on data from a 1969 survey of 60,000 academics, show that the 1960s were a decisive period that saw the rise of a Jewish elite on the campuses of the most prestigious institutions, an elite much more left-wing than the rest of the [non-Jewish] professors. Jews made up about 12 percent of professors in general, but about 25 percent of the youngest professors (under 50) at Ivy League universities, much higher percentages than in previous decades. In addition, 75% of them declared themselves left-wing or "liberal" compared to 40% for non-Jewish professors. Jewish professors approved by a large majority (59.1%) of the radical activism of the students of the 1960s, compared to only 40% among non-Jewish professors. Jewish academics were also more likely to be in favor of relaxing the selection criteria to open up the university to minority professors and students.
Jewish academics were also more widely published than others, indicating greater influence. This is particularly important when we know that the university is a highly hierarchical institution: those who hold the upper hand train the next generation and have the upper hand in the selection of new professors (MacDonald, 2010). For example, Herskovits (1953: 23) noted that "the forty years under Franz Boas' rule at Columbia University ensured a continuity of teaching that enabled him to form a cohort of students who constituted the hard core of American anthropology, who, having reached maturity, headed all the major departments of their discipline. In turn, they trained students ... which have continued to spread in the same vein.
CofC describes in detail the most significant components of this new centre-left intellectual and academic elite. The analysis of the rise of such a wave cannot be limited to a single issue – even if it is immigration policy, this wave affects a whole set of converging issues of vital importance for public policies and which cannot be addressed separately such as: the civil rights of African-Americans, women's rights, religion in the public space (Cf. Hollinger secularization of American society), the legitimacy of white racial identity and its interests, cosmopolitanism, foreign policy in the Middle East, and many other topics in addition to immigration.
In reality, all these questions revolved around a central point, race, had a framework for discussion, the media and academic scene, and would lead to an undisputed victory with the enactment of civil rights in 1964 and the liberal immigration laws of 1965.
CofC traces the role of Jewish intellectuals in the radical tidal shift of race-related academic views (Ch. 2) and how Boasian ideology became dominant in the 1965 congressional debates on immigration (Ch. 7); as discussed below, it was during this key period that this racial ideology became dominant in the media (Andrew Joyce, 2019) – at a time when all television channels and Hollywood studios were Jewish-owned, marking a 180-degree turn from what had happened in the 1920s which had instead seen the victory of race-based restrictionist arguments, these arguments were then carried and defended by leading magazines and in mainstream books.
Similarly, Jewish influence was instrumental in the civil rights movement during the critical years 1954-1968 (see below) and in the secularization of American culture: "Jewish civil rights organizations have had a historic role in postwar legislative and executive policy developments" (Ivers, 1995: 2).
The only thing that could seriously challenge an important part of what Cofnas calls "the anti-Jewish narrative" is anything about the role of Jews in repurposing U.S. immigration laws. It is quite logical and legitimate for Cofnas, following Hugh Davis Graham (2003), to place these laws in a broader context, but, as noted above and developed below, this context has been just as influenced by Jewish activism. This is the thesis defended by Graham (2003: 57) who states: "Immigration reform is only the culmination of a long-term work that dates back to the twenties on the part of Jewish organizations that have constantly opposed the logic of ethnic quotas ... Jewish politicians in New York, particularly Governor Herbert Lehman, broke new ground in the 1940s by getting their state to pass anti-discrimination legislation on a crucial issue [because of the national origin provisions of the 1924 law giving preference to immigration from northwestern Europe]. adding "national origin" to the list of inadmissible grounds of discrimination on race, colour and religion."
Similarly, Otis Graham (2004) noted that "the political core of the nebula in favour of a more flexible immigration regime was made up of ethnic lobbyists... claiming to speak for all the nationalities that had migrated before the National Origins Act of 1924, this core was in fact dominated by Jews from Central and Eastern Europe, deeply concerned about the rise of fascism and anti-Semitism on the continent and in constant search of a safe haven" (see also Graham, 2004: 67).
Thus, any criticism of MacDonald's work on immigration (CofC: Ch. 7) must consider whether or not Jews had a significant influence on the broader context of which Graham (2003) speaks. However, Cofnas ignores the role of Jewish intellectuals in the upheavals of academic conceptions of race, he ignores the way in which Boasian ideology became dominant in congressional debates, he ignores all the exhibits on Jewish immigration activism between 1890 and 1965 (CofC: 259–293), and he ignores MacDonalds' synthesis of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. fifty and sixty (CofC: 255–258).
Precisely, the pieces present in CofC on Jewish activism prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924 were recently corroborated by Daniel Okrent [a Jew]. The Jewish community from Germany, which had already been in America for some time, despite its disgust with its own cousins in southern and eastern Europe, played a major role in keeping immigration legislation favorable to them even when the general public no longer wanted it. For example, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, leader of the restrictionists, wrote to a friend during the second presidency of Grover Cleveland (1893-1897, 22nd and 24th President of the United States): "Influences [on Grover Cleveland] were exerted yesterday which I will explain to you at our meeting and which were very difficult to thwart"; he explained to another that "these forces represented neither companies nor political currents (Cf. Okrent, 2019: 72). For Okrent, these were "almost certainly members of the wealthy and influential Jewish community from Germany, such as Jacob Schiff, who had personally expressed a request to Grover Cleveland to block the literacy test" (Ibid). (Before focusing squarely on national origins, restrictionists advocated the idea of a language test as a means of curbing immigration.)
For a quarter of a century, the IRL [Immigration Restriction League], headed by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, had to fight foot by foot against a series of powerful organizations dominated by wealthy Jews in Germany: "The emergence in the 1890s of organized, wealthy, and well-connected Jews who had embraced the immigrant cause represented for Lodge and his followers an opposition like few Boston Brahmins had faced until then". (Okrent, 2019: 72, 73). [FG: Boston Brahmins = Boston Super Caste, heir to the first settlers].
It was no doubt because of this fierce opposition that, despite public opinion that became increasingly pressing from 1905 onwards, it was necessary to wait until the 1920s for immigration to finally be regulated (Neuringer, 1971: 83).
As Cohen (1972: 40f) reports, the AJCommittee's efforts against immigration restrictions in the early twentieth century are a glaring example of the ability of Jewish organizations to influence public policy while constituting only the tiny upper layer of their community.
Of all the ethnicities likely to be affected by the 1907 immigration legislation, Jews had the least to gain in terms of the number of potential immigrants, but they were – by far – the largest contributors to the drafting of the legislation (Cohen, 1972: 41); the other immigrant communities were not as organized and demanding, if only because their position on the subject was much more ambivalent (Neuringer, 1971: 83).
In the period that followed, which was to lead to the still relatively innocuous legislation of 1917, following a new assault on Congress by the restrictors who had not disarmed, "only the Jews mobilized" (Cohen, 1972: 49).
It is important to understand that this influence played out when Jewish influence still had nothing to do with what it would be after the Second World War and, a fortiori, with what it would be at the time of the immigration debates of the 1960s, when the old WASP elite was already a shadow of its former self. almost ousted by the new elite.
As for the battle for civil rights, recognized by Hugh Davis Graham (2003) as decisive for the passage of the 1965 immigration laws, Jewish activism played a preponderant role. In the post-World War II period, the entire areopagus of Jewish organizations began to work on African-American issues, including the AJCommittee, the American Jewish Congress (hereafter, AJCongress) and the ADL. "With a professional staff, well-equipped offices, and proven public relations know-how, they had everything they needed to make a difference" (Friedman, 1995: 135). During the 1960s, civil rights groups were two-thirds or three-quarters funded by Jews (Kaufman, 1997: 110): "Their legal and financial support was the source of a whole series of victories in favor of the civil rights movement." There is little exaggeration in the words of this AJCongress lawyer according to which "Most of these laws were in fact drafted on the premises of the Jewish agencies, by Jews, put on the agenda by Jewish legislators, and passed under pressure from Jewish voters" (Levering-Lewis, 1984: 94). (CC: 256).
It was a multifaceted effort: challenging in court for discrimination in housing, schooling, or public employment, proposing legislation with legislative and executive bodies in the federal and state branches, drafting messages to be disseminated by the media [see also Joyce, 2019], curricula for students and faculty, reshaping of academic discourse. As is often the case when Jews campaign on campuses or in political forums, the preponderance of their involvement is masked (e.g., Svonkin, 1997: 45, 51, 65, 71-72). (CC: 257).
Covering the period from 1945 to 1965, the documents presented in CofC are particularly edifying as to the importance of Jewish activism in creating a favorable context for the questioning of the provisions of the 1924 law on national origins and in the final triumph of the passage of the 1965 law that opened the floodgates of immigration (CC: 273–292). I briefly review these documents here, organizing them by theme and enriching them with the latest research.
Challenging Race Thinking
Jews and their organizations have been at the forefront of the intellectual struggle to deny the importance of racial and ethnic differences in human affairs. Placing themselves in the wheel of success of Boasian anthropology, which had dominated the American Anthropological Association since the 1920s, they would shape the intellectual context that would preside over the success of the 1965 law (CofC: Ch. 2; see above). In fact, "Boasian anthropology was explicitly an anti-racist science in its message and purpose" (Frank, 1997: 741).
As John Higham (1984) noted, the ascendancy gained by these conceptions was crucial in the final victory against restrictionism. Commenting on the 1965 debates, a New York Times reporter remarked that "members of Congress did not want to appear racist" (in Graham, 2004: 92).
Nativism had been "stripped of its intellectual respectability" (Bennett, 1995: 285). It is not surprising, then, that Boasian ideas about race figured prominently in immigration debates between 1945 and 1965.
For example, in a 1951 statement to Congress, AJCongress declared, "The discoveries of science must compel even the most narrow-minded to admit, as they do the law of gravity, that intelligence, morality, and character have no relation whatsoever to geography or place of birth" (AJCongress Statement, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. 6 March – 9 April 1951, 391).
The statement went on to quote from some of the best-known writings of Boas and his protégé, Princeton professor Ashley Montagu, arguably the most prominent opponent of the concept of race at the time (AJConger Statement, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. 6 March – 9 April 1951, 402–403).
Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, allowed himself to profess in the period immediately following World War II [in which 70 to 85 million people were killed] that humans are naturally cooperative and devoid of aggression, that there is a universal brotherhood among them (see Shipman, 1994, 159(f).
In 1952, Margaret Mead, another of Boas's protégés, testified before the Presidential Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (hereafter PCIN) (1953: 92) that "all human beings in all societies have the same potential. … that the most advanced anthropological research shows that all human communities present more or less the same distribution of potentialities.
Another witness stated that the executive board of the American Anthropological Association had unanimously approved the proposition that "all scientific evidence indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of acquiring or adapting to our civilization" (PCIN, 1953: 93).
In 1965, Senator Jacob Javits (Congressional Record 111, 1965: 24469) could calmly announce in the Senate during the debate on the immigration bill that "Both the imperatives of our conscience and sociological theories tell us that immigration, as it is addressed in the national origin quota system, is wrong and has no rational or factual basis, we know well that it is absurd to claim that one man is better than another because of the color of his skin." The intellectual revolution and its translation into public policies had come to an end (CofC: 253–254).
Moreover, even the anti-restrictionist strategy of Oscar Handlin, the eminent Harvard historian and intellectual discussed in more detail below, integrated the racial revolution into the social sciences in its own way, arguing that "it was possible and necessary to distinguish between the 'races' of immigrants seeking admission to the United States" (Handlin, 1952: 4)—but by framing the word "races" in prophylactic quotation marks, in line with Boasian views, thereby undermining any intellectual basis of white ethnocentrism (A Major Priority of the Frankfurt School [CofC: Ch. 5]).
Writing in Commentary (the journal of the AJCommittee), Petersen (1955) quoted a group of predominantly Jewish social scientists whose work, beginning with Horace Kallen's plea (in 1915 and 1924) for a multicultural and pluralistic society, "constitutes the beginning of academic legitimization of a different immigration policy that may one day have the force of law"(86).
The circle also included Harvard historian Richard Hofstadter, who was instrumental in portraying populists in the West and South (whose support was essential to the restrictionists in 1924 and 1952) as irrational anti-Semites; he condemned their desire to "maintain a homogeneous Yankee civilization" (Hofstadter, 1955: 34) and he developed the "consensual" approach to history, characterized by Nugent (1963: 22) as "having in their sights any popular movement that would claim to threaten the pre-eminence of an intelligentsia or an urban elite, often academic, and the use of concepts from the behavioral sciences."
The intellectuals of New York were emblematic of this elite (CofC: Ch. 6). For example, the highly influential left-wing Partisan Review was the main showcase for "New York Intellectuals, a group dominated by editors and contributors with Jewish ethnic identities and a deep dislike of American political and cultural institutions" (Cooney, 1986: 225f; Shapiro, 1989; Wisse, 1987) ...
They saw themselves as marginalized reprobates — a modern version of the ostracization of Jews traditionally seen in Gentile culture. "They did not feel that they belonged to America or that America belonged to them" (Podhoretz, 1967: 117; emphasis in original). It was so much so that a New York columnist ended up asking (Podhoretz, 1967: 283) if the Partisan Review keyboard had a special key for the term "alienation" (CofC: 216–217).
Finally, Joyce in 2019, reports a campaign mainly initiated by Samuel H. Flowerman, research director of the AJCommittee and affiliated with the Institute for Social Research of the Frankfurt School (see CofC: Ch. 5), to influence public opinion in the American media after World War II. Flowerman co-edited with Max Horkheimer (director of the Institute for Social Research) the highly influential series Studies in Prejudice, published by the AJCommittee. He also built up a network of Jewish intellectuals and social scientists, many of whom held important positions in universities and the media (at a time when Hollywood studios, all American television networks, and influential newspapers [e.g., the New York Times and the Washington Post] were Jewish-owned).
All of his efforts were aimed at dominating American mass communications in order to "overturn the norms of the white in-group – so that it is this white in-group itself that is beginning to exert pressure within itself against the ethnocentrism of its members; it was "a vast Jewish collective enterprise whose sole purpose was to break down the locks of white American public opinion and to alter it altogether" (Joyce, 2019:6, 11; see, for example, Flowerman, 1947).
Organizing Anti-Restriction
Jewish associations organized, directed, financed, and carried out most of the actions of the major anti-restrictionist organizations from 1945 to 1965, including the National Liberal League for Immigration, the Citizens' Committee on Displaced Persons, the National Commission on Immigration and Citizenship, the Joint Conference on Foreign Legislation, the American Conference on Immigration, and the CPIN. "All of these associations have been working on immigration laws, disseminating information to the public, presenting testimony to Congress, and planning all kinds of activities that will help ... There were no immediate or dramatic results, but the assiduous campaign [of the AJCommittee] in collaboration with like-minded organizations eventually spurred the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to action (Cohen, 1972:373).
Concerning the PCIN [President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization established by Harry Truman on September 4, 1952, executive order 10392]:
The AJCommittee was also heavily involved in the deliberations of the CPIN (established by President Truman), including producing testimony and providing documents to individuals and organizations testifying before the CPIN (Cohen, 1972: 371).
All its recommendations were included in the final report (Cohen, 1972: 371), including those concerning a lower weighting of economic skills as criteria for immigration, the outright abandonment of the system of quotas by nationality, the opening of immigration to all the peoples of the world following a simple "first come, first served" logic, the only deviation from the CPIN report being that it opted for a lower overall level of immigration than that of the which was recommended by the AJCommittee (CofC: 281).
The president of the CPIN was Philip B. Perlman [a Jew], the commission also included a high proportion of Jews, and was headed by Harry N. Rosenfeld (executive director) assisted by Elliot Shirk.
His report was unreservedly approved by the AJCongress (see Congress Weekly 12 January 1952: 3). The proceedings were printed in the form of the report Whom We Shall Welcome (PCIN, 1953) with the cooperation of Representative Emanuel Celler [Jew] and with an essay by Oscar Handlin, the Jewish academic activist (see below).
Enlisting non-Jews in the project
Even going back to the battle over the immigration law of 1924, we see that Jewish activists have in fact always explicitly opposed an ethnic status quo in congressional hearings. "At a time when the population of the United States was just over 100 million, [Louis Marshall, an influential lawyer associated with the AJCommittee and head of the anti-restrictionist lobbying forces] said, 'There is room in this country for ten times its current population'; it advocated the admission of all the peoples of the world without quota limits, with the sole exception of individuals who "were mentally, morally and physically unfit, hostile to organized government, or liable to become public burdens" (CofC: 263).
Graham (2004: 80) notes that the Jewish immigration lobby "aimed not only to open the doors to Jews, but also to diversify flows sufficiently to end the majority status of Western Europeans and thus reduce the risk of a fascist regime." The driving role of fear and insecurity was specific to the Jewish community, not found in other circles advocating the end of the national origin provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws; such a vision involved changing the ethnic balance of the United States. This apprehension of the Jewish community is clearly reflected in the following:
In 1952, the CPIN observed that if the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo, it was not so much by virtue of the national origin system, as there were already high levels of non-quota immigrants (mainly European refugees from communism), while at the same time, the countries of Northern and Western Europe, they did not fulfill theirs. The report considered that the main obstacle to changing the racial status quo was in fact the limitation of the overall level of immigration.
One would be much more convinced if Celler had advocated a law explicitly reaffirming the ethnic status quo – this is what the laws of 1924 and 1952 did in their preamble, laws he fiercely opposed for more than forty years. Getting rid of the national origin quota system was only a prerequisite for changing the ethnic status quo, Celler was well aware of this. All that would be left for successors to do was to raise the absolute number of immigrants, just as the INCP advocated, and that is what ended up happening.
In another sign of Jewish consensus on the issue, AJCongress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified at the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that while the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, "it did not give it any value. There was nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be absurd to believe that we had reached the summit of ethnic perfection in that year" (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816, 6 March – 9 April 1951, 410).
At the same time, Congress Weekly, the newsletter of the AJCongress, regularly denounced the national origin provisions as based on the "myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial strains" (17 Oct 1955:3) and advocated immigration "on the basis of need and on criteria unrelated to race or national origin" (4 May 1953: 3).
Dr. Israel Goldstein (1952a: 6), president of the AJCongress, wrote that "the system of national quotas had become scandalous ... when all our national experience had confirmed beyond any possible doubt that our strength lies in the diversity of our peoples" (Goldstein, 1952b: 5), a statement that anticipated the current mantra recited
by the American academic, media and political establishment: "Diversity is our greatest strength."
Great Jewish figures known to the public, such as Oscar Handlin, a historian at Harvard, published pro-immigration books and articles (e.g., The Uprooted [1951/1973]). Handlin's (1952) article, The Fight for Immigration Has Only Just Begun, appeared in Commentary (published by the AJCommittee) shortly after the Democratic-controlled Congress overruled President Truman's veto of the restrictive law of 1952 [FG: Truman was a Democrat, but the Democrats were divided into two camps, the one led by the rapporteur of the law Pat McCarran, very restrictionist, and the one led by Emanuel Celler, the Jew author of the anti-restrictionist report of the PCIN, the presidential commission set up by Truman on immigration, Truman, obviously, was on the side of the commission he had set up, hence his veto of the restrictionist law of 1952]
In a comment that was very revealing of the Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces and the relative disinterest of other minorities who arrived at the turn of the century (see above Neuringer, 1971: 83) Handlin complained about the apathy of other "hyphenated Americans," reluctant to join the battle over immigration [FG: "Hyphenated Americans," for example, African American, Italian-American etc. but precisely, as usual, the Jews demanded a separate treatment by refusing to place a hyphen between Jew and American, so Handlin's comment is not entirely logical on this point!].
Handlin used a "we" over and over again, as in: "If we can't beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cronies with their own weapons, we can at least manage to destroy the effectiveness of those weapons." This "we" betrayed his conviction that the entire Jewish community shared a strong interest in a liberalization of immigration policy and that it had to remain optimistic and combative to ensure that the 1952 law would gradually be blunted in its application until it was finally replaced by a new one. It is this erosion of the 1952 law that is evoked by Graham (2003) and used by Cofnas as the general framework of the 1965 law. [FG: But as we can see, this "general framework" is in fact restricted to Jews]
Handlin unequivocally rejected the idea of an ethnic status quo, believing that it was "illusory [to expect] that the composition of the American population will remain as it is" (Handlin, 1947: 6). He never bothered to respond to the justifications advanced by the restrictionists in 1924, this is how he summed up their position: "The hordes of inferior races, who then poured freely into the country in total disregard of the latest prescriptions of racial hygiene [a reference to the theories of racial difference common among the elites and widely propagated by the popular media in the 1920s], mingled with the Anglo-Saxons, inevitably producing a deterioration of the species" (1951/1973: 257).
Handlin thus deliberately left out the real argument used by the restrictionists in the 1924 congressional debates – that the national origin quota system was fair to all minorities in the country since it maintained the ethnic status quo (CofC: 263), with the underlying idea, perfectly defensible from an evolutionary perspective, that each minority will always seek to defend its own interests in matters of immigration: this is what we observe in the tug-of-war between Palestinians and Jews in Israel over a Palestinian right of return).
Handlin was a key figure in the years leading up to the passage of the 1965 Act. Ngai (2013) highlighted its importance in these terms:
Handlin's thought was both a reflection and a spur to the evolution of immigration policy in the post-war period. He can be credited with popularizing a new interpretation of American history, one that made immigration the heart of American economic and democratic development. By creating his normative theory of history, he founded the framework for immediate political reform. This theory is none other than what we commonly call "a nation of immigrants" – it has endured for several generations in scholarly and popular discourse, and probably still endures today. (Ngaï, 2013, 62)
His contributions and long-term efforts to repeal the system of migration quotas by origin should not be underestimated. His writings – academic or journalistic – have provided an episteme of reform, a framework and a logic for criticizing the old politics and defining the contours of the new one.
Handlin not only gave voice and legitimacy to Euro-American ethnic minorities as such, he also gave them a central place in American history by arguing that pluralism and what is now called "living together" were the pillars of American democracy. The reform program was thus not only a matter of immediate political interest, it was also a historic mission perceived as the telos of American democracy and Americanism after World War II. (Ngai, 2013, 65)
Nibbling away at the ethnic status quo at the heart of the immigration laws of 1924 and 1952
Until the 1965 law, most of the migrants outside the quota were refugees from communism. These migrants were mostly non-Jews from Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia (Graham, 2003: 54), and they had taken advantage of the safety valve offered to them by the "law of the 1920s" – in the event of political or ethnic tension in the country of origin, to assimilate into American culture. (Graham, 2003: 48).
In the 1950s, these European flows that were gradually assimilating were not considered to change the demographic balance of the country – even if they were far-left refugees (also persecuted by the communists): in the twenties, America distrusted the latter like the plague (especially with regard to Jewish immigrants [CofC: Chs. 3 & 7]).
Americans were happy to welcome them because they were seen as asserting the superiority of American culture over communism during the Cold War; for example, the persecution of Hungarian Cardinal József Mindszenty (who lived in the U.S. embassy in Budapest for 15 years before being exiled) affected Americans immensely, especially Catholics.
Thus, in practice, the migratory flows of the fifties will have been very far from the profile of immigration after 1965. Although immigration in the 1950s reflected a clear shift in attitudes that prevailed in the 1920s, the logic was a far cry from that of post-1965 immigration, where the main rule was that no justification was needed – even the skills needed in the country had only a low priority.
But already in 1961, there had been a law that was a serious departure from the principle of quotas: the Family Unifation Act. The concept was not new, family reunification was at the heart of Jewish concerns about immigration as early as 1924 (Neuringer, 1971: 191)—a point well emphasized by Rep. Francis Walter, the leader of the House restrictionists during the 1952 debates, when speaking of the special role Jewish organizations had played in attempting to promote family reunification rather than special skills as the basis of American immigration policy (Congressional Record 13 March 1952: 2284).
On the subject of family reunification introduced by the immigration legislation of 1961, Bennett (1963: 244) said that "the principle of family reunification has become the 'open sesame' of immigration".
Bennett (1963: 256) also noted that "the indefinite extension of non-quota status for immigrants from countries where they were largely overwhelmed because they were heavily discriminated against and penalized [by the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952], added to administrative exemptions, to the ever-broadening interpretation of the statutes, and to the bills being drafted, were sufficient to accelerate and manifestly make inevitable an upheaval in the ethnic landscape of the nation (257).
The 1961 law was tailor-made to increase the number of immigrants because it allowed for the "cascading migration" of family members by allowing family reunification without quota limits ["cascading": one brings one's wife, the wife brings her brother, etc.]. "Family preference has been a powerful lever for newcomers that left 'native' Americans disarmed and without control over the future of the country – now in the hands of migrants. (Graham, 2004: 91) (Simply because citizens whose families went back more than a generation or two – let alone founding Americans – had few or no close relatives living abroad.)
Hold on Congress and the Executive
Jews were at the forefront of the anti-restrictionist struggle in Congress and played an important role because of their place in the executive branch. In Congress, among the most notable figures were Rep. Celler (also a leader of the anti-restrictionist forces in the 1924 congressional debates) and Sen. Jacob Javits and Herbert Lehman, all prominent members of the ADL. After noting the leadership of Jews in Congress, Graham (2003:57) notes that "less visible, but equally important, was all the work of key advisers to presidential staff and agencies. These included such high-profile political advisers as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfeld in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the White House during Eisenhower's time, and presidential aide Myer Feldman [who, as noted, was Kennedy's ghostwriter for the writing of A Nation of Immigrants], assistant secretary of state under Abba Schwartz and assistant attorney general under Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration." Schlei was further the head of the Office of the Attorney General of the Department of Justice from 1962 to 1966 and the most important figure in the drafting of the 1965 immigration bill (New York Times, 2003). Graham (2004:88) also mentions Feldman, Schlei, and Schwarz, as important figures in immigration-related issues during the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
Jewish Consensus on Immigration Policy
Throughout this period, anti-restrictionist attitudes were shared by the vast majority of the organized community—"from believers to atheists, from the extreme right to the extreme left," to use the words of Judge Simon Rifkind during his congressional hearing in 1948 as a representative of a long list of national and local Jewish groups
Cofnas (2018, 2021) argues that because of their intellectual abilities, Jews have historically been heavily overrepresented on both sides of various issues.
This was absolutely not the case with immigration throughout the critical period that ended in 1965 with the repeal of the national origin provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws – and even long after. I have never found a Jewish organization or personalities at the head of the forces in favor of the laws of 1924 and 1952 – or opposed to the law of 1965 at the time it was promulgated.
Joyce (2021) shows the powerful and ongoing role of Jews in the pro-immigration struggle in the United States in the contemporary period, and, as noted above, that there is still a substantial Jewish consensus on immigration today.
Conclusion
I conclude that the Jews at the head of their organizations were a necessary condition for passing the Immigration Act of 1965. As always, Jewish activism was aimed at elite institutions and political figures, with change ultimately occurring in a top-down manner that did not reflect the attitudes of most Americans.
As Graham (2004: 88) notes, "The question of immigration saw the emergence of a scenario that is now classic in public debate: elite opinion-makers choosing a problem and a liberal political solution, while popular opinion standing up against it, but amorphous and marginalized, was doomed to defeat.
6 – Related questions
Why are Jews leftists?
[FG: skipped passage, it is mainly a question for Kevin MacDonald to counter the explanation given for this fact for Cofnas:
For Cofnas, who is Jewish, Jews are left-wing – despite their money – as eternally oppressed, persecuted, rejected, etc.
For Kevin MacDonald, it's almost the opposite, the Jews are leftists in the revolutionary sense of the term because they have to reformat the host societies and in particular break up nationalisms and peoples: see all the above in the article]
Is the percentage of Jews in a society essential to the success of their activism?
Cofnas (2021) notes that Western societies like Sweden with a very low percentage of Jews have also opened their doors to immigration and embraced multiculturalism. In addition to the activists he cites (David Schwarz was particularly important), we must also mention the role of the Bonnier family, which has long had a prominent presence in the Swedish media (books, magazines, newspapers, television and film), (Bonnier Group, 2021).
But if you look more closely, the image changes completely.
Eckehart (2017) compiled a list of 17 debates on immigration and minority policy in prominent Swedish newspapers and magazines between 1964 and 1968, comprising a total of 118 articles. Schwarz personally wrote or co-authored 37 of them, or 31% of the total. He is also the one who initiated 12 of the 17 debates.
If we add the other Jewish contributions, we find that what is only a tiny minority in Sweden, less than 1% of the population, was responsible for 46 articles, or 39% of the total. All Jewish contributors were in favor of multiculturalism. Obviously, they were not present on either side of the fence.
In addition, minorities have an advantage in ethnic competition by being more able to mobilize than majorities, i.e., capable of making sacrifices for a cause, for example by donating money, time, and labor (Salter, 2006).
Even a small group with limited resources can exert disproportionate influence when its members are highly mobilized and its opponents, while superior in number, are indifferent.
This is the general lesson that emerges from everything we have presented above about the 1965 immigration law in the United States. In the case of Australia over the past few decades, Isi and Mark Leibler, whose efforts have been supported by wealthy Australian Jews, have had a very large influence on the government on a range of issues, from policy towards Israel to immigration, to restrictions on freedom of expression (Cashman, 2020; Gawenda, 2020; Sanderson, 2021). Sanderson (2013) also describes Walter Lippmann's effective activism in promoting an official policy of multiculturalism in Australia in the 1970s, motivated, at least in part, by the fear that assimilation would decimate the Jewish community.
Moreover, the influence of minorities is all the more effective when it occurs in individualistic cultures, and Scandinavian societies are the most individualistic cultures in the world (cf. data on historical family and political structure (MacDonald, 2018c, 2019). Individualists are much more likely to see others as individuals rather than members of competing groups, and they are relatively non-ethnocentric (Henrich, 2020; MacDonald, 2019, 2020, 2021).
Moreover, the social cohesion of individualistic culture is ensured by a "foundation of moral values" rather than by identities based on kinship, race, or ethnicity (MacDonald, 2019, 2021) – a foundation under which dissent, for example, from multiculturalist ideology in the contemporary West, leads to guilt and possible sanctions such as ostracism and job loss.
In contemporary Western culture, these moral communities are created top-down by an elite academic and media culture in which Jews are heavily overrepresented (MacDonald, 2002b, 2019). As noted, a major Jewish effort after World War II was to create a culture that relegated white ethnocentrism and the pursuit of its interests to the political and social margins (see also CofC: Ch.5).
In the end, Sweden, as a relatively small Western society with no geopolitical significance, finds itself swept up in the broader trends of the West. Given that the United States has been the undisputed leader of the West since World War II, it is not at all surprising that the trends that began in the United States are viewed in a positive light by Swedish intellectuals and politicians.
This is even more true of Western academic culture, which is international and hierarchical, so that, for example, once the Boasian revolution occurred in elite universities in the United States and became wisdom incarnate there, it was inevitable that it would spread to academic circles throughout the West and with similar consequences for immigration policy.
Thus, Sanderson (2013:7) shows that Boasian ideas about race were "an essential weapon in opening up Australian immigration to non-white minorities," and he discusses the crucial role of Jewish academics and other activists in promoting opposition to white tradition. In the case of Australian politics, he cites as an example an article by Dan Goldberg (2008), the national editor of the Australian Jewish News, proudly acknowledging that "Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy."
In contrast, in stark contrast to this individualism, Rubenstein (Rubinstein, 1995:7) notes that "politically, the Jewish community is strongly united around a limited number of goals on which there is consensus or near-consensus, including support for Israel, the fight against anti-Semitism, adherence to multiculturalism – which goes hand in hand with the containment of assimilation through teaching in Jewish schools."
MacDonald (CofC: 294) notes that "the radical change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred at about the same time (1962-1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes of the elites rather than those of the great mass of citizens. … A recurring theme has been that immigration policy has been formulated by elites who control the media and that efforts have been made by political leaders of all major parties to ward off fear of immigration."
As noted above citing Graham (2004:88), top-down influence on public policy was central to Jewish immigration activism in the 1960s and has largely spilled over to other public policy issues. The anti-populism and elite control advocated by Jewish intellectuals in previous decades had set a precedent (CofC: Ch. 5).
[…]
7 – In summary
[…]
• There were no Jews or Jewish organizations among the restrictionists or populist movements during the period covered by CofC – a time of great change for the West. Throughout this period, Jewish organizations and activists were uniformly pro-immigration, and Jewish intellectual movements were slamming populism.
• As noted above, "in pre-1960s America... it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find important Jewish intellectuals or activists who would not have been on the left of the political spectrum," and I note that Cofnas does not know what the power of the Jewish community has focused on. It also ignores the fact that Jewish neoconservatives, by far the most prominent current among American Jewish conservatives, have been pro-immigration and have done everything they can to pull the Republican party to the left on social issues, in line with the wishes of large majorities of American Jewry.
• In the debates on immigration in Sweden in the 1960s, all Jewish contributors favored the multiculturalist position. Similarly, with respect to Australia, there has been a Jewish consensus on multiculturalism and other issues, "particularly support for Israel, combating anti-Semitism, adhering to multiculturalism – which goes hand in hand with stemming assimilation through teaching in Jewish schools" (Rubenstein, 1995: 7).
• In the analysis of the weight of Jewish influence, one cannot limit oneself to a purely statistical analysis and avoid a description of the internal dynamics and motivations of the movements of influence created and dominated by them. On the contrary, understanding the motivations and internal dynamics of these movements should be the priority.
Otherwise, we run the risk, like Cofnas, of missing out on all these areas and ending up with a very deficient vision of Jewish history and activism.
Translation Francis Goumain
* * *
References
Abrams, E. (1999). Faith or fear: How Jews can survive in a Christian America. Touchstone.
American Jewish Committee (2018). AJC survey of American Jewishopinion.
https://www.ajc.org/news/ survey2018. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Anti-Defamation League (2019). Sacha Baron Cohen's keynote address at ADL's 2019 never is now summit on anti-Semitism and hate. https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynoteaddress-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Anti-Defamation League (n.d.). Response to common inaccuracy: Binational/one-state solution. https:// www.adl.org/education/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-bi-national-onestate-solution. Accessed 11 Apr 2021.
Avineri, S. (2019). Marx: Philosophy and revolution. Yale University Press.
Bennett, D. H. (1995). The party of fear: The American far right from nativism to the militia movement. Vintage.
Bennett, M. T. (1963). American immigration policies: A history. Public Afairs Press.
Bonnier Group (2021). https://www.bonnier.com/en/page/organization. Accessed 7 Nov 2021
Carlebach, J. (1978). Karl Marx and the radical critique of Judaism. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cashman, G. F. (2020). Mark Leibler, an Australian-Jewish torchbearer. The Jerusalem Post (Nov. 18). https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/mark-leibler-an-australian-jewish-torchbearer-649500. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Cofnas, N. (2018). Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: A critical analysis of Kevin MacDonald's theory. Human Nature, 29(2), 134–156.
Cofnas, N. (2021). The anti-Jewish narrative. Philosophia, 49, 1329–1344. https://doi.org/10.1007/ S11406-021-00322-W
Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not free to desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906–1966. Jewish Publication Society of America.
Cooney, T. A. (1986). The rise of the New York intellectuals: Partisan Review and its circle. University of Wisconsin Press.
Crowley, M., & Halbfnger, D. M. (2020). Bahrain will normalize relations with Israel in deal brokered by Trump. New York Times (September 11). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/world/. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Debenedetti, G. (2019). Ranking the most infuential Democratic donors in the 2020 race. New York Magazine (August 22). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/most-infuential-democratic-donors2020-elections.html. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon.
Dutton, E. (2020). Making sense of race. Washington Summit Publishers.
Eckehart, M. (2017). How Sweden became multicultural. Logik Förlag.
Flowerman, S. H. (1947). Mass propaganda in the war against bigotry. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42(4), 429–439.
Frank, G. (1997). Jews, multiculturalism, and Boasian anthropology. American Anthropologist, 99, 731–745.
Friedman, M. (1995). What went wrong? The creation and collapse of the black-Jewish alliance. Free Press.
Gawenda, M. (2020). The powerbroker: Mark Leibler, an Australian Jewish life. Monash University Publishing.
Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A life for our time. W. W. Norton.
Gilman, S. L. (1993). Freud, race, and gender. Princeton University Press.
Goldberg, D. (2008). Jews key to aboriginal reconciliation. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. http://anivlam. blogspot.com.au/2008/02/jews-in-australia-aboriginal.html. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Goldstein, I. (1952a). The racist immigration law. Congress Weekly, 19(March 17), 6–7.
Goldstein, I. (1952b). An American immigration policy. Congress Weekly, 19, November 3:4.
Graham, H. D. (2003). Collision course: The strange coincidence of affirmative action and immigration policy in America. Oxford University Press.
Graham, O. (2004). Unguarded gates: A history of America's immigration crisis. Rowman & Littlefeld.
Greenblatt, J. (2018). Foreword to the reprint of the 2008 edition of A nation of immigrants. Amazon Kindle ed. unpaginated; orig. pub. Harper Perennial. https://www.amazon.com/Nation-ImmigrantsJohn-F-Kennedy-ebook/dp/B07D6NQPG7/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=& sr=&asin=B07D6NQPG7&revisionId=e39237f3&format=1&depth=1. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Grosskurth, P. (1991). The secret ring: Freud's inner circle and the politics of psychoanalysis. Addison-Wesley.
Handlin, O. (1947). Democracy and America's future. Commentary, 3, 1–6. Handlin, O. (1951/1973). The uprooted, 2nd ed. Little Brown & Co.
Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fght has only begun. Commentary, 14(July), 1–7.
Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Herskovits, M. (1953). Franz Boas. Charles Scribner's Sons. Higham, J. (1984). Send these to me: Immigrants in urban America, rev. ed. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to FDR. Vintage.
Hollinger, D. A. (1996). Science, Jews, and secular culture: Studies in mid-twentieth-century American intellectual history. Princeton University Press.
Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American politics. Doubleday.
Ivers, G. (1995). To build a wall: American Jews and the separation of church and state. University of Virginia Press.
Johnson, P. (1988). A history of the Jews. Perennial library; orig. pub.: Harper & Row, 1987.
Joyce, A. (2019). "Modify the standards of the ingroup": On Jews and mass communication. The Occidental Quarterly, 19(2), 3–20.
Joyce, A. (2021). The Cofnas problem. The Occidental Observer. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/ 2021/03/20/the-cofnas-problem-part-1-of-3/. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Kallen, H. M. (1915). Democracy versus the melting pot. Nation 100 (February 18 & 25), 190–194, 217–220.
Kallen, H. M. (1924). Culture and democracy in the United States. Arno Press.
Kaufman, J. (1997). Blacks and Jews: The struggle in the cities. In J. Salzman & C. West (Eds.), Struggles in the promised land: Toward a history of black-Jewish relations in the United States. Oxford University Press.
Kaufmann, E. (2014). The rise and fall of Anglo-America. Harvard University Press. Kendi, I. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.
Klehr, H. (1978). Communist cadre: The social background of the American Communist Party elite. Hoover Institution Press.
Klein, D. B. (1981). Jewish origins of the psychoanalytic movement. Praeger Publishers.
Levering-Lewis, D. (1984). Shortcuts to the mainstream: Afro-American and Jewish notables in the 1920s and 1930s. In J. R. Washington (Ed.), Jews in black perspective: A dialogue. Associated University Presses.
Lieberman, S., & Weinfeld, M. (1978). Demographic trends and Jewish survival. Midstream, 24 (November), 9–19.
Liebman, A. (1979). Jews and the left. John Wiley & Sons. Lipka, M. (2016). Unlike U.S., few Jews in Israel identify as reform or conservative. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/15/unlike-u-s-few-jews-in-israel-identifyas-reform-or-conservative/. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Lipset, S. M., & Ladd, E. (1971). Jewish academics in the United States: Their achievements, culture, and politics. The American Jewish Yearbook, 72, 89–128.
Lynn, R. (2011). The chosen people: A study in Jewish intelligence and achievement. Washington Summit Publishers. (Percentiles obtained from https://www.hackmath.net/en/calculator/normal-distr ibution. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.)
Lyons, P. (1982). Philadelphia communists, 1936–1956. Temple University Press.
MacDonald, K. (1994/2002). A people that shall dwell alone: Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Praeger, 1994; reprinted with a new preface by iUniverse, 2002.
MacDonald, K. (1998a). The culture of critique: An evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements. Praeger; reprinted with a new preface by AuthorHouse.
MacDonald, K. (1998b). Separation and its discontents: Toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. Praeger; reprinted with a new preface by AuthorHouse.
MacDonald, K. (2002a). Diaspora peoples preface to the paperback edition of A people that shall dwell alone: Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. iUniverse. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Diasp oraPeoples.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2002b). Preface to the frst paperback edition of The culture of critique: An evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements. AuthorHouse. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PrefacePPB.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2002c). Mitigating risk in Jewish groups. In F. Salter (Ed.), Risky transactions: Trust, kinship, and ethnicity. Berghahn Books.
MacDonald, K. (2003). Zionism and the internal dynamics of Judaism. The Occidental Quarterly, 3(3), 15–44. https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v3n3/TOQv3n3MacDonald.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2004). Understanding Jewish infuence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish movement. The Occidental Quarterly, 4(2), 7–74. https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v4n2/TOQv4n2MacDonald.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2010). Why are professors liberals? The Occidental Quarterly, 10(2), 57–84. http:// www.kevinmacdonald.net/LiberalProfessors-2020.pdf MacDonald, K. (2015). Eric Kaufmann's The rise and fall of Anglo-America. The Occidental Quarterly, 15(4), 3–42. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Kaufmann-fnal.pdf; accessed November 7, 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2016). The alt right and the Jews. The Occidental Observer (September 17). http://www. theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/09/17/the-alt-right-and-the-jews/. Accessed 7 Nov 2021
MacDonald, K. (2018a). Reply to Nathan Cofnas. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/ReplyToCofnas1.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2018b). Second reply to Nathan Cofnas, revision of April 18, 2018. http://www.kevin macdonald.net/SecondReplyCofnas.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
MacDonald, K. (2018c). Familial origins of European individualism. Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 43(1–2), 78–108.
MacDonald, K. (2019). Individualism and the Western liberal tradition: Evolutionary origins, history, and prospects for the future. CreateSpace.
MacDonald, K. (2020). Can Western church infuence explain Western individualism? Comment on "The church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation" by Jonathan F. Schulz et al. Mankind Quarterly, 61(2), 371–391.
MacDonald, K. (2021). Understanding Western uniqueness: A comment on Joseph Henrich's The WEIRDest people in the world. Mankind Quarterly, 61(3), 723–766. Marcus, J., & Tar, Z. (1986). The Judaic elements in the teachings of the Frankfurt school. Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 21, 339–353.
Marx, K. (1843/1978). On the Jewish question. In R. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader. Norton & Company.
Mearsheimer, J., & Walt, S. (2008). The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Moore, T. (2021). Anti-Defamation League calls for Tucker Carlson to be fred. The Hill (April 9). https:// thehill.com/homenews/media/547439-anti-defamation-league-calls-for-tucker-carlson-to-be-fred. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Neuringer, S. M. (1971). American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881–1953. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1969. University Microflms. (Reprinted by Arno Press, 1980.)
New York Times (2003; April 23). Norbert A. Schlei, 73, legal advisor in the Kennedy-Johnson era. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/us/norbert-a-schlei-73-legal-adviser-in-kennedy-johns on-era.html. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Ngai, M. M. (2013). Oscar Handlin and immigration policy reform in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32(3), 62–67.
Nortley, J. (2021). U.S. Jews have widely difering views on Israel. Pew Research Center. https://www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/21/u-s-jews-have-widely-difering-views-on-israel/. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Nugent, W. T. K. (1963). The tolerant populists: Kansas populism and nativism. University of Chicago Press.
Okrent, D. (2019). The guarded gate: Bigotry, eugenics, and the law that kept two generations of Jews, Italians, and other European immigrants out of America. Scribner.
OpenSecrets.org (2021). Who are the biggest donors? https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/ biggest-donors. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Petersen, W. (1955). The "scientifc" basis of our immigration policy. Commentary, 20 (July), 77–86.
PCIN, 1953; See President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization.
Pew Research (2013). A portrait of American Jews. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-ameri can-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Philips, B. A. (2013). New demographic perspectives on studying intermarriage in the United States. Contemporary Jewry, 33, 103–119.
Podhoretz, N. (1967). Making it. Random House.
Podhoretz, N. (2010). Why are Jews liberals? Penguin Random House.
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN). (1953). Whom we shall welcome. From Capo Press.
Raab, E. (1993). Jewish Bulletin (northern California) (February 17).
Raab, E. (1995). Can antisemitism disappear? In J. A. Chanes (Ed.), Antisemitism in America today: Outspoken experts explode the myths. Birch Lane Press.
Raijman, R., Hochman, O., & Davidov, E. (2021). Ethnic majority attitudes toward Jewish and non-Jewish migrants in Israel: The role of perceptions of threat, collective vulnerability, and human values. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 19(2), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948. 2021.1889850
Richman, J. (2005). Powerful gun lobby takes aim with frst Jewish leader. Forward (August 19). https:// forward.com/news/2584/powerful-gun-lobby-takes-aim-with-frst-jewish-lea/?gamp. Accessed 7 Nov 2021.
Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (1982). Roots of radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the new left. Oxford University Press.
Rubenfeld, F. (1997). Clément Greenberg: A life. Scribner.
Rubinstein, W. D. (1995). Judaism in Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service.
Rühle, O. (1929). Karl Marx: His life and work, trans. E. & C. Paul. The Viking Press.
Salter, F. (2006). On genetic interests: Family, ethnicity, and humanity in an age of mass migration. Routledge.
Sanderson, B. (2013). The war on white Australia: A case study in the culture of critique. The Occidental Quarterly, 13(1), 3–56.
Sanderson, B. (2021). Mark Leibler: Power broker for Australia's Jewish plutocracy. The Occidental Quarterly, 21(1), 1–53.
Shapiro, E. S. (1989). Jewishness and the New York intellectuals. Judaism, 38, 282–292.
Shipman, P. (1994). The evolution of racism: Human diferences and the use and abuse of science. Simon & Schuster.
Stocking, G. W. (1968). Race, evolution, and culture: Essays in the history of anthropology. Free Press.
Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against prejudice: American Jews and the fght for civil liberties. Columbia University Press.
Tichenor, D. J. (2002). Dividing lines: The politics of immigration control in America. Princeton University Press.
Weiss, P. (2021). This is what 'Jewish democracy' looks like. Mondoweiss (March 26). https://mondo weiss.net/2021/03/this-is-what-jewish-democracy-looks-like/. Accessed 7 Nov 2007.
Wisse, R. (1987). The New York (Jewish) intellectuals. Commentary, 84(November), 28–39.
Wrezin, M. (1994). A rebel in defence of tradition: The life and politics of Dwight Macdonald. Basic Books.
The Inquisition, a racial war of eviction, the underground fighting among the Jesuits in Spain
by Andrew Joyce
"The brothers of circumcision have perverted the whole edifice of the Society [of Jesus]. As sons of this world [and therefore of the Devil] experts in the art of seducing their fellow men eager for novelty [similar "in appearance" = Christians], they have no difficulty in stirring up passions and destroying the unity and government of the soul [of the Order of Jesus]"Lorenzo
Maggio, Jesuit Curia of Rome, 1586.
The attack
TO DATE, the theoretical framework most conducive to understanding cryptic forms of Judaism was formulated by Kevin MacDonald in a landmark book: Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. The bulk of its fourth chapter (1998/2004: 121–132) is devoted to "reactive racism at the time of the Spanish Inquisition." In it, MacDonald puts forward the idea that the Iberian Inquisition during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was a racial, institutional, and violent struggle for eviction, motivated by competition for resources with Jews and in particular crypto-Jews posing as Christians. The historical context is that of the forced conversion of the Jews of Spain in 1391, as a result of which these "new Christians" (or conversos) secured (or rather, maintained) dominance in areas such as justice, finance, diplomacy, public administration, and a range of economic activities. MacDonald believes that despite a façade of conversion, these new Christians "must be seen as a historically Jewish community" that has simply managed to pursue its own ethnic interest. It was in this capacity that well-to-do Jews were seen to buy ecclesial offices for their offspring, with the result that many prelates in Spain were in fact of Jewish descent.
Indirectly, and perhaps unintentionally, MacDonald's theoretical framework is largely found in The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (2010) by Robert Aleksander Maryks of Boston College, which in turn confirms that the entry of Jews into the first Society of Jesus follows the classic pattern of ethnic nepotism and religious tartuferie that they are known for. Returning to the examination of the same geographical area during the same period, Maryks offers a panorama of the early years of the Society of Jesus, during which a merciless struggle for control of the soul and destiny of the Order was played out between a very powerful Jewish crypto-bloc and a rival network of European Christians.
In a somewhat crude but interesting book, Maryks sheds light on this conflict on the basis of hitherto ignored documents, highlighting in passing some of the most recurrent characteristics that generate reactive anti-Semitism: ethnocentrism, nepotism, the tendency to monopolize everything, and the search for strategic alliances with the white elite. But perhaps most original in this work is the emphasis on Jewish countermeasures to European efforts to stifle their influence, some of which are notable for their proximity to recent examples of Jewish apologetic propaganda. As such, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews is highly recommended to anyone looking to get a sense of the dynamics of ethnic conflict between Jews and Europeans via an easy-to-digest historical case study.
The book is divided into four well-paced chapters. The first presents the reader with the "Historical Context of Discrimination by Purity of Blood (1391 – 1547)", a detailed introduction to the nature of the problem posed by "the new Christians" in the Iberian Peninsula, it stands on its own, but it benefits from being read in parallel with MacDonald's work on the same theme. The second chapter concerns "the pro-converso politics of the beginnings (1540 – 1572)", it highlights the intensity of the infiltration of key positions of the Jesuitical order by the crypto-Jews, the latter, adapting their ideological positions to their interests, managing to establish a quasi-monopoly at the top of the hierarchy that would extend to the Vatican. The third chapter, "Discrimination against Jesuits of Jewish descent (1573 – 1593)", deals with the emergence of a movement of reaction to the strategy of the circumcised Christians, it presents its major figures and analyzes their motivations. The fourth chapter, "Jesuitical Opposition to Discrimination by Purity of Blood (1576 – 1608)," reviews the efforts of crypto-Jewish Jesuits to thwart the European strategy of retaliation, often using the same tactics and positions that are so familiar to us today as a hallmark of Jewish intellectual currents.
This sequence within the Jesuit Order is exactly parallel to that of the Inquisition in general: new Christians establishing themselves in key positions in Spanish politics, business and culture, a response by European Christians aimed at regaining power, itself followed by a Jewish counterattack against the Inquisition and the Spanish government in general, the latter playing a leading role on the international scene at the time.
One of the strengths of Maryks' breathless investigation is that it has the advantage of being able to rely on relatively recent genealogical discoveries that prove beyond a doubt that many individuals who were once simply "accused" of being crypto-Jews were unquestionably so. Maryks can therefore confidently step forward into this period when the lineage, while vital, was shrouded in a fog of accusations, denials and counter-accusations. In the author's words (xxix), "racial tensions played a central role in the history of the Jesuit Order in its early days.
At the beginning of his book, Maryks recalls that following an article on the influence of conversos among the Jesuits, he received an email from someone from the Iberian Peninsula, the email testified to the astonishing survival of crypto-Jewish practices in the sender's family:
From Friday evening to Saturday evening, his grandfather masked the image of the baby Jesus from a reproduction of Saint Anthony that he had at home. In fact, it was a folding music box. On Friday evening, he pressed a button to rewind the scroll so that the top of the image disappeared, showing the baby Jesus in the arms of Saint Anthony. On Saturday, he pressed the button again for Jesus to come out of his hiding place, nestled in the saint's arms. As the eldest son, the story was passed on to my correspondent by his father who asked him to eat only kosher food. (xv)
The persistence of such a naïve, and in this case harmless, form of crypto-Judaism during what is imagined to be the early twentieth century might seem trivial, nothing more than a socio-historical curiosity, in reality, it is a modest but significant remnant of what was once a powerful means of preserving the group evolutionary strategy of the Jews of the Iberian Peninsula after 1391 — a highly hostile environment. In a political, social, and religious context devoid of synagogues and the most ostentatious signs of Judaism, these petty rituals—such as masking the image of Jesus or the discreet observance of dietary rules—became vital means of maintaining group cohesion.
For a long time, these methods proved essential to the continuity of Judaism under the nose and beard of the host Christianized society. Better still, it allowed the conversos to extend the monopoly of their nepotism to a whole range of civil or religious (Christian) domains. However, if this little game was discovered, the consequences could be terrible. But as Maryks (xxii) points out, from its foundation in 1540 to 1593 the Jesuit Order was unsuspecting and did not provide for discriminatory rules against its members of Jewish descent, during these years, on the contrary, Jesuit conversos "were able to occupy the highest administrative positions and preside over its institutional and spiritual development". It was only gradually that a strong resistance to this monopoly began to develop, and from 1593 to 1608 there was a fierce power struggle that ended with the defeat of the crypto-Jewish bloc and the establishment of rules prohibiting the entry of candidates of "impure blood". These rules remained in effect until 1946 and required the examination of the family tree going back five generations.
The Jewish Origins of the Jesuits
On August 15, 1534, Ignatius de Loyola (born Íñigo López de Loyola), a Basque from the city of Loyola in Spain, and his six companions, all students at the University of Paris, gathered outside the city, in Montmartre, in a crypt under the church of Saint-Denis to take their vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The six companions of Ignatius were: Francis Xavier of Navarre (in present-day Spain), Alfonso Salmeron, Diego Laínez, Nicolás Bobadilla of Castile, Peter Favre of Savoy, and Simão Rodrigues of Portugal. At this point, they referred to themselves as "companion of Jesus" (Compañía de Jesús), or interchangeably, Amigos en El Señor (the friends of the Lord). The "Compañía" became "societas" in Latin, which comes from "socius" – partner or comrade. This was soon changed into the "Society of Jesus" or "Society of Jesus" and it was under this name that they became known. In 1537, the seven made the journey to Rome to seek papal approval. Paul III praised them and allowed them to be ordained priests. The official foundation of the Society of Jesus took place in 1540.
From the beginning, the weight of the conversos in the Society of Jesus was strong. Of the seven founding members, it appears from the evidence provided by Maryks that four were undoubtedly of Jewish descent: Salmeron, Laínez, Bobadilla, and Rodrigues. Loyola himself was well known for his strong philo-Semitism and in a recent thesis, arguments are put forward that tend to prove that his maternal grandparents were "blood for blood" conversos (his grandfather, Dr. Martín García de Licona, was a merchant and court councillor) [1], which makes our Basque nobleman halakhically Jewish. For the academic and Inquisition scholar Henry Kamen — himself a Jew and who may have argued that the Inquisition was merely a "weapon of social cleansing," primarily intended to ensure the ousting of the Conversos from socio-economic competition — Loyola was "spiritually a deeply sincere Semite." [2]
That "spiritually"? Or even, it is to be feared that Kamen will be fooled by the omnipresence of the conversos' propaganda. As Maryks explains well, the reputation of a Loyola fervent admirer of the Jews rests primarily on a series of anecdotes and quotations attributed to him—many of them taken from biographies written immediately after his death by converso Jesuits seeking to promote and defend their own interests. For example, the only source available to affirm that Loyola would have wished above all to have a Jewish origin in order to be able to consider himself "a relative of Christ and his mother" is the very first official biography of Loyola — which was written by Pedro de Ribadeneyra, a converso. However, Ribadeneyra is described by Maryks as a "masked converso" who did not hesitate to distort or hide facts that are now well established, and in particular that the Inquisition of Alcalá had accused Loyola of being a crypto-Jew. (43) This is one of the important aspects of Ribadeneyra's biography, its very general line, the idea that being a Jew was a particularly sought-after good point — Loyola's philo-Semitism (real or imagined) being intended to create emulators. On the other hand, the less avowedly aspects of crypto-Judaism and their repression by the Inquisition were completely obscured.
Whether Loyola is in fact a crypto-Jew or is truly a European with a strong desire to be Jewish remains to be determined at the time of writing. What is certain, however, is that he surrounded himself with a number of conversos and that he was opposed to any discrimination against them at the time of the candidates' entry into the Society of Jesus. Maryks believes that philo-Semitism and cryptic games aside, Loyola was "motivated by the financial support he knew he could count on from the network of conversos in Spain." If we follow Maryks in this reading, Loyola was therefore well aware of the position of the conversos within the elite of Spanish society, and he was ready to accept their money in exchange for a non-discriminatory policy in access to the governance of the order.
The question remains, of course, why a crypto-Jewish elite would want to support a Christian religious order financially and personally. The important point to bear in mind is that in this Europe of the modern era, religion and politics were intimately intertwined. Through the links between religious congregations and the political elite, even orders that had taken vows of poverty such as the Franciscans could exert a form of socio-political influence that was far from negligible. This was even more evident in the case of the orders with a strong missionary vocation, which often played a pioneering role in the economic development of the colonies.
William Caferro notes that in Renaissance Italy "the Florentine political elite had close ties to the Church, often the same people were part of both hierarchies, both reinforcing each other. [3]. Being part of an order was therefore an essential aspect, an obligatory extension of political and socio-cultural influence.
It is not surprising, then, to find crypto-Jews shivering in the inextricable networks of the royal administration, the civil bureaucracy, and the Church. To cite just a few examples, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh refer in their history to the Inquisition:
In 1390 the rabbi of Burgos converted to Catholicism. At the end of his life he ended up as bishop of Burgos, papal legate and tutor of a prince of the blood. [His son would become an active Converso as we will see below]. He was not the only one in his case. In the larger cities, the municipalities were dominated by converso families. At the very time of the formation of the Inquisition, King Ferdinand's treasurer came from a conversos background. In Aragón, the five highest positions in the administration of the kingdom were occupied by conversos. In Castile, there were at least four converso bishops. Three of Queen Isabella's secretaries were conversos, as was the official court chronicler. [4]
For the crypto-Jewish elite of this nascent modern Spain, the foundation of a powerful religious order led by a philo-Semite (if not a crypto-Jew of the gang), whose leadership team was composed mainly of conversos, who in its statutes were open to conversos candidacies, undoubtedly represented an attractive prospect. That there was some sort of bargain between Loyola and his crypto-Jewish godfathers is suggested by the nature of the original Jesuit constitution, as noted above, as do the early correspondence about the admission of applicants of Jewish ancestry. The foundation of the Order coincided with the widespread rise in Spain of an anti-conversos atmosphere that reached its climax in 1547, "with the promulgation by the highest ecclesial authority in the country, the Inquisitor General of Spain and Archbishop of Toledo, Silíceo, of the legislation on blood purity, El Estatuto de limpieza de sangre, (xx)". Pope Paul IV and Silíceo's former pupil, King Philip II, ratified the bishop's statutes in 1555 and 1556, respectively, but Ignatius de Loyola and his successor converso, Diego Laínez (1512–1565), stood up against the Inquisitor's claims to prevent the conversos from joining the Jesuits. So much so that in a letter addressed to the Jesuit Francisco de Villanueva (1509–1557), Loyola wrote: "In no case will the Jesuit Constitution integrate the policy of the archbishop" (xxi).
Seeking to ease tensions, in February 1554 Loyola sent his plenipotentiary emissary, Jerónimo Nadal (1507–1580), to the Inquisitor. Nadal firmly maintained that the Jesuit constitution did not discriminate on the basis of the lineage of the candidates and acknowledged in his personal capacity that he had admitted conversos during his stay in the peninsula. In a tense debate with the Inquisitor about the admission of one of them, Nadal replied, "We [Jesuits] are pleased to welcome those of Jewish descent." What is striking is how we can recognize in this case a pattern that would become classic: pro-conversos [pro-migrant] arguments defended by crypto-Jews who claimed to be native Spaniards. Maryks notes in passing that his historical research shows that Nadal "was more than likely a descendant of Mallorcan Jews" (77).
By the time Nadal was acting as an intercessor with the Inquisitor, Judaic practices aimed at changing the Christians' conceptions of themselves from within were already commonplace. A perfect example of this is the work of Alonso de Santa María de Cartagena (1384–1456) — Defensorium unitatis christianae [In Defense of the Unity of Christendom] (1449–1450). Alonso de Cartagena had been baptized (at the age of five or six) by his father, Shlomo ha-Levi, former chief rabbi of Burgos, who became Pablo de Santa María (c. 1351–1435) following his conversion just before the anti-Semitic riots of 1391, he was elected bishop of Cartagena (1402) and then of Burgos (1415). The fact that his wife, who remained Jewish, was not a hindrance to his episcopal career, is interesting to say the least.
His son Cartagena, therefore, like many other conversos, studied law and canon law at the University of Salamanca, which opened up a prestigious career at the crossroads of the royal, civil and religious spheres. He was Apostolic Nuncio and Canon in Burgos. King Juan II made him his special envoy to the Council of Basel (1434 – 1439), during which he participated in the drafting of a decree on "the regenerative character of baptism without regard to race". (4). However, like other examples of conversos propaganda, Cartagena's arguments went beyond a simple call for "tolerance." According to him, "faith appears in all its splendor in the Israelite flesh," the Jews possess an "innate nobility," and it is up to the Spanish boorish to take their example from their complexion steeped in "exquisite urbanity." (14, 17)
Thus, in the writings of the first crypto-Jews, the Conversos stand out as superior to ordinary Christians, more apt to be entrusted with the responsibilities (and the status that goes with it), far from deserving the opprobrium and hostility to which they are subjected, they are the only ones without blemish, innocent and gentle as lambs. One is struck by the similarity with the arguments we know today, especially if we consider that for Cartagena, anti-Semitism is only due to the "malice of the envious". (20)
Against all this apologetic verbiage, Maryks demonstrates – intentionally or unintentionally – that the Jesuit Order in its early days was merely a transmission belt for the political and ideological influence of the conversos. Loyola was literally surrounded by them permanently, throughout his "reign". (55). It is for example to a son of a Portuguese Jew, Enrique Enríques, that we owe in 1591 the first Jesuit textbook of morals and theology, Theologiae moralis summa. (65) For Maryks, Loyola's confidence in aspirants of Jewish origin was boundless, he cites the case of the admission in 1551 of Giovanni Battista Eliano (Romano), grandson of the famous grammarian and poet Rabbi Elijah Levita (1468–1549). "He entered the Society at the age of 21, only three months after his baptism." (66)
With all the display Maryks makes of Loyola's benevolent laxity towards converso candidates and the invasion of the Order by crypto-Jews that this meant, it is strange that he does not further defend the idea that the founding of the Jesuits was the result of bargaining with the converso elite, preferring a theory based on a "trust" whose origin is not very well understood. This is unfortunately often the case with Jewish historiography, where the facts and conclusions of the same text are situated on opposite trajectories. In the same vein, his explanation that the Order was inundated with crypto-Jews because Loyola, before founding his Society, had a large number of contacts in the circles of merchants and religious conversos seems to be rather summary and beside the point.
Despite the carefully planned plans of Loyola and his cronies, just 32 years after its founding, the Society of Jesus was to be subjected to a slingshot blowing from the depths against this unilaterally crypto-Jewish elite. The features of this revolt make it a textbook case in the study of the reactive nature of anti-Semitism. Chapters two and three of the book, in which Maryks recounts how two rival ethnic groups fought for the future of the Order of Jesus, are a moment of pure bravery. It is to the Europeans' counter-attack strategy that we now turn our attention.
The response
"Being the children of this world, haughty, cunning, deceitful, selfish, etc., it is certain that they were as unsuitable as possible for religious life and that we could no longer stay together. If those of this blood are made superior [of the Order], they use almost all their power in external things: they promote very little mortification and sound virtues, they look like merchants, they seek the first places and like to be called rabbi; they are not eager to seek the perfection described in Parts 5 and 6 of the Constitutions; they easily let in unworthy people as long as they are of their blood."
Manuel Rodrigues, Jesuit Curia of Rome.
The grievances of the ethnic Spaniards of the Society of Jesus against the crypto-Jewish elite are remarkably uniform. What predominates in their preoccupations is the tendency of the Jews to monopolization of power, to nepotism, to arrogance, to unbridled ambition, and to that air of casualness in the practice of Christianity. The irony in the eyes of the plaintiffs was that the Spanish branch of the order was becoming a sounding board for Jewish influence, which thus extended to touch the holy of holies in the heart of Rome.
The quotation from Manuel Rodrigues in the epigraph takes up all of these themes, some of which have received ample empirical confirmation. Already, the body of research assembled by Maryks and presented in the first part alone would be sufficient to support the accusation that crypto-Jews "easily let in people of their blood." There is also Benedetto Palmio, an Italian secretary to two European superiors general of the Order (Francisco de Borja and Everard Mercurian), who complains of "the proliferation and insolence of Spanish neophytes" which he considers "pestilential" (133). Driving the point home, he adds, "Wherever you come across a new Christian, it is impossible to have peace... those who are sent to Rome are almost all neophytes and it is practically only this kind of person who is admitted to Spain." (133) Thus Philip II of Spain around 1570 came to speak of the Jesuits as a "true synagogue". (133)
The crypto-Jewish authority was judged particularly despotic by Palmio, in Rome, he said, "they did not behave as brothers but as masters"(135). In line with their eternal ethnic solidarity, there were strong disparities in promotions to high office, according to Palmio "the neophytes wanted to dominate everywhere and that is why the Order was constantly crossed by a storm of discord and acrimony". (138). The conversos were "devoured by ambition, insolent, pretentious, despotic, deceitful, greedy for power, they permanently wore the infamous mask of Janus". (142) Lorenzo Maggio, an Italian in the Jesuit Curia in Rome, complained that "the circumcision brothers had perverted the whole edifice of the Society [of Jesus]." (117)
Unaware of the reality of the origins of the Order of Jesus – from the outset infested with Jews seeking political influence – many Europeans seem to have perceived the Society of Jesus as an authentic religious movement, which started from a pious feeling but which had been gradually corrupted by the infiltration of power-hungry crypto-Jews. It is important to understand that such a perception was not unique to the Society of Jesus. At about the same time that unrest was developing within the Order, Bishop Diego de Simancas de Zamora urged his parishioners to beware of the machinations of the conversos and to combat their maneuvers "designed to deceive the Pope and his ministers." (31). He concluded, like Rodrigues, Palmio, and Hoffaeus, that the conversos were willingly "ambitious, conspiratorial, and power-hungry," as evidenced by the fact that "they had monopolized all the important positions of the Church of Toledo." (34–5)
To combat the nepotism of the crypto-Jews and their unfailing ethnic solidarity, the European Jesuits – it is fascinating to observe – have resorted to completely symmetrical strategies. Here again, the pattern that emerges from the reactive nature of anti-Semitism can be seen in the context of the analyses of Kevin MacDonald's Separation and Its Discontents, in particular the key chapter in which he sees National Socialism as a mirror strategy. In this case, in the early days of their revolt movement, the European Jesuits did nothing else than create their own underground networks, also animated by the same desire for racial eviction in favor of their own ethnicity.
The curtain rose on the scene of the confrontation in 1572, at the death of the third superior general, Francisco de Borja. Until that date, Europeans had suffered in silence from the philosemitic leadership of Loyola and then the rampant nepotism of the converso Diego Laínez. Borja himself was renowned for his protection of conversos as tensions were escalating (115). Borja's death triggered an open crisis, as his succession appeared to be played out in advance by the crypto-Jewish elite in favor of the converso Juan Alphonse de Polanco (xxv). Polanco had already been appointed secretary of the Society by Loyola in 1547 before becoming dean of the general curia in Rome. Accustomed to the games of influence, "the most eminent figure of the Society of Jesus", his selection should have been only a formality. But as Maryks explains, at that time "a strong anti-converso current [mainly composed of Jesuit representatives outside Spain.] had gained a foothold in the Society". (xxv)
Despite a significant presence of pro converso in the General Congregation [= the highest legislative body of the Society of Jesus, it is composed of delegates at the head of the various provinces and elected local representatives], an Italian-Portuguese bloc was gaining ground within the assembly and proved to be skilled enough to counter Polanco's election and defeat his party of conversos. (120)
In addition to the formation of a bloc on an ethnic principle, the response strategy was again inspired by crypto-Jewish tactics by appealing to the top, to the Pope. The Portuguese delegation led by Leão Henriques "carried in great secrecy to Rome a letter dated January 22, 1573 from Henriques' penitent, Cardinal Infante Henry of Portugal (1512–1580), which addressed Pope Gregory XIII. In this letter, the Grand Inquisitor of Portugal and future king (1578-1580) asked that neither a converso nor a pro converso be elected Superior General of the Society of Jesus, the letter further warned that if nothing was done against the converso peril, the Society would run to its doom." (121)
Gregory XIII was quick to reveal his support for a non-Spanish alternative to Polanco, who, in turn, indicated that he agreed to resign but refused to ban other "Spanish" candidates from running in this election. At the opening of the congregation, Gregory XIII inquired about the procedures, the number of Spaniards among the voters, and the national origin of the previous superiors general. The pope "pointed out that someone had to be taken out of the Spanish delegation," and, despite Polanco's protests against limiting the voters' freedom of conscience, he specifically suggested the name of the Walloon Everard Mercurian, and then took leave of the congregation with a blessing. (122) As a result, "even though it was the converso Antonio Possevino who had the honor of delivering the opening address, this speech fell flat, Cardinal Gallio of Como arriving and blandly informing the congregation that he was there to represent the Pope's will to prevent the election of a Spanish candidate." (122) The next day, the assembly chose to be its next Superior General, on the first ballot and by a majority of 27 votes, Everard Mercurian.
As soon as he took office, Mercurian proceeded, in his own words, "to clean the house". He distanced from Rome (and no doubt from Italy or even Europe) a number of converso Jesuits." (123) Polanco, after almost 30 years at the top of power, "found himself sent to Sicily, a measure considered too severe even by his main enemy, Benedetto Palmio". (123)
But this cleansing did not happen without final telluric replicas, notably on the Spanish plaque of the Society of Jesus, where a new movement was born: the memorialistas or memorialists. The group takes its name from "memory" in the masculine form, a term that at the time referred to a literary genre in which a statement of facts is followed by a petition addressed to the royal or religious authority. The memorialistas made a name for themselves by sending "secret memoirs to the Court of Spain, the Inquisition and the Holy See to demand the reform of the Jesuit Order and in particular that autonomy be granted to the Spanish provinces". (125–6) These memoirs were intended to be very subversive, seeking to provoke the split of the Society and allow the conversos to recover their power base in Spain.
But this was basically just a rearguard action of the crypto-Jewish elite. Driven out of Rome and held in distrust by the Portuguese, the aim was for the conversos to limit the damage by attempting to preserve their power in Spain and prevent further assaults on their long-held positions. As Maryks says, "it must be recognized that most of them [memorialists] had a converso origin." (125) The memorialists were clearly perceived by their contemporaries as a Jewish revenge movement, and Maryks found nothing wrong with it. One of their main leaders was Dionisio Vázquez, a converso, and Maryks remarked: "Vázquez's active role in the memorialistas can be considered a kind of revenge against Mercurian's discriminatory policy." (126) The very anti-converso Benedetto Palmio, for his part, "never doubted that the conversos were behind this revanchist movement". (128)
As the struggle dragged on, in 1581 another anti-converso was elected to succeed Mercurian, the Italian Claudio Acquaviva. Acquaviva appointed a number of prominent anti-converso to key positions in Rome (including Manuel Rodrigues, Lorenzo Maggio, and the Rhinelander Paul Hoffaeus), tasking them with extending Mercurian's measures beyond the Rome circle and targeting the entire Jesuit network. Maryks writes that the long-term work of Hoffaeus, Maggio, and Rodrigues "has indeed led to a gradual decrease in the number of entries into the Society of candidates of Jewish descent." (146)
But it is interesting to see how all these activities took place in a hushed way, in the secrecy of the backstage, the ethnic aspects of the struggle always being cleverly concealed, again like the strategies of the conversos when they sought to extend their influence. For example, in 1590 Acquaviva sent "confidential instructions" to the Spanish provinces ruled by European Jesuits – or "true Christians" – in which he insisted on the need for discretion:
As far as management positions are concerned, we must be careful not to entrust these people [the conversos] with key positions... As far as admissions are concerned, on the other hand, it is not a question of provoking the bitterness of many in the Society and consequently avoiding an overly systematic prohibition of entry to people with this kind of defect. We need to be more tactful and discerning in admissions.... In any event, [genealogical investigations] must be done in discretion, and if someone is to be excluded, it would be good to provide some timely justifications so that it cannot be said with certainty that the person was refused because of his lineage. (147).
Faced with a muted internal hostility from the Spanish Jesuits, Acquaviva further hardened his position with a new decree a few years later saying that:
It turns out that those who are descended from recently Christianized parents are a permanent source of problems and difficulties of all kinds for Society (as our daily experience testifies)... The whole congregation hereby decrees that in no case can a person of this kind, that is to say, of Hebrew or Saracen stock, henceforth be admitted into the Society. And if by mistake such a person is admitted, he should be dismissed as soon as the breach is known, without waiting for the next profession, after having notified the Superior General and awaited his response. (149)
Maryks believes that it is at this point that "the season of origin hunting begins" and that "the systematic expulsion of people of Jewish descent from the Society of Jesus begins in earnest."
The Sources of Modern Jewish Apologetics
Marginalized with defeat consummated, the crypto-Jewish elite has had little other resource than to fall back on a long series of memoirs that in many ways are reminiscent of the modern propaganda distilled by their most prominent agencies such as the ADL. As I noted in a previous essay, we find, for example, the crude dialectical trick that consists in displacing the "otherness" of Jewishness in the host society on the nationalist movement that opposes them [ = anti-Semitism is not French]:
[…] Kevin MacDonald reminds us that "Jewish organizations in Germany during the period 1870-1914 [that of the anti-Semitismusstreit] argued that anti-Semitism was a threat to the whole of Germany because it was fundamentally non-Germanic. [1]At the time in Germany, anti-Semitism was denounced by Jews as being imported into France.
Conversely, Paula Hyman notes that faced with the rise of anti-Semitism in France at the same time [the Dreyfus affair], Jews were spreading the message that anti-Semitism had nothing French about it and that it was imported from Germany. [2]
Thorsten Wagner reports that the verse was also classic in Denmark: "a German import that can have no roots in the local tradition". [3]
But the string was already used by converso memorialists, take the case of Antonio Possevino, a high-ranking diplomat landed by Mercurian and exiled in Sweden: from the icy northern lands, he took up pen and page to say that it was figures like Benedetto Palmio who were really non-Christian – not to say frankly pagan. (164–5) Taking the chutzpah further, Possevino went so far as to attribute the internal dissensions of the Society of Jesus to "the inordinate ambition of the Portuguese Jesuits." (171–2) While he was well placed to know where he stood, he brazenly lied in his prose about the nature of the memorialists, insinuating that the movement was a "Portuguese conspiracy to undermine Jesuit unity." (171–2). Maryks sends Possevino back to the ropes, simply noting that the majority of memorialists were in fact "undeniably conversos." (172)
Finally, Possevino's apologetics prefigures modern propaganda in another aspect: the conviction that the Jews have a natural vocation to constitute the moral elite and to impose themselves on the rural masses considered contemptible. He attacks the "talentless envious of rural areas" (168) who sow discord against the conversos "who, by virtue and devotion, nevertheless represent the elite of the Society of Jesus". (172)
Translation Francis Goumain.
* * *
Maryks' book can also be downloaded for free.
Note Part I
[1] See Kevin Ingram, Secret lives, public lies: The conversos and socio-religious non-conformism in the Spanish Golden Age. Ph.D. Thesis (San Diego: University of California, 2006), pp. 87–8.
[2] Quoted in Maryks, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews, p.xx.
[3] W. Caferro, Contesting the Renaissance (Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p.158.
[4] M. Baigent & R. Leigh, The Inquisition (London: Viking Press, 1999), pp.75-6.
Note Part II
[1] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books, 2004), 232.
[2] A. Lindemann & R. Levy (eds.), Antisemitism: A History (Oxford University Press, 2010), 136.
[3] T. Wagner, 'Belated Heroism: The Danish Lutheran Church and the Jews, 1918-1945,' in K. Spicer (ed), Antisemitism, Christian Ambivalence, and the Holocaust (Indiana University Press, 2007), 7.
With raised arms, let us swear to be faithful, With raised arms, to our united Europe. Those who died for us on this earth Will live in us in heart, soul and spirit. We will punish the Jews and the Marxists, We will avenge our brothers killed by them, So that the National Socialist ideal May one day be proud and victorious. For us French, volunteers, For us French, in the shadow of the flag, We will defeat them, the elite will prevail over numbers, The noble race calls its heroes.
"So, remember, every picture tells a story, don't it..." — Rod Stewart
"So, remember, every picture tells a story, don't it..." — Rod Stewart
"So, remember, every picture tells a story, don't it..." — Rod Stewart
"So, remember, every picture tells a story, don't it..." — Rod Stewart
"So, remember, every picture tells a story, don't it..." — Rod Stewart
Robert Surcouf was a famous privateer from Saint-Malo who multiplied the seizures of English ships at the beginning of the nineteenth century, considerably hampering the English trade route. An English officer said to him one day: "You, Frenchmen, are fighting for money." And we English are fighting for honour." Surcouf replied that: "Everyone fights for what he lacks."
XYZ
Will France’s Tranny Granny start World War III?
By David Hiscox - March 26, 2024
Every normal person who sees this knows it is fake and gay.
Recently, Candace Owens potentially exposed just how fake and gay the marriage of French President Emmanuel Macron to “wife” “Brigitte” really is.
I am reposting the Candace Owens video on Brigitte Macron, since there are some indications that that is what actually got her booted from Daily Wire… https://t.co/Hk62DaAsaN pic.twitter.com/O89Rz6wcw6
— Quidnam (@Quidnam) March 22, 2024
Here are the dot points:
“Brigitte” was born Jean-Michel and “transitioned” at age 30 to “become” female.
Photos released attempting to “debunk” the “conspiracy theory” always turn out to be of other people.
No photos have been released of Brigitte from the first 30 years of her life.
Nobody can find any trace of her “brother” or former “husband”.
“Brigitte” is a dead ringer of said “brother”.
Mainstream French journalists have been sued by the “first lady” and fined, and threatened by police for investigating the story.
Intriguingly, Owens just lost her job.
It could all be nonsense, and honestly, I don’t really care. Similarly you, dear reader may ask “Why does this matter?”
This has blackmail written all over it. We know courtesy of extensive research by Whitney Webb that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent who blackmailed Western politicians on behalf of his home country. The Epstein spy ring was just the latest in a long line of blackmail operations, and as Owens has also exposed, blackmail dominates the music industry too.
Blackmail is the decisive factor regarding who is chosen to rule in “democratic” countries. It is why politicians always promise to do things the electorate actually wants when they’re on the election trail, then they implement the policies of their masters once they get in.
The sexually perverted are the easiest to blackmail, hence why political leaders behave like sexual perverts in public.
This is where the Macrons fit in. Even if the tranny story is complete nonsense they are eminently blackmailable given Emmanuel’s age when they first met. The Rothschild banker has overseen Covid Tyranny and the continued multicultural dismantling of the French nation. If “Brigitte” is a man it brings the blackmail to a whole new level. Drama teacher “Brigitte” did not fall in love with a youthful Emmanuel Macron in a Mrs. Robinson-style affair. Instead, the pervert Jean-Michel groomed Emmanuel.
Still, one may say “How does this matter? I just want to be left alone.”
This matters because World War III will not leave you alone:
Several days ago international media reported that France could send 20,000 troops to the Ukraine within a month. It is now being reported that French, German and Polish troops (regular army, not mercenaries) are already in the Ukrainian theatre.
The Russian government is indicating it is preparing to escalate actions directly against NATO members in response, including conducting nuclear tests, enforcing a no-fly zone over the Black Sea, conducting air patrols close to NATO’s border, and actual strikes against NATO military bases and supply centres.
It is worth heeding Dr. David Hilton’s warning regarding the potential of an EMP attack, and consider that a nuclear test would be the perfect pretext with which to carry out such an attack.
It could mean direct war between Russia and NATO, or they may find a way to just keep stringing it along. It may not mean nukes yet. Basically though, it’s on. Expect this, but in Western Europe.
BREAKING:
Russian cruise missile strikes largest dam plus energy facilities in Ukraine.
Over a MILLION people cut off from power in Ukraine.
The dam holds back almost 1 trillion gallons of water.
Ukraine’s largest dam hit but no danger of breach yet.
March 22, 2024… pic.twitter.com/OSWXFaavTM
— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) March 23, 2024
Even the YouTube algorithm is now selling not just perversion to the normies, but war between France and Russia as an added bonus.
This is why I have used the term “Tranny Granny” in the same headline as “World War III”. Look at the map of France and Russia:
France going to war with Russia makes as much sense as the still youthful President of France being married to a woman in her 70’s. Unless they are both blokes, they’re both perverts, and Macron is being blackmailed to carry out a foreign policy which directly contradicts France’s national interest.
Consider that twice in recent years, news emerged that leading elements within the French military were deeply dissatisfied with the demographic and security deterioration in France, with suggestions that a coup may be possible in order to avoid civil war. Now they’re supposed to be turning their guns on other White men several countries away?
France’s enemy is internal, not over 1000 miles away. It is an enemy deliberately imported by its own government.
Consider the bigger picture of why the Globohomo West is engaged in a direct strategic struggle against Russia and China, with a proxy war in Taiwan just as likely to erupt in coming years. It does not make sense, unless you understand that the people directing the foreign policy of White countries are not Whites, but dual citizen neocons who are deliberately replacing the people they rule over.
They don’t care if they replace Whites over the course of several decades via mass immigration and enforced multiculturalism, or if they feed us piecemeal into the Ukrainian meat-grinder. Either way, we’re gone.
That is the objective.
A huge body of work!
Incredible information, amazing!