PAGE - 13 THE JEWISH LED ALIEN INVASION I dedicate this work to Dr. Israel Shahak, a Jewish holocaust survivor and Israeli citizen who showed the moral and intellectual courage to challenge the Jewish Supremacism that endangers both Jews and Gentiles.

David Duke You can purchase a handy little copy of David Duke's original PDF book here - Just 3.26 Mb 368 pages - plus illustrations. At $15 it's an essential buy !!

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

The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to displacement and eventually to consignation on reservations. Similarly, relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the interests of the Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. It laid the foundation for the Zionist State.

Any tribe, race or nation desiring to preserve its culture, group interests and sovereignty must preserve its predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest civilizations, and every modern nation has sought strict control of its borders and immigration.

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

It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the majority’s wishes and began a policy that discriminated against potential European immigrants, and encouraged massive non- European immigration. From that time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce our immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood of non- White immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigration and higher non- White birthrates have transformed the American population from almost 90 percent European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. The U.S. Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, well within the lifetime of many reading these words, European Americans will be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most of America’s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. Policies similar to those enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain; North Africans and Asians into France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into Scandinavia, Spain, and Italy. As I grew racially aware, it was certainly obvious to me that the new immigration policies of the United States and Europe would greatly damage Western societies. Only a short time after the change in immigration policy, crime problems escalated in all the affected nations. The quality of education suffered and social welfare problems increased. As this planned racial transformation accelerates, these ills will reach catastrophic proportions.

What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The individual foreigners who could benefit from the economic opportunities afforded by the Western societies had little political or economic clout while outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America’s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter. By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive non-European immigration poised the greatest shortand long-term threat to the America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of 1965, unless repealed, would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I read pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change America’s immigration laws. I contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot, and who had already taught me a lot about the immigration issue.586 Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He explained the history of American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked me, “Whose interest could have been served in having America flooded with ‘wretched refuse’?” He quickly answered his own question. “It was in the perceived interest of a cohesive people who use racial solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want only for themselves. The efforts to change the American immigration law and ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by Jews.”

Smith explained that Emma Lazarus — like many other immigration activists — was a Jewish partisan who supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist state in Palestine, but who supported “diversity” for America.

He pointed out to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original connection with immigration and predated the Ellis Island immigration center. It was a gift from France to commemorate the American Revolution, not to honor the arrival of “wretched refuse” on America’s shores.

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

Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) the effort to liberalize American immigration and defeat restrictionist legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed legislation that simply attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, even though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population as well as in Congress, they did not attempt to increase their own percentage of the American population, but simply sought to fairly maintain each group’s status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates of open immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain America as an ethnically European, Christian nation. In the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler led the fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in later years Jacob Javits coordinated the effort. In the early struggles, Representative Leavitt clearly outlined the Jewish involvement in remarks before Congress. The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned. . . . No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. ( Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.) 587

Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel Zangwill as suggesting that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes about the Jewish influence. Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission’s bill. . . . The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. 588 In 1924 Congressman Knud Wefald pointed out the Communist ties of many of the Jewish immigrants and stated that many Jews “have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals.” The leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals . . . who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us.

Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories [and] they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. ( Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 589

The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo of America was the Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and Lehman. Every major Jewish organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose it, including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional debate, Francis Walter noted that the only civic organization that opposed the entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler noted that Walter “should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bills.” (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.) 590 When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, he emphasized that in supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he represented “the entire body of religious and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.”591 It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John Rankin during the debate. Today such truthful comments by any elected official would bring a torrent of abuse that few could withstand.

They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation. . . . I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South. . . . Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here. ( Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.) 592 Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s came to fruition when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in immigration becoming 90 percent non- European. America went from an immigration program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the United States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier legislation, Jewish representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish lobbying organizations led the assault. It succeeded because during the 41 years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually all spheres of American life.

In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called “Let’s Open Our Gates.”593 that called for massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of the bill in 1965. Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish Congress initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised President Eisenhower for his “unequivocal opposition to the national quota system.” In a 1956 editorial they praised him for “courageously taking a stand in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.”594 Jewish Motivation Behind Open Immigration It would have been stupid and counterproductive for the Jewish organizations that pushed for open borders to admit that they were motivated by interests that conflicted with those of non-Jewish Europeans. They promoted open immigration as “patriotic.” From the early days of the century, they made public pronouncements that multiculturalism and diversity would be beneficial to the United States, cleverly masking their strategic motivations. After the passage of the open immigration statutes of 1965, Jewish authors such as Naomi W. Cohen felt much safer in revealing some of the real Jewish reasons for promoting such policies. She wrote that, beginning with the persecutions in Russia in the 1880s through the Nazi occupation of Europe and into the Cold War tribulations in Eastern Europe, open immigration in Western nations served Jewish interests because “survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands.”595 Cohen also wrote that a U.S. internationalist foreign policy serves Jewish interests because “an internationally minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries”596 Perhaps even more important, Cohen intimated that Jews saw open immigration policies as breaking down the homogeneity and unity of America, creating a pluralistic society in which Jews could thrive.

In his monumental book A History of Jews in America, Howard Sachar notes that pluralism supports “legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society.”597 So, in effect, by breaking down the integrity and cohesion of America, Jews could increase their integrity and cohesion. Sachar goes on to explicitly show how pluralism intensifies Jewish solidarity: But Kallen’s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived Anti-Semitism, through the shock of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the post-World War II years swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist fervor of its own. 598 Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations and that “ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. . .and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.” 599 600

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman writes that American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social issues.” 601 John Higham, in his book Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, states in clear terms that Jewish-sponsored changes in immigration law were a defeat of the political and cultural representation of “the common people of the South and West.”602 During the decades leading up to opening the borders in 1965, Jewish groups had piously stated that there should be no discrimination against any group in immigration and that such could only be good for America. But, Richard Arens, staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters of open immigration, hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed unfavorable to their own interests. One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is “discriminatory” and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel. 603 Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, they also oppose their coming to the United States. Do they see the displaced Palestinians as potential political opponents?

Jewish groups clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but not those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their dedication to multiculturalism is purely a strategic one, they want groups coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and destroy its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the demographic invasion and dissolution of America. While the Jewish media demonize as “racists” those who oppose the flood of non-White immigration into America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel’s immigration policy that excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in refugee camps that are little more than concentration camps of want and squalor.

A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, the Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state when it is not Zionist enough for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural heritage: They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more pluralist society by adopting a formula for citizenship based on residence than blood ties. Equally distressing is Bonn’s failure to revise an outdated naturalization law rooted in ethnicity. Under the existing system, a Turkish guest worker who has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German fluently is denied the citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove German ancestry. 604

Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, is Israeli immigration law so different? Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal’s open immigration advocacy. Only Israel’s immigration policy — the most draconian of all — is immune from criticism. In America, Rosenthal identifies himself as the offspring of an illegal immigrant (his father) and even lauds the immigration of Haitians, many of whom are drug users and HIV-positive. Almost always now, when I read about Haitians who risk the seas to get to this country but wind up behind barbed wire, I think of an illegal immigrant I happen to know myself, and of his daughters and his son [himself]. . . .

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

If that were a qualification for entry into our Golden land, the Haitians should be welcomed with song, embrace and memories.605 As a chronic reader of The New York Times, I have yet to read a Rosenthal editorial calling for the acceptance into Israel of the million or more Palestinians who are forced by Israel to live in the dire poverty of the refugee camps. Nor has Rosenthal ever called upon Jews to welcome Palestinian refugees into Israel with “song and embrace.” Rosenthal is not stupid, but he is profoundly hypocritical. He knows that making full citizens of all the Palestinians currently in Israel and all those in refugee camps outside its borders would quickly sweep away the Zionist political state in the same way that non-European immigration erodes the America of our forefathers.

On the other side of the coin, Rosenthal knows that Israel could not have been created but for their emigration-invasion of Palestine. Looking at the historical record, should Palestinians have welcomed the Jewish immigrants with song and embrace? Rosenthal has no more regard for traditional Americans anymore than he has for the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is now called Israel. He has only one overwhelming concern, Jewish welfare. Rosenthal is proud of what he and many other Jews are: aliens as much as the wetbacks with whom he identifies. He lives here, partaking of all the advantages of American citizenship, but he will not — and cannot — become a real American who places the interests of America above those of the Zionist agenda. As the Jews become more brazen in their exercise of power, some now boast of their role in dispossessing the European-Gentile American. Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti- Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and writer for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote:

It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes. 606 Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once that has happened, he looks forward to “constitutional constraints” (restriction of freedom of speech?): The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. 607 As Raab says, Zionist Jewish activists who have supported an exclusively Jewish-run national state have been nourishing massive nontraditional immigration into America , and they look forward to the time when the voting demographics of the United States reflect that transformation.

I wonder if Zionist Israel Zangwill — who coined the term “melting pot” — envisioned his Jewish state as a melting pot of Jew and Arab; of Islam and Judaism? Given the ethnocentrism of Zionism, I rather doubt it. One American cartoonist wrote that the problem with a melting pot is that “The bottom always gets burned, and the scum rises to the top.” It is true that America has seen a melting of the different nationalities of Europe into a traditional American majority, but in spite of the pervasive race-mixing propaganda of the Jewish media, there has been no great melting of the White and Black, and only marginal melting of the Mestizo and Anglo elements. However, what these Zionists have not yet been able to accomplish through their advocacy of miscegenation, they are in the process of achieving through massive immigration and differential birthrates. Jews have also promoted, through “zero-population” advocates such as Paul Ehrlich, smaller families among the natural leaders of the American majority. Jewish promotion of the women’s liberation movement and abortion on demand has lowered the birthrate of America’s most productive and educated classes. Their blunt desire is the dissolution of the European race in the West by any means necessary. Continued massive non-European immigration satisfies these aims.

In summary, massive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective weapons of organized Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European American. We cannot win this life and death struggle until our people realize that we are in the midst of a war — and our side is suffering great losses. To lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and freedoms. It would mean nothing less than the destruction of the very genes that have made possible all the social, cultural and spiritual creations that distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in the hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide of our people. The time is late. We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of our children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we must fight for our right to live. America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Jewish Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment media, they control our elections and politicians, and now they are orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of Palestine have suffered that fate. They seek to make our country into a tower of Babel in which they will occupy the penthouse suites.