If my introduction to the topic of Jews and immigration policy had been through a march that looked like the angry villagers in Beauty and the Beast ready to bust their way in to the Beast’s castle yelling “Jews will not replace us,” I never would have ended up where I am today.
When I first heard the media report that the marchers in Charlottesville were yelling “Jews will not replace us!” I thought this was a deliberate media distortion of the real slogan I knew they had used, “You will not replace us.” In a discussion I ended up involved in with several normies, I was successfully redpilling all of them at once by simply elaborating on the meaning of the slogan, “You will not replace us.” I concluded that the media was probably distorting the choice of words precisely because they didn’t want to focus on explaining to the general public that the marchers were there to defend something that many of them would already agree with.
As far as optics with the potential to reach normies goes, I thought this slogan was perfect. At a subconscious level, whenever we see people from groups we don’t belong to marching angrily, part of our brain will automatically interpret them as outside, potentially hostile threats. On some level, when people see angry marchers, they intuitively assume that the marchers are marching against them. And this usually doesn’t help with starting the ensuing dialogue off on the best foot.
But the slogan “You will not replace us” I thought would significantly help to offset this effect by making it clear that we frame ourselves as standing on the defensive against an outside assault which others have initiated against us.
A study published in 2014 showed in no uncertain terms that when you remind white people that current demographic trends set them on the path to become minorities in the only white–majority nations on Earth, they develop stronger preferences for “interactions/settings with their own ethnic group” over others, and develop more “pro-White” bias.
Deep down, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people know that racism and racial conflict are not going to end by simply getting rid of white people. In fact, the available evidence overwhelmingly suggests that with increases in racial diversity, racial conflict only increases. And I think most normal people understand this intuitively, even if they won’t feel free to admit it to themselves until they see the science. When white people become aware of the effect explained in that study within themselves, they realize that this is a natural instinct, and they can reason well enough to figure out that they aren’t going to be the only ones with natural instincts. But a nation divided into groups that are all naturally biased towards themselves and — all else equal — mostly tend to prefer interacting with their own, simply isn’t made stronger by any of this.
They might be surprised to learn, however, that “anti-racist educators” really do in fact celebrate the demographic demise of white people as a solution to America’s problems with race. Here’s Tim Wise, for instance:
You’re like the bad guy in every horror movie ever made, who gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass — even if it takes four sequels to make it happen — but who in the meantime keeps coming back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were finally dead this time.
… Michael Meyers, Freddie Kreuger, Jason, and that asshole husband in that movie with Julia Roberts who tracks her down after she runs away and changes her identity–they are all done. Even that crazy fucker in Saw is about to be finished off for good. Granted, he’s gonna be popping out in some 3-D shit to scare the kiddies, so he isn’t going quietly. But he’s going, as all bad guys eventually do.
And in the pantheon of American history, old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys …
[But] you’re on the endangered list.
And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.
… So to hell with you and all who revere you.
[In forty years or so], half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Tim Wise makes a point to note in a preface added after the fact that this essay is “aimed at the white right, not all white people.” But he doesn’t say in the essay that conservatives will be replaced by liberals. He doesn’t even say conservative whites will be replaced by black and brown liberals (much less can anyone imagine the writer of these paragraphs stating that white conservatives will be replaced by black and brown and white liberals with just as much hateful glee). He says in very clear terms: “old white people” will be replaced by people who are “black or brown.” And then he celebrates the fact that anyone who can remember The Andy Griffith Show will be dead soon, while telling all of those people to go “to hell.”
Let me remind you that Tim Wise has “spoken to over 300,000 people in 48 states, and on over 400 college campuses, including Harvard, Stanford, and the Law Schools at Yale, Columbia, and Vanderbilt. He has trained teachers as well as corporate, government, media, entertainment, military and law enforcement officials on methods for dismantling racism in their institutions, and has served as a consultant for plaintiff’s attorneys in federal discrimination cases in New York and Washington State. Named one of “25 Visionaries Who are Changing Your World” by Utne Reader, Wise has contributed chapters or essays to over 25 additional books and his writings are taught in colleges and universities across the nation.”
If this is your first introduction to any intelligent discussion of Jews and immigration, you’re free to chalk this up to coincidence for now—but I would like to note that, as it so happens, Tim Wise is also part-Jewish.
We could have shown up at Charlottesville prepared to make our case by showing the public words like Tim Wise’s. We could have shown up at Charlottesville ready to show the public Virginia Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy’s tweets—which were one of the reasons we actually chose this particular location to protest.
But I haven’t spoken to one ordinary person since Charlottesville who even knew about any of these tweets. And they were a key part of the reason we were there! Had we simply shown the public who our opponents are in their own words, we could have generated the same outrage we came to Charlottesville feeling across the general public as a whole, spontaneously. Instead, as I see it, we not only squandered that opportunity, we gave them ammunition with which to do that to us instead.
Meanwhile, my successful red-pilling of that whole crowd of normies was cut short when someone shared video making it clear that the marchers were in fact yelling “Jews will not replace us.” I looked like an idiot for not being aware that this was in fact the slogan they used—as my whole argument had opened with an insistent denial of it—and I was no longer in any position to try to resuscitate my argument. But just a few moments prior, my arguments were successfully pulling perfectly ordinary people our way, even through the one-sided media focus and slander. The marchers now looked crazy, and I looked misinformed, and there was nothing I could do to salvage my side of the conversation.
Had I been able to continue explaining to them why “You will not replace us” was the slogan the marchers had chosen, and getting them on board with the underlying message behind that choice of terms, I could have later explained more carefully the role Jews have tended to play in American immigration policy. And they wouldn’t have been scared away. This would have been easy.
Why is screaming “Jews will not replace us” a poor way to introduce normies to the topic of Jews and immigration?
First of all, it implies on the face of it that we think all Jews support open borders. Second of all, it implies on the face of it that we think only Jews support open borders—what, would we be fine with someone else replacing us, then? To make it plain and simple: normies know that neither of these things are true. So in the mind of the average listener, it sounds like a conspiracy theory, and it ends up interpreted as one.
To add to the point: Paul Gottfried, a paleoconservative who was friends with Pat Buchanan, is considered the “godfather” of the modern Alt Right—he actually put the first documented use of the word in print in 2008. Jewish anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Murray Rothbard adopted the Hoppean view of immigration and came to oppose the ideology of open borders near the end of his life. Joshua Seidel is one Jewish Trump supporter who is often classified as a member of the Alt Right today. Then there’s Reactionary Jew, Jefferson Schwartz, and others writing at The Jewish Alternative. And there have certainly been plenty of Jews interested in human biodiversity, from JewAmongYou (who I met at AmRen this year) today to crucial founders like Arthur Jensen (who was of partial Jewish ancestry), co–author of The Bell Curve Richard Herrnstein, and Steven Pinker (here he is discussing genes and the Jewish IQ).
To be perfectly clear, I know that most of the people chanting this slogan were probably better informed than they appeared to be to those who only saw them for the first time marching in Charlottesville. Even the very people who chanted this simplified slogan probably do not actually hold the black-and-white view of the situation it implies. But the purpose of chanting should hopefully be to communicate, and this slogan simply didn’t communicate to the public successfully.
So here are the basic facts that normies need to know:
All the way up until 1965, we had laws in this country that didn’t just say that if the American population is 67% white and 13% black, immigration has to be set to levels that maintain these percentages. These laws actually went so far as to say that if 8% of the population was from Germany, then 8% of immigrants in the upcoming year could come from Germany. And if 9% of the population was Italian, then 9% of immigrants in the upcoming year could come from Italy. Until only very recently in American history, it was seen as being perfectly morally legitimate to try to maintain a stable ethnic and cultural character across the nation, and even across generations.
As one can read in this report from NPR (in which a professor who just so happens to be Jewish insists that these changes were an undeniably good thing), these laws bears greater responsibility for the changes in the ethnic composition of the United States than any other single policy change or event.
So how did it happen?
The Jewish Virtual Library credits the Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, New York, Emanuel Celler, as the principal actor in the story.
Going back to the signing of the original restrictionist laws in 1924, “The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee’s Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 1906-1917,” by Judith Goldstein quotes the secretary of the American Jewish Committee, Herbert Friedenwald, as noting that it was “very difficult to get any people except the Jews stirred up in this fight.”
At the time, the Director of the National Liberal Immigration League was Nissim Behar—a Jewish Zionist. Representatives opposing the restrictionist laws even then included Adolph J. Sabath, Mayer Jacobstein, Samuel Dickstein, Nathan Perlman, and Emanuel Celler himself.
Emanuel Celler thus led the fight against these immigration limitation laws for almost the entire duration of their existence. Among the supporters by the time the 1965 changes rolled around was Jewish Republican Jacob Javits, who in 1951 wrote an article titled “Let’s Open the Gates,” and in 1961 proposed his own law to abolish the national origin limitations.
Alison Weir, at the leftist Counter-Punch, quotes Elmer Berger’s Memoirs of an Anti-Zionist Jew to detail Celler and Javits’ fanatical Zionism:
When it was unclear that President Harry Truman would support Zionism, Cellar [sic] and a committee of Zionists told him that they had persuaded Dewey to support the Zionist policy and demanded that Truman also take this stand. Cellar [sic] reportedly pounded on Truman‘s table and said that if Truman did not do so, “We’ll run you out of town.” When he and a colleague opposed a Zionist resolution in Congress, Emanuel Celler, a New York Democrat who was to serve in Congress for almost 50 years, told them: “They ought to take you b…s out and shoot you.” Jacob Javits, another well-known senator, this time Republican, told a Zionist women’s group: “We’ll fight to death and make a Jewish State in Palestine if it’s the last thing that we do.”
From the very beginning, it was true that the very same Jewish activists pushing to eliminate American laws to limit immigration were simultaneously pushing to create a Jewish state.
So, while one might want to think that the skew among Jews towards favoring open border immigration policies is a matter of sincere moral conviction, the problem with making this assumption is that most commonly, the very same Jewish activists who support open borders in the United States and other white-majority nations oppose them in Israel—a state which is explicitly defined on racial lines as an ethnically Jewish country.
As a matter of official state policy, individuals with Jewish ancestry will be paid to immigrate to Israel from anywhere in the world. Yet, the black Ethiopian Jews have repeatedly been denied inclusion in these policies and even threatened with deportation.
Meanwhile, Israeli politicians openly refer even to Israel’s naturalized Arab citizens as a “demographic problem”—and to the idea of major parts of Israel losing Jewish majorities as “a palpable threat.” The mayor of Jerusalem can openly say that it is “a matter of concern when the non-Jewish population rises a lot faster than the Jewish population.”
Characteristic of the Jewish mentality on these issues is this statement from Charles Silberman in his 1985 A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today:
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.”
The hypocrisy suddenly makes perfect sense as soon as one realizes that in countries where they form demographic minorities, Jews are safest promoting minority rights; yet in Israel, where Jews form the majority, Jews are often safest when “minority rights” are squashed. It’s hard to see what other explanation could possibly account for the blatant hypocrisy. In fact, if anything, the double standard is no longer even “hypocritical” once it is seen not as a moral imperative, but for what it actually is: a simple expression of self-interest.
For the full story of the Jewish role in the history of American immigration laws, no source is as prolific as Kevin MacDonald— who earned a PhD in 1981 in Biobehavioral Sciences from the University of Connecticut, where he studied under Professor Benson E. Ginsburg, a founder and leader of modern behavior genetics. The Culture of Critique series is mandatory reading—however, his 1998 “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review” cuts straight to the heart of this story with an account that includes 93 academic references across its 62 pages.
This is the version of the Alt Right that people need to see.
We could have shown up to Charlottesville prepared with printed copies of Kevin MacDonald’s scholarship to hand out. While the media would have kvetched in that case every bit as much as they have, at least a discussion of Kevin MacDonald’s scholarship would have been forced to the public’s attention—and no matter how negative the media coverage was, normal people would see how reasonable his work actually is, and many would come to the conclusion that the media was obviously being absurd all on their own. A mass of people screaming “Jews will not replace us!” achieved none of that—and for many, will only make any real discussion of the role Jewish activists have played in eliminating laws establishing reasonable limitations on immigration in the United States more difficult.
Academic discussion of real issues with polished presentation is what truly scares the media. While some our followers may find it disappointing that something like the American Rennaisance conference gets so much less public attention than what happened in Charlottesville, my take is that this is because the media doesn’t want to put as much of a spotlight on American Rennaisance precisely because it is so difficult to spin negatively when it intrinsically shows us in such a positive light. I was there. I watched the mainstream journalists who were present as they did their jobs. When they wrote that it was “not clear if fear or anger was the dominant emotion of the conference,” it was obvious that this wasn’t a sincere attempt to describe what they witnessed, but only a desperate reach to spin things in whatever negative light they possibly could.
Screaming at people doesn’t come off as being any more ‘alpha’ than would being proud of the wit behind the insults you sent your ex (if you’d really moved on, why would you waste time messaging her in the first place?). It goes for a political movement like ours just as much as it does for relationships that “Living well is the best revenge.” Events like American Rennaisance show us “living well.” Demonstrating impotent rage in the streets, where it is by definition impotent, and where the very nature of the situation implies that we’ll be upset until someone else changes things, doesn’t.
I speak from experience: if you keep in mind where normal peoples’ heads are at, and you keep in mind that they haven’t spent years following the media that you have, and you stay in touch with what it took to break through your barriers in the beginning, and you don’t lose touch with your memory of the times when it took a degree of courage just to commit to reading something potentially offensive on the Internet even for you, you really can succeed at reaching them. Pessimism on this point is just unnecessary self-defeatism. And I believe at least some of the rage that was demonstrated in Charlottesville involved caving in to that pessimism. Giving up on maximizing our reach towards normal people in exchange for increasing our appeal to isolated outcasts is not a viable path to long-term success—and wouldn’t be a viable path to building a successful replacement to the current order even if it was.
And this study from the European Journal of Social Psychology confirms something I’ve suspected for a long time. In the words of the abstract:
Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by examining individuals’ perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants’ willingness to afﬁliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change.
In other words, how receptive normal people are to your message will be largely determined by who they think you are. If they don’t want to be like you, then they not only won’t be persuaded by whatever message you try to give them, they actually will actively want to dissociate themselves from that message simply because they don’t want to be more like you, and agreeing with your message would to that extent make them more like you.
In closing, I’d like to suggest an idea I saw discussed somewhere that I hope gains a lot more traction: if we do something like this again, we need to go through the appropriate channels to obtain permits and prepare to speak in a location which we advertise clearly and openly well in advance—and then show up somewhere else entirely. If done correctly, this guarantees that we actually get the chance to speak. Antifa and Black Lives Matter and all the other counter-protesters will reliably make a local menace of themselves. Thanks to the maneuver itself, we would look smart. They would look stupid. This alone would make for vibrant headlines for reporters. As the local city was forced to deal with the counter-protest groups or shove them out, the optics would show clear and unequivocally that we’re the ones here to seriously discuss ideas, while they’re the ones out to create havoc. The police and local government would never even get the chance to corral us together with antifa to produce inevitable violence and then pin the blame on us, as they did in Charlottesville.
This, in my view, is how we need to start thinking if we want to move forward from this event instead of letting it define us.
1. A footnote in the original work continues:
“A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale’s economic policies voted for him nonetheless. ‘I watched the conventions on television,’ he explained, ‘and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.’ That same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him; ‘I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican convention’ a well-known author told me.”
2. To be exact, they said that the total number of immigrants from a given nation had to be capped at 2% of the total number already living in the United States. So if the British population was, say, 1,000,000, then in any given year a maximum of 20,000 new British immigrants could enter the country.