Google
WWW CFIR Dallas

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Do Immigration Trends Doom Jews?

Do Immigration Trends Doom Jews?

Do Immigration Trends Doom Jews?
By Lawrence Auster and Stephen Steinlight
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2004


FrontPage Magazine is happy to address this debate on immigration policy and the attitudes of Jewish leaders toward this vital issue. Below, we reproduce Stephen M. Steinlight's essay from the Center for Immigration Studies, in which he argues that Jewish leaders are beginning, slowly, to change their traditional support for Open Borders. Lawrence Auster replies that modern Jewish leadership must move beyond outdated fears of now-extinguished Christian anti-Semitism to recognize the genuine threat of Islamist immigration. -- The Editors.

High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry
by Stephen M. Steinlight

Among the articles of faith in the waning culture of secular liberalism that has served as an ersatz religion for many mainstream American Jews, the most vulnerable tenet is belief in "generous legal immigration," the euphemism for open-borders immigration in the lexicon of American-Jewish public affairs agencies. This is not to accuse them of crude hypocrisy and double-talk so much as engaging in intellectual and moral trimming, self-deception, and denial. Having failed to persuade the National Immigration Forum, to which virtually all belong, to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, they chose the path of least resistance: they remained and went along with the charade, convincing themselves they could finesse this blurring of illusion and reality.

Promulgating self-deception isn’t merely bad ethics; it’s untenable as a matter of policy: it conflicts with the interests, security and values of American Jewry. Increasing numbers of American Jews from the leadership on down are embarrassed by this transparent sophistry. Survey research, plus mountains of anecdotal evidence, reveals a profound change in attitude among American Jews. Opinion polls in the three years following the attacks of September 11, 2001, show a plurality favoring lowered immigration, 70 percent the introduction of a secure national identity card, and 55 percent believing Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States. It may not require another domestic terrorist enormity for respondents to discern simple cause-and-effect relationships; more ambitious efforts to persuade might suffice.

My experience at the grassroots suggests Jews know little about the history of their own immigration, immigration policy, the scale of immigration, or the engines that drive it. Frequently, all that’s required to effect attitudinal change is apprising them. When I began my efforts, the Jewish media spoke of Jewish attitudes in favor of open-borders immigration as "monolithic;" now it’s commonplace to speak of "a raging debate." If this could be accomplished essentially by one person, what might a concerted, well-funded effort achieve? Opinion is volatile and up for grabs. Among the community’s organizational leadership, enthusiasm for this dangerous anachronism is a mile wide and an inch deep.

The collision between old allegiances and urgent new realities had begun among Jewish leadership, if sotto voce, before 9/11. That tremendum accelerated the process by revealing the connection between our anarchic immigration policy and the savage assault on the innocent lives and national security of the American people. In its wake, with the war against Islamic terror that began in earnest in Afghanistan broadening into one against genocidal expansionist Arab rogue-regimes with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, with major news stories concerning the prevalence of virulent anti-Semitism throughout the Muslim world (Mahathir Muhammad’s speech at the Islamic summit, which might have been ghost-written by Joseph Goebbels, left a searing impression, as have the crazed maunderings of Osama bin Laden about Jews and Crusaders) or its upsurge within the European Union, as well as media coverage of the "New Anti-Semitism," it has become difficult to remain simultaneously credible and in a state of denial. In choosing between a sentimental archaism and confronting existential horror, only those willing to be perceived as purblind or suicidal don’t eventually adjust to facts.

Thus, behind closed doors, Jewish leaders speak a different language. This is not entirely new with immigration, but the gulf is now a chasm. Privately they express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, "You’re 1,000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet." While they have yet to find the civic courage to break with the traditional consensus they can see the Rubicon glinting in the distance, and many recognize that eventually they will have to cross it.


Painful Changes. I’ve spoken about immigration with more grassroots Jews than any other person in America, and I know that change won’t come painlessly. At a meeting at one of New York City’s most prominent synagogues, board members clashed savagely over my remarks, with the president of the congregation, who called me a racist, being attacked by a senior board member as "the kind of Jew that sold out others to the Nazis." Segments of the leadership remain true believers in the dying faith of open immigration, and will not give up without a fight. But that change is inevitable is clear enough. The question, ultimately, is whether it will come too late to make a difference to the future of America and its Jewish community.

The prospect of breaking with the old consensus is so wrenching many are effectively paralyzed by it, but it must concentrate their minds wonderfully to know that upholding it endangers the viability of the community whose protection is their raison d’être. They recognize they risk a harsh rebuke by history as those responsible for "losing America" — just as their predecessors have been pilloried for their failure to do more to save European Jewry in the years leading up to and during the Holocaust. American-Jewish leadership is experiencing profound vertigo as it seeks to chart a course through circumstances that appear logical only to a schizophrenic.

On one hand, they’re leaders of a community that feels a sense of belonging unknown in the history of Diaspora Jewry. America’s Jews have attained success and acceptance beyond their forebear’s fondest dreams. They’re influential far beyond their miniscule percentage of the population. They wield significant political power and cultural influence. Nearly half the money spent in Democratic Party presidential primaries comes from Jewish contributors. In recent years, Jewish presence at the highest levels of government has become routine. A majority of Clinton’s cabinet members were Jews. Jewish advisors play key roles in the Bush administration’s national security, foreign and military affairs. Had Gore become President, an Orthodox Jew would have been a heartbeat away from the nation’s highest office. If John Kerry is elected the next President, he will be the country’s first chief executive with Jewish roots.

Among the best-known indices of its success, 10 percent of the U.S. Senate is Jewish, as is a majority of the presidents at Ivy League universities, and faculties and student bodies at elite colleges and universities are typically 30 to 40 percent Jewish. Jews form a high percentage within the learned professions and among writers, nationally syndicated journalists, and publishers of some of the nation’s leading newspapers and periodicals, and as creators and disseminators of high and popular culture. They play the predominant role in Hollywood, and thus shape much of our self-definition as Americans. Jews also hold key positions within many leading financial institutions, especially within investment banking and the brokerage industry.


Fading Anti-Semitism. The principal cause, as well as symptom of these successes, anti-Semitism has fallen to historic lows among white Christians, which still form America’s dominant cultural group. Once a significant factor in American life, anti-Semitism has become a peripheral phenomenon. A recent ADL study found only some 12 percent of white Christian Americans hold anti-Semitic attitudes. Indeed, a key factor contributing to the crisis in Jewish Continuity is that our neighbors like us and often wish to marry us and have children with us.

A risible indicator of how marginal anti-Semitism has become is how many candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination "discovered" their Jewish roots, or, if they weren’t lucky to have any, emphasized the fact that their wife and/or children are Jewish. In an earlier America, their forebears concealed their Judaism by changing their names or converting to Christianity; their descendants see an advantage in flaunting what their antecedents found prudent to hide.

Romanticized Image of Immigration. Historical consciousness and political acuity notwithstanding, American Jews, like everyone, believe in myths, which die slowly because they represent values and ideals not realities, and the myth of Jewish immigrant experience will atrophy only gradually. Of all the pieces of Americana that American Jews know by heart, among the most-cherished is that verse inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…"

Written by a Jewish schoolgirl poet inspired by the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia, for more than a century it’s expressed a highly romanticized image of immigration, one that became iconic and all-encompassing despite its irrelevance to much it purports to represent. This quote concerns refugees and asylum seekers and has scant application to immigrants per se. If American Jews are to get this issue right, they must disaggregate the two. Jewish immigrant experience more closely parallels that of refugees and asylum seekers than typical immigrants — then or now.

No group has exemplified, revered and clung to this idealized conception as much as the Jews who arrived in the Great Waves and their descendants. Given the horror that engulfed those that remained behind, including tens of thousands that might have been saved had the United States not closed its doors in 1924 and slammed them shut on Jews fleeing Nazism and the Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s, no group has appreciated the blessings of immigrating to America more than Jews. Against this backdrop they must confront one of the most anguishing questions they’ve had to face in the entirety of their history in the United States: whether to support a continuation of mass immigration that’s reached a historically unprecedented level or exercise their still-considerable political and economic clout to try to curtail it.

With approximately 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants entering annually — equivalent to the population of Philadelphia — the United States has the highest number of foreign-born residents ever. As a percentage of the population, these 33 million, strengthened continuously, will soon surpass a level not seen since the first decade of the 20th century. Within a few years they will constitute the largest percentage of foreign-born in U.S. history.

For Jews, the immigration debate pits the heart against the head. In their gut, many feel that substantially reducing immigration betrays the legacy of their parents and grandparents. But a growing number believes that maintaining this policy betrays their children and grandchildren. The danger arises because mass immigration means importing mass anti-Semitism. The upsurge of violent anti-Semitism in Western Europe tracks perfectly with mass immigration, especially of Muslims. Mass immigration is also the generator of Balkanizing notions of extreme multiculturalism. Having worked for nearly a century through communal organizations, the courts, and interfaith dialogue to achieve a tolerant and cohesive society largely free of anti-Semitism, it’s anguishing for American Jews to watch current immigration erase this outcome. However uncomfortable, American Jews must grapple with the issue: they have a greater stake than other Americans in how this policy plays out.


Not a Right/Left Contest. There’s a silk purse in this sow’s ear in terms of converting progressive American Jews to the cause of immigration reform. Recognizing that the battle is not a right/left contest salves their consciences as they pursue rational self-interest. Reminding audiences the strongest proponents of open-borders immigration are The Wall Street Journal and the Chamber of Commerce never hurts, nor does it require much to convince liberals the explanation is greed, the goal an unending supply of cheap labor, and that corporations are unconcerned about collateral political, cultural, or environmental downsides.

President Bush’s recent proposal for "immigration reform," a sham to amnesty between 10 to 14 million illegal aliens by turning them into members of a permanent legal underclass, a conception that is an affront to the deepest ideals of American political and social culture from the Founders on, will make it easier to persuade Jewish progressives to re-think this issue. Bush’s amnesty will also legalize the status of what is estimated to be some 300,000 individuals from countries on the terrorist watch list.

A recent ABC News poll reports that Americans aren’t buying the President’s scheme; 2-1, they see it, simply, as an attempt to drive down wages. It’s also being denounced by Americans of all political stripes for its violation of long-cherished American principles. If enacted, Bush’s scheme would transform the United States from what it is today — the best approximation the modern world has known of the democratic ideal represented by the Athens of Pericles — into Sparta, a hierarchical state with rigid social distinctions carried on the backs of a class of helots.


Demographic Handwriting on the Wall
Of the manifold concerns about immigration felt by all Americans and American Jews in particular, the way it fuels Muslim immigration is most worrying. The May 14, 2003, Globe & Mail announced that Muslims outnumber Jews in Canada, noting this demographic shift "could ultimately affect [Canada’s] position toward the protracted Middle East conflict."

Muslim ascendancy in Canada is a harbinger of things to come in America, with potentially enormous impact for both American Jewry and American foreign policy. According to the 1991 Canadian Census, there were 25 percent more Jews in Canada than Muslims. Within a single decade that demographic advantage was erased. According to the 2001 census, the Muslim population of Canada exceeded the Jewish population by 75 percent.

CNN and ABC News recently reported a doubling of the Arab population in the United States in just two decades. The number of Arabs alone (not Muslims in general) is already nearly 1.3 million. For virtually its entire history, Arab immigration was primarily Christian and lopsidedly Lebanese; now it’s virtually all Muslim, with the immigrants’ lands of origin mainly Egypt, the West Bank, and Yemen.

Muslim immigration has fundamentally altered demography, culture, and the political landscape of Western Europe. Its impact on Jewish life is disastrous, and it has turned European foreign policy on the Middle East from even-handedness to one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic. Symbolizing the transition was the EU’s failure to condemn the Nazi oration by the former Malaysian Prime Minister. Also shocking was the EU’s rejection of the report it commissioned from the German Technical University on the upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. It was labeled as "racist" because it identified by far the greatest numbers of perpetrators of anti-Semitic outrages as Muslim. In today’s Islamized Europe, Jews live under physical threat, something unknown since the rise of fascism. Nor is hostility to Israel confined to political leadership, media elites, or Muslims: a survey conducted by the European Commission, "Iraq and Peace in the World," revealed that more ordinary Europeans consider Israel a threat to world peace than any other country. Asked which countries posed a risk to world peace, Israel topped all others with 59 percent, ahead of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and even North Korea. (The United States was tied with North Korea at 53 percent.)


Following in Europe’s Footsteps. Large-scale immigration places the United States on the threshold of a similar shift. Some 5.3 million Jews live in the United States compared to approximately 4 million Muslims. The shift’s a certainty because the exponential growth of the Muslim population is paralleled by a sharp decline in the number of American Jews, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the population; further, there’s no reason to believe this will be reversed. Jewish fertility is flat; Jews are an aging population; nearly half intermarry, and efforts to promote "Jewish Continuity" have yielded zero results. The findings of the United Jewish Communities Population Study confirm these pessimistic assessments. Projecting 25 years ahead, Muslims won’t need to exaggerate their numbers (they frequently cite the spurious figure of seven million) to have major influence on American politics, and what America does matters enormously. The United States is not only the world’s sole superpower; it’s also Israel’s only ally. Without discounting the sincerity of many American Christians in their support for Israel, it would be naïve to believe politicians wouldn’t respond to an ever-growing Islamic voting bloc, one that will eventually far outnumber Jewish voters.

Whatever their shortcomings, American politicians can count votes and campaign contributions. As Muslim Americans become politically organized — they’re well on their way — politicians won’t ignore this growing segment of the electorate. Muslims naturalize and vote at higher than average percentages — 65 percent in the last Presidential race. Like Jews, they’re concentrated in states with high Electoral College votes.

Importing Anti-Semitism
As demography shifts, America’s Jews will experience a rising threat to their physical security. The violent anti-Semitism sweeping Europe is the work of young, poor, alienated Muslims. The great majority of synagogue burnings, desecrations of cemeteries, and assaults on Jews in religious attire are perpetrated by young Muslims indoctrinated to hate Jews by Islamist imams in the radical mosques that dominate European Islamic life. Virtually every major city in Western Europe has a central mosque, funded by the Saudis, that preaches extremist Wahabbi doctrine. These mosques, that have spawned the likes of Zacharias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, are recruiting centers and financial support networks for Muslim terrorist cells.

In the banlieues — the lawless slums that ring Paris and other French cities — Jews and Jewish institutions are repeatedly attacked by marauding gangs of Muslim hoodlums. CNN recently reported that violent attacks on Jews in Paris average 12 a day. Reminiscent of Germany, circa 1930, when Hitler’s Brown Shirts ruled the streets while a timid government and press kept silent, government and media in Western Europe turn a blind eye to Islamic anti-Semitic violence out of fear of their growing political power and reflexive political-correctness. Living amidst a Muslim population that outnumbers it 10 to one and a political establishment indifferent to anti-Semitism, beleaguered French Jews endure conditions not seen for more than half a century. Overt violence is rarer in Great Britain, but rioting second-generation South Asian youth shouting "death to the Jews" in the Midlands some 18 months ago may be a harbinger, and Britain hosts the most radical mosques in Europe; those tracking worldwide Islamism refer to the British capital as "Londonistan."


Rapid Transformation Likely. Drawing comparisons between countries is admittedly risky — the United States is not France, or Germany, or even Canada — but it would be foolhardy to ignore what’s happening abroad. Unless changes are made in U.S. immigration policy, a similar transformation will likely occur here. It will also happen much more quickly than most might imagine. Current U.S. immigration law ensures an exponential growth in the Islamic population. Having established a foothold over the past 30 years and attained citizenship, these new Americans may petition to bring in large numbers of extended family members. Current policy entitles U.S. citizens to bring not only their nuclear families but parents, adult children and their spouses and children, and adult siblings and their spouses and children. Over time, these extended family members can bring a similar range of relatives in an unbreakable chain. What begins with a single immigrant can result in the immigration of an entire village, and in some West Bank towns as much as half the population now lives in the United States or has American citizenship.

Political and economic realities within the Islamic world guarantee a tidal wave of immigration — unless a cut-off mechanism is enacted. Most of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims live in poverty-stricken, politically oppressive countries; two-thirds of the poorest people on Earth live in socially, politically, and economically fossilized Muslim societies. Given the chance to immigrate to the United States, countless millions would — at the same time harboring hatred and contempt for American culture and political institutions.


Little to Gain From Immigration. By contrast, the global Jewish population is roughly 13 to 15 million — one one-hundredth that of Islam. One-third live in the United States, a third more in Israel, and the remainder spread mainly among First World nations where the political and economic incentives for immigration don’t exist. Thus, Jews have little to gain directly from open door U.S. immigration. Even in a worst-case scenario for the remnant of Jews in the Former Soviet Union, Latin America, and perhaps even parts of Western Europe, Israel guarantees a safe haven. Further, a byproduct of American-Jewish political influence has been that persecuted Jews have gone to the head of the refugee line for resettlement here. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Former Soviet Union entered the United States, ahead of thousands of other refugees who, arguably, faced greater danger in places like Central America and Africa. A first casualty of the loss of political power could be the special consideration now accorded Jewish refugees.

Jews stand to lose far more than any other group of Americans from a policy that brings in millions of immigrants from cultures that range from antipathetic to antithetic to Jews and Israel. Muslim immigrants feel enormous hostility toward Jews and are intent on nullifying Jewish political power in the United States as a step towards destroying Israel.


A Totalitarian Ideology
Within the Islamic universe is a fast-spreading totalitarian ideology whose name is Islamism, though it’s called many things — Jihadism, Salafism, Wahhabism, or simply Fundamentalism. Its goal is world domination and the imposition of literalist, inhumane, unchangeable Islamic law on all nations and peoples. It pursues its agenda through brainwashing, mass hysteria, intimidation, assassination, terrorism, political repression, and, on occasion — such as in Bangladesh when it declared independence from Pakistan in 1971 — genocide. Like fascism, the movement it most resembles, Islamism embodies the politics of the culture of despair, reflecting the failure of every other movement in the Muslim world to bring power, prestige, and decent living standards, including secular nationalism and Pan-Arabism in the 1950s and 1960s.

It’s ascendant everywhere. The resurgence of Shiite activism in Iraq may reignite its waning virulence in Iran. The New York Times recently reported the most secular Arab nation, Syria, now has a vibrant Islamist movement. It’s thriving in Afghanistan, and is an assassination away from re-taking control of Pakistan. It dominates the richest of all Arab states, Saudi Arabia, the paymaster for Islamism; it rules in Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and controls the street in East Africa. It threatens to turn the largely moderate Islam of India increasingly militant; it may well overthrow the comparatively moderate Muslim society and regime in Bangladesh. It’s produced a body count of slaughtered innocents that runs into the tens of thousands in Algeria, and is a constant threat to stability in Egypt. It’s gaining ground in the Caucasus; and there are Islamist insurgencies from Southern Thailand to the Philippines. A militant Albania and break-away Kosovo endanger not just little Macedonia, but pose an Islamist threat across the Balkans. And its adherents number in the millions in the heart of Europe.

If "free" elections were held across the Muslim world, the pan-Islamists would take power in most places; then elections would cease. Islamism hates pluralism, individual rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, secular civil society, separation of religion and government, constitutional law, human rights, women’s rights, the rights of religious minorities, Christianity, the West in general, the United States in particular, and most of all it has identified Jews and Israel as its foremost enemies — enemies to be exterminated. The movement may have as many as 300 to 400 million enthusiasts, with a majority of non-activist Muslims cheering from the sidelines.

It will not conquer the world militarily, though a stealth strategy of demographic transformation through immigration is working in Western Europe. The absurd unreality of the goal doesn’t lessen its danger. Nazism and Communism harbored similar delusions. Their defeat could not resurrect the millions annihilated in their names, including one-third of all the Jews in the world. How many really believe that 9/11 will be the last enormity committed on American soil? Our leaders warn us repeatedly there is something like a 100 percent certainty they will strike again.


Latino Anti-Semitism. Muslims are not alone in entering America en mass with anti-Semitic prejudices. The Latin American societies that are the largest source of contemporary immigration — 60 percent from Mexico and Central America — are steeped in a culture of theological anti-Semitism that’s defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they a mitigating history of familiarity with Jews, little knowledge and no direct or familial experience of the Holocaust, and regard Jews simply as among the most privileged of white Americans. An ADL study found 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic attitudes.

Mexican disinterest in naturalization will protect American-Jewish political influence for perhaps another decade or two. Of the massive demographic bulge that entered the United States in the early 1980s, less than 20 percent has naturalized. In the last presidential election, Jews outpolled Latinos in L.A. County! Whether this sleeping giant will awaken is among the great political conundrums of our time. The Democrats are silent on immigration because they assume Latinos will join them; the Republicans harbor similar hopes and also say nothing because cheap Latino labor is red meat to their big corporate contributors. Even Jewish organizations refuse to face the immediate threat of Islamic immigration for fear of offending Latinos, but this is one dog that may never bark.

Even if the powerful assimilative forces of American culture prevail, it will take several generations, and it is arguable that they will never fully succeed with Muslims unless an Islamic Reformation comes about — an unlikely scenario because its proponents will be branded as infidels by traditional religious authorities and targeted for murder.


Jewish Experience Was Atypical
Popular perceptions of American immigration are skewed because the story has been largely told by Jews about Jews. The Jewish narrative is seen as prototypical when it was unique. In each aspect of their immigration — why they emigrated, their history in their countries of origin, their acculturation into America — their experience was distinct from those of almost every other immigrant group.

Jews who arrived in the Great Wave at the turn of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century resembled refugees and asylum seekers more than they did immigrants. The quest for economic opportunity motivated many to come, but they came chiefly to escape religious persecution and political oppression. Unlike the substantial percentage of Italians, Poles, and others who returned to Europe, they migrated one way. Given the societies they left, often fleeing for their lives, Jewish immigrants embraced the ideal of patriotic assimilation into American society. Within a few years of arrival, they mastered English. Within a generation, Yiddish was rarely spoken by their American-born children.


No Lingering Allegiances. Distinct from the majority culture wherever they lived, Jews did not bring lingering allegiance to their countries of origin or to the political ideology or religious culture that flourished there (with the exceptions of socialism and Marxism, sympathies that evaporated shortly after arrival), as did almost every other group of immigrants. Living for centuries as outsiders in hostile societies Jews developed survival mechanisms that made adjustment to America relatively easy and gave them advantages over millions experiencing minority status for the first time. In the Old Country, segments of the population, often with government connivance, sought to kill them; in America, the natives were satisfied with keeping them out of their neighborhoods, professional associations, country clubs, and elite universities.

Unlike Jewish immigrants, non-Jewish immigrants of a century ago maintained strong emotional ties to their countries of origin, but their societies and cultures were neither hostile to America nor obsessed with it; they certainly didn’t blame America for their every problem. Much of the non-European world — virtually all the Islamic one — was part of the British, French, or Russian empires. Before WWI, America was not a global power. Circumstances and attitudes could not be more different now. Anti-American hostility dominates the cultures from which most immigrants hail.

Between the America’s Western worldview and the Islamic one is a wider, perhaps unbridgeable divide that bears directly on Muslim acculturation. The concept of the nation state commanding the loyalty of its citizens is highly problematic throughout the Muslim world, with a handful of exceptions (Turkey foremost among them), and not only because many Islamic countries were drawn haphazardly on maps by European diplomats shockingly ignorant of the religion, culture, and histories of the peoples they ruled, and whose "nation-building" was secondary to their global rivalry. For most of the world’s Muslims, social authority does not reside in the polity but in the Umma, the community of the faithful ruled by Koranic law, not in any head of state, constitutional principles, or territorially denominated countries flying different flags. When Osama bin Laden dreams of global order he recalls the Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire — pan-national Islamic domains in which the unifying idea was Islamic religion and law.


Anti-U.S. Resentment. Many Mexicans also embrace a strong tradition of anti-U.S. resentment and historical grievance. A common belief is that the gringos are responsible for their chronic economic woes. Nor have they forgotten that a sizable chunk of the American Southwest was conquered by the United States in the Mexican War of 1846-1848. For some, flooding America with their countrymen is a stratagem in an undeclared war of Reconquista. Because the two nations are joined by a long, porous border — the longest on earth between a First and a Third World country — continuous two-way migration inhibits strong identification with the United States.

Perhaps the chief distinction between today’s immigration and that of yesteryear is the absence of the tacit and overt pressures that assimilated even the most recalcitrant. These forces have been weakened by multiculturalist ideology that legitimizes and reinforces identity politics; the demise of Americanization programs; the death of civic education; the rise of bilingualism; and the elimination of obligatory national service.

Technological differences also carry gigantic consequences: the revolution in modern transportation and communications allows immigrants to maintain continuous, ongoing ties with native lands, cultures and languages — something not possible a hundred years ago. Many "immigrants" are permanent resident aliens who live in two societies simultaneously but maintain primary loyalty to the cultural and political heritage of their countries of origin.

It is highly unlikely today’s immigrants will be as rapidly or fully absorbed into the mainstream as were our parents and grandparents. The immigrants are different; the country and its social institutions are different; the economy is different; technology is different; what is deemed normative is different. To believe the outcome will be the same under a wholly distinct set of conditions and socio-political constructs is not merely willful thinking: it is absurd.


Trouble on the Home Front
Notwithstanding their emotional stake in Israel, America’s Jews have a more immediate concern with anti-Semitism at home. Anti-Semitism is an immensely complex phenomenon, but some important distinctions are simple: there’s a great difference between harboring the sentiment and feeling the license to act on it. In the Western democracies where most Jews outside Israel reside, public expression of anti-Semitism is directly linked to immigration. Western Europe now holds the dubious distinction of leading the world in anti-Semitic violence.

Anti-Semitic violence is much more rare in the United States but it’s growing, and is increasingly perpetrated by Muslim youth. The resurgence of anti-Semitism manifests itself most strongly, sometimes thinly disguised as anti-Zionism, on college campuses. The campus is the most inhospitable place for Jews and supporters of Israel in the United States, something that Hillel, the traditional institutional Jewish presence on America’s campuses, is now addressing by developing talking-points for Jewish students to defend themselves against assaults on Israel and Judaism by Arab and Islamist students, fellow-travelers among other "aggrieved" minorities, and the legion of politically-correct kids of all backgrounds.


Surrounded by Concrete Barriers. American Jews already live in a state of heightened threat. A visit to New York, home to America’s largest Jewish population, provides striking evidence that Jews no longer live in safety. Virtually every high-profile Jewish institution in New York is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs exploding too close to the building, while being checked by security guards and passing through metal detectors are now a routine a part of attending religious services. Such vigilance is not confined to New York. Throughout the country, in communities with a substantial Muslim presence, security is a critical part of planning any sort of Jewish political or communal event — especially those intended to demonstrate support for Israel. An address by a representative of Israel or a speaker known as a critic of Islamism ensures an armed police presence.

Reality is dawning on many American Jews that something is amiss, although it seems lost on some of the country’s most venerable Jewish organizations. There’s a sad, if comic irony associated with the fact that employees at organizations like ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Presidents’ Conference must pass through a gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and disseminating reports on the "threat" posed by Evangelical Christians. Meanwhile, the legislative affairs staffs of these organizations are directed to lobby against immigration reforms that could minimize the danger.

After 9/11, Jewish organizations began devoting more attention to the activities of Islamic radicals in the United States. Their web sites document the ties many of these groups have to terrorists. Amazingly, however, these watchdogs fail to employ the most basic logic and ask the most obvious question: How did they get here? Not one has been willing to examine the impact of mass immigration, including mass Muslim and Islamist immigration, on American Jewry, much less take a position calling for changes in U.S. immigration policy.


Charitable Institutions? Among the most troubling phenomena, widely reported by Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, and courageous Muslim dissidents: many of the key "American" Islamic civic and charitable institutions that have sprung up in the United States in recent years are no more than domestic incarnations of foreign Islamist political parties. Among their primary objectives are undermining Jewish political influence in the United States, propagating anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and destroying Israel.

Masquerading as anti-discrimination organizations, entities like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Muslim Council (AMC), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) are either offshoots of or maintain close ties to some of the most radical terrorist groups round the globe. Many "mainstream" Islamic organizations have their roots firmly planted in the same bloody soil that spawned Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and even al-Qaeda. In addition, many American mosques, built, maintained, and controlled with money from the fundamentalist Saudi-based Wahabbi sect serve as hosts to radical mullahs— preacher/propagandists from across the Islamic world who slip through the notoriously lax U.S. visa issuance process. In a particularly flagrant case, a mullah was arrested in Europe after boasting of raising $20 million for Osama bin Laden at the El Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn. As recently as January 12, 2004, it was reported in The New York Times that a prominent Muslim cleric, Fawaz Mohammed Damrah, who runs the largest mosque in Ohio, was arrested for concealing his ties to terrorist organizations when he entered the United States 10 years ago.

The character of most Islamic organizations is reflected by the fact that more than half their "charities" operating in the United States have been closed down as a result of investigations launched after 9/11, with the remainder under continuing scrutiny. The "charities," operating with tax-exempt status, were recruiting agencies and financial supporters for Islamic terrorist organizations worldwide. Some were directly funding terrorism against Israel and compensating the families of terrorist bombers who murdered school children, diners, shoppers, and bus riders in Israel.

Islamic organizations is hardly a parochial Jewish matter. The Muslim terrorists of 9/11 didn’t distinguish among Americans based on religion or any other factor. A seamless confluence of interests unites all Americans — Jewish or otherwise — with regard to the danger represented by the Muslim-Islamist presence. That this is a national concern is underscored by the request of the Senate Finance Committee to the Internal Revenue Service, reported in the Washington Post, to provide it "confidential tax and financial records, including donor lists, of dozens of Muslim charities and foundations…. part of a widening Congressional investigation into alleged ties between tax-exempt organizations and terrorist groups." The request comes on the heels of two years of investigations by the Treasury Department, the FBI, and other agencies of the federal government into Muslim "charities" with suspected ties to Al Qaeda. Among the "charities" under investigation is the largest of all such Muslim entities in the United States: the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which investigators believe is tied to the terrorist group Hamas.

It must be stressed, as many friends who grew up as orthodox Muslims across the Islamic patrimony have told me in agonizing personal confessions — friends that attended madrassah and then Islamic institutions of higher learning in countries ranging from Morocco to Egypt, Bosnia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh — that it is virtually impossible to be reared in classical Islam and not be educated to hate Jews — based on a literalist reading the Koran, where many of the verses concerning Jews (and Christians) are hateful incitements to murder.

Enlightenment Needed? Painful to say and hard to hear, barring an Islamic Enlightenment, at this juncture the only way to be a Muslim and not a Jew-hater is to be a lapsed Muslim or — if one continues to call oneself a Muslim and practice Islam — is to conduct what is, in essence, a private, personal "reformation." Engaging in this activity is something no devout Muslim could publicly confess, though this is quietly happening everywhere, whether among moderate Muslims in such places as Morocco or among Indian and Turkish Muslims. But the act is heretical according to all leading Islamic authorities of all denominations.


The status of the Koran among devout Muslims is different than that of the Bible among Jews and Christians. It approximates what the Eucharist is for religious Christians: it is the body of God, and thus any interpretive enterprise, any picking and choosing, emphasizing and de-emphasizing desecrates the body of God and is regarded as apostasy, and apostates are still sentenced to death in Islamic societies. Still, many are engaged in this internal struggle for spiritual growth, but until religious and even secular authorities within the Islamic patrimony publicly embrace this shift, there will be no counterweight to Islamism.

In time, adherents of this secret enlightenment will find their public voice as well as safety in numbers. As my Muslim friends who are scholars of Islam remind me, the intellectual work of this reform was accomplished long ago. There are no intellectual barriers to the change; the impediments are the political power and ruthlessness of its enemies, their capacity and willingness to forever stunt the growth of a living breathing humane Islam through intimidation and murder, an Islam that might yet have much to offer to the world. Whatever the risks, these Muslims of the secret enlightenment must step forward, dismiss the charge they are engaging in "takfir" (impiety), and save Islam from itself.

There are moderate Muslim Americans born in Islamic societies that don’t support the Islamist’s radical agendas. Some independent Muslim thinkers believe that such moderates form a silent majority within Islamic America. Where are their voices? One reason few have publicly opposed the Islamist ideology that dominates American-Muslim life is because the Islamist organizations, their members and fellow-travelers employ threats of violence, economic pressure, and foster shunning to intimidate and enforce conformity, isolating and destroying independent-minded Muslims. It is incomparably worse throughout the Islamic world, where independent Muslim thinkers are routinely murdered; their body count in only the last few decades runs into the tens of thousands. One hopes for the day when their work, and that of American-Muslim scholars like Khaled Abou El Fadl, Radwan Masmoudi, Sohail Hasmi, Khalid Durán, and others will find a larger audience and end the intellectual fossilization of Islam and the war between Islam and democratic pluralism. But that day lies in the distant future; our immediate responsibility is protecting America from the Islamism that produced 9/11.


Potential Loss of Political Power
The political influence Jews have achieved in America is a testament to how successfully they’ve assimilated into the American political, cultural, and economic mainstream. Equally, it’s a tribute to the openness and tolerance of the vast majority of the American people who have come to accept Jews as full-fledged Americans who happen to practice a different religion.

Living at the high noon of Jewish political power, it will strike many as alarmist to suggest the sky may be about to fall. Yet that may well happen within the next 20 years. The Jewish population will be eclipsed by an ethnic group whose interests directly conflict with theirs and many of whose leaders and members are openly hostile to Jews. The Constitution, the basic integrity of the vast majority of Americans, and the professionalism of American law enforcement will militate against the kind of anti-Semitic violence taking place in France and elsewhere; at least they will slow its progress. What these will not be able to prevent is the loss of political support for Israel that would doom the Jewish state to total political isolation.

Without minimizing the effectiveness of organizations like AIPAC and others in steering U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction, it must be acknowledged that for many years they’ve been pushing on an open door. Once the Arabist and often anti-Semitic old guard at the State Department largely departed, support for Israel became a political no-brainer, except for politicians on the extreme left or right with antipathy for Israel and generalized dislike for Jews; it has brought substantial benefits and no downside. The fact is that the celebrated "Jewish lobby" won battle after battle by default. Politicians who supported Israel could count on support from Jewish voters in their home state or district. Even if there were no Jewish voters back home, there would always be Jewish money available to support the campaigns of Israel’s friends in Congress. What’s been missing was a counter-vailing force. There’s never been a significant constituency as strongly opposed to Israel as American Jews have felt in favor of Israel; there’s never been an anti-Israel constituency motivated enough to form political PACs and vote for or against candidates based on their stance on Middle East policy. Now there is, and it’s growing rapidly as a result of immigration policy.

Even after Muslims outnumber Jews, Jews will maintain a political advantage for a time by virtue of the fact that they are well entrenched in the "old boys" network in Washington and other centers of power. Israel will also continue to enjoy strong support from millions of Evangelical Christians who see the Jews’ return to the Holy Land — and their continuance there — as part of the biblical prophecy that presages the Second Coming.


Shrinking Advantage. The clock will eventually run out on these advantages. The fastest growing religious group in America, Muslims are organizing to promote their interests. Demography plus money equals political power. American Jews, in a good economic year, typically contribute about $600 million to Israel. By contrast, the Saudi regime spends in excess of $6 billion annually to promote global "Islamization." To dramatize the imbalance in resources, the $600 million American Jews sent to Israel was what the Saudis spent last year in Bosnia alone, a country of 1.5 million people. Though foreign regimes cannot, by law, pump money into domestic U.S. political races, Saudi and other Arab oil money can mount huge indirect campaigns aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion and policy. Combined with a growing and highly motivated Islamic voting bloc in the United States, the demography + money equation will inevitably overwhelm strong political support for Israel.

Muslim and Arab political PACs are springing up across the country. The defeat of two strongly pro-Palestinian House members in bitterly contested Democratic primary races in 2002 is being used as a clarion call by Arab and Muslim American groups to redouble their political efforts. In analyzing the defeats of Earl Hilliard (Alabama) and Cynthia McKinney (Georgia), James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute noted that "Arab-Americans have substantial political resources and allies and we can work to overcome the impact of these setbacks." Prominent Arab and Muslim Americans must avoid the kind of political "foolishness" that led a leader of the self-described "mainstream" American Muslim Council to stand in front of the White House and declare his support for Hamas and Hezbollah while the video cameras were rolling, cautions Zogby. That leader, Mr. Alamoudi, head of the American Muslim Council, is now under indictment for laundering money for terrorist organizations.


Upsetting the Status Quo
There’s something akin to religious faith among American Jews in the Constitution as the ultimate protector of their rights. Though it’s surely the most enlightened governing treatise ever devised, it’s finally just words on paper. Many nations have had enlightened constitutions expressing lofty ideals and, nevertheless, turned on the Jews and other minorities.

What sets the United States apart is the nexus between the principles in the Constitution and the American people. The protections of the Constitution would mean little were it not for a population that has believed in it, bled for it, and struggled with itself to see that its principles are applied to all who live in the United States. The Constitution has made the American people what they are, and the American people make the Constitution a living, breathing document. American Jews live in a society where the contagion of anti-Semitism has never been as deeply rooted or as widespread as it is in much of the rest of the world. While no country has ever been completely free of anti-Semitism, since the middle of the 20th century the United States has come as close as any society ever has.

But change is underway. Large-scale immigration, unprecedented in magnitude and ceaseless in duration, is reshaping America. By the middle of this century the United States will cease to have a majority ethnic population. Not necessarily problematic by itself, it will present a challenge to social cohesion. Infinitely more worrying, strong multicultural forces are deconstructing in theory and in fact the ideal and reality of a dominant common culture, one that links Americans of all racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. During this volatile transformative period, the balance between group identity and a broader sense of national belonging has swung in the direction of tribal identity among many new immigrants. Many of the new cultures being introduced to the multicultural "salad bowl" harbor long traditions of anti-Semitism, and in the case of Muslims, are in direct conflict with Jews over issues that command the deepest emotional allegiances of both.

Perhaps this prognosis is too gloomy. The assimilative forces that liberated last century’s European immigrants from their deeply rooted anti-Semitic prejudices may succeed in tempering the animosity of Muslim and Latin-Catholic immigrants. But if American Jewish leaders are going to continue to support mass immigration, or at least tacitly accept it, they must acknowledge the risks. They must also confront the dangers of Islamism in this country openly and confidently. They will find their concerns are shared by the great majority of Americans; they can and should have greater confidence in their Christian neighbors.

Should the day come when Jews find themselves disempowered, vulnerable, and threatened 20 to 30 years from now in a very different America, one thing Jewish leaders as well as ordinary American Jews must never be allowed to say is, "We didn’t see it coming." The historical record of America’s major Jewish organizations in confronting the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust is cause for shame. At the very least, it’s cause for humility and a greater willingness to re-evaluate long-held positions in the face of new realities. One story from those terrible years is indicative: in the summer of 1939, when the ship St. Louis stood offshore with its desperate cargo of German-Jewish refugees, symbolizing for all the world the plight of Jews seeking to escape the devouring maw of Nazism, the American Jewish Committee was unable to assemble its Executive Board to meet because the members could not be troubled to interrupt their summer vacations. Today’s leaders of those organizations should recall this vast historic catastrophe — as well as the failure of their predecessors as guardians of the Jewish people — as they look at this issue, consider the future, and ponder choices they can evade no longer.



Why Jews Welcome Muslims
by Lawrence Auster

Mass Moslem immigration into America combined with world-wide Moslem Jew-hatred poses an unprecedented threat to American Jews—a "perfect storm" that is forcing at least some Jews into an agonizing re-appraisal of their traditional support for open immigration. So says Stephen Steinlight in his hard-hitting essay, "High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry," published by the Center for Immigration Studies. A former director of national affairs at the American Jewish Committee and now an outspoken advocate of immigration reform, Steinlight tells his fellow Jews that they, along with the rest of America, face a momentous choice. If they turn away from their extreme immigration liberalism and help move America toward sensible immigration restrictions, the growth of the Moslem community in this country can be slowed substantially and even stopped, and a decent existence for the Jews themselves can be preserved. But if Jews and others continue in their embrace of open borders, in thirty years time the Jews will find themselves a besieged and powerless minority in an Islamic-dominated, anti-Semitic America.



That's what Steinlight is telling them. But will they listen? As he explains it, immigration to the U.S. in the early 20th century was literally a life or death matter for Jews—life for the immigrants, and death for those who stayed behind in Europe or who were closed out of America by the restrictive immigration policies of the 1920s and 1930s. For Jews, he says:



"(T)he immigration debate pits the heart against the head. In their gut, many feel that substantially reducing immigration betrays the legacy of their parents and grandparents. But a growing number believes that maintaining this policy betrays their children and grandchildren. The danger arises because mass immigration means importing mass anti-Semitism.... "



Yet, despite the dangers Moslem immigration poses to their security and their whole way of life, Jews have for the most part maintained their support for open immigration, and Steinlight by the end of his article does not seem very hopeful that they will change their minds—or at least that they will do so before it's too late to avoid disaster.



Loyalty to their ancestors' immigration "legacy" hardly seems a sufficient explanation for Jews' adherence to a policy that, as Steinlight puts it, spells the ultimate eclipse and ruin of Jewish life in this country, not to mention the ruin of America itself. After all, Jews in many cases betray without hesitation their grandparents' orthodox religious beliefs, and in other cases their grandparents' socialism, so why should their grandparents' immigrant history be so sacred to them? If we are to have any chance of converting the Jews from their open borders ideology, we must understand their own reasons for believing in it. From the following discussion, two basic perspectives on this problem will emerge, one pessimistic, the other optimistic.



The real object of Jewish fears

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism. Steinlight himself pointed to this phenomenon at a recent panel discussion hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies:



"Every high profile Jewish institution, whether it's a national organization or a major synagogue, is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs exploding too close to the buildings. If you go through the lobbies into those buildings you have to pass metal detectors and double-doors of bulletproof glass. You are then frisked by security guards, mostly retired New York City police or Israeli agents, and then are scanned again with metal detectors.



"What is truly comic about this—were it not an instance in the theatre of the absurd, and were it not so appalling an indication of the kind of mass denial that is still governing major American Jewish organizations, including the one I used to work for that's currently meeting across the street—is that the staffs of these organizations pass the car bomb barriers, go through the double bulletproof glass lobbies, get frisked, then go upstairs into their offices and spend their days talking about the threats posed by evangelical Christians...."



Jews' risible obsession with non-existent evangelical Protestant anti-Semites, combined with their obliviousness to actual mass murdering Islamist anti-Semites (whom, moreover, the Jews' favored immigration policies have allowed into this country) is an amazing phenomenon that we should not dismiss as simply a bizarre ethnic idiosyncrasy. It expresses, rather, a central preoccupation of a significant number of Jews, namely their corrosive apprehension of what they think the goyim might one day do to them—a fear they entertain despite the fact that, apart from some social exclusions and other ethnic prejudices that existed up to the end of World War II, Jews have never faced serious anti-Semitism from the white Christian majority in this country.



Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea (which I've proposed at FrontPage Magazine) that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. "It's frightening, it's scary," he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews' best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.



The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances—in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world—it both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America's majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews' historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.



This element of the Jewish psyche is further illumined by Norman Podhoretz in his memoir, My Love Affair with America:



"[M]y own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a subliminal lesson. . . . The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively harmless genteel variety that enforced quotas against Jewish students or kept their parents from joining fashionable clubs or getting jobs in prestigious Wall Street law firms, could end in mass murder." [Emphasis added.]



While the idea Podhoretz expresses here is certainly familiar, it is familiar more as a parody of Jewish fears than as something Jews themselves have openly stated. For years, it's been a running joke among traditionalist conservatives, including those of Jewish background such as myself (and there are more right-wing Jews than people realize) that "any criticism of Jews is equated with Auschwitz." The complaint, I confess, had always seemed a just a tad hyperbolic. But if Podhoretz's portrayal of Jews' beliefs is correct, then the old parody, "Any criticism of Jews is a potential Auschwitz," turns out to be what the Jewish community has believed all along. What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed.



Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying, as today's anti-Semites are constantly saying, that concerns about anti-Semitism are nothing but political correctness. Though it is still largely a fringe phenomenon, anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred in today's America are terribly real, having grown by leaps and bounds in some parts of the political spectrum since 9/11, as I have discussed at length at FrontPage Magazine (see here and here) and at my website, View from the Right (see here and here). Yet we must also note a tendency on the part of more than a few Jews to decry as anti-Semitic virtually any rational criticism of Jews, or any normal manifestations of gentile ethnocentrism, or even any strong expression of Christian religious belief. Think of the wild charges that were leveled against Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" by such prominent Jewish commentators as Charles Krauthammer, who characterized the movie as "a singular act of interreligious aggression ... spectacularly vicious ... the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews," and William Safire, who said that audiences would leave the theater with no other thought than to look for Jews to punish for the death of Jesus. There was also the disturbing fact that Commentary, which in the past had always defended Christians and Christianity from false charges of anti-Semitism, approvingly reviewed James Carroll's virulently anti-Christian book, Constantine's Sword, which argues that the Christian religion is inherently anti-Semitic and the ultimate cause of the Nazi Holocaust.



The significance of the Jewish belief in a lurking anti-Semitism among white Christians is made clearer by another passage in My Love Affair With America:



"Acting on the principle that 'all bigotry is indivisible,' Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, whose purpose was to defend Jews against discrimination and defamation, joined enthusiastically in the civil-rights movement, of which individual Jews were for a long time leaders and funders."



The principle that all bigotry is indivisible implies that all manifestations of ingroup/outgroup feeling (if we're speaking about the feelings of a gentile majority ingroup, that is) are essentially the same—and equally wrong. It says that if you're against one outgroup, you're against all outgroups. This denies the important truth that some outgroups (e.g., Mideastern Moslem fundamentalists) are much more different from the ingroup (e.g. America's Anglo-Protestant majority culture), and hence much less assimilable, and hence more legitimately excluded, than other outgroups (e.g., Italian Catholics or Ashkenazi Jews). The belief in the indivisibility of all bigotry makes it impossible to distinguish between degrees of bigotry or ethnocentrism. It makes it impossible to distinguish between immoral bigotry, meaning the desire to hurt some other group, and the legitimate defense of one's own people, their identity, and their interests. To erase such distinctions is the essence of political correctness, the reduction of all moral questions to a choice between "inclusion" and "hate."



Now, when Jews put together the idea that "all bigotry is indivisible," with the idea that "any social prejudice or exclusion directed against Jews leads potentially to Auschwitz," they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any minority group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.



So there it is. We have identified the core assumption that makes many liberal and neoconservative Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their mortal enemies. As these Jews see it, any immigration restrictions against Moslems would release a latent ethnocentrism in the white American majority that would then turn instantly against the Jews. To state this thought process in the baldest terms, these Jews believe that if philo-Semitic white gentiles exclude Jew-hating Moslems from America, it would lead those same gentiles to commit another Jewish Holocaust.



Even if they don't take it to the absurd point of envisioning a Jewish Holocaust or some other anti-Jewish persecution in this country, various Jewish writers and spokesmen have continued to express a deeply suspicious attitude towards white Christian America. In the cover article of the November 1999 issue of Commentary, entitled "California and the End of White America," Ron Unz predicted that if the current non-European immigrants fail to assimilate, the danger will not be an uprising of unassimilated immigrant cultures, but an eruption of white nationalism. "[W]e face the very real threat of future movements along the lines of Proposition 187, each worse than the last, and on a national scale," Unz wrote. "There are few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism." [Emphasis added.] Amazing. Multiculturalism and minority group-rights movements are tearing apart America's once unitary, individual-rights-based polity, as Commentary itself has been lamenting for years, while America's declining white majority has been reacting with what can only be called pusillanimous passivity in the face of this systematic attack on their country.



But now it turns out that what Commentary most fears is not the minority group-rights movement, but any possible resistance by white Americans to it, a resistance Commentary demonizes as "white nationalism." In other words, open-borders Jews fear a totally non-existent white defense of America more than they fear the actual realities of mass legal and illegal immigration, multiculturalism, Mexican irredentism, Moslem jihadism, and all the rest of the forces that are threatening our country. For anyone who shares this view, it follows that the quicker America's white majority is reduced to a minority by continued mass immigration, and the quicker America's majority culture is pushed aside by immigrant cultures, the better off America will be.



A more hopeful view

While the disturbing attitudes I have been describing constitute a definite strand in the American Jewish sensibility, as well in the sensibility of liberals generally, I find it hard to believe that most Jews or even most politically active Jews are so paranoid about white gentiles' potential for committing anti-Jewish oppression that they are driven to the insane expedient of supporting mass Moslem immigration in order to forestall that oppression. There is a more moderate—and more hopeful—way of explaining the Jews' attachment to Third-World immigration.



The Jewish experience in the modern world could be understood as a series of attempts by Jews to free themselves from the historic burden of Jewishness, the fierce social disabilities that had been imposed on them for centuries. As Paul Johnson writes in his History of the Jews, the Jewish Communists of the 19th century ("non-Jewish Jews," as he calls them) saw in Communism the end of national and ethnic identities for all mankind, and thus the end of the Jewish ethnic identity, and thus the liberation of the Jews from the age-old curse of anti-Jewish prejudice. To seek to overturn entire societies in order to get rid of one's own ethnic identity may seem a rather drastic approach to solving the Jewish problem, yet it reflects, in a uniquely exacerbated and destructive form, Jews' recurrent pattern of forming some global ideology for reasons relating to their particular situation as Jews. (Let us note that this tendency, while it can take negative forms as in the current example, is natural for a people whose tribal history and beliefs became the basis for all of Western civilization.)



In America, Jews discovered a more reasonable approach to the Jewish problem: liberal individualism. Under liberal individualism, only the individual and his rights matter and each person's ethnicity is irrelevant, or, in any case, as irrelevant as he wants it to be. As Milton Gordon wrote in his important 1964 book Assimilation in American Life, mid-twentieth century American society combined cultural assimilation, in which people of all backgrounds participate as individuals in a common public culture (the workplace, the schools, political life and so on), with structural pluralism, in which people tend to organize their residential patterns and social and religious lives along ethnic lines. This unique American arrangement allowed Jews a measure of social belonging, economic and professional success, and "at-home-ness" that they had not experienced since the destruction of the Second Temple, or perhaps ever in their history.



But starting in the 1960s, Jews, and liberals generally, took the good idea of liberal individualism too far. The very idea of a common culture, which they had previously seen as the pathway to success and belonging in America, started to seem discriminatory to them, since it implied that some peoples and cultures could fit into the common culture while others couldn't. A common culture also implied the existence of common standards of behavior, derived from America's declining WASP majority, to which people were expected to conform; and Jews in particular, after having eagerly adopted those standards in previous generations, began, in the liberatory afflatus of the Sixties, to find them stifling. Jews and other liberals thus turned from the moderate tolerance of mid-twentieth century America to what might be called tolerance absolutism, an attitude that delegitimized any notion of a common American culture or moral tradition (other than the tradition of liberalism itself), because shared cultural allegiances and moral norms would place limits on the individual self or the ethnic group.



This radicalized liberalism made Jews feel even safer—and freer to express themselves as Jews—than before. Having realized the model of "pure-non-discrimination-and-individual-rights-without-a-majority-culture" as the very basis of their unprecedented success, freedom, and happiness in America, Jews saw that model as not only advantageous to themselves personally, but as advantageous to everyone—indeed, as the highest political truth. It didn't occur to them that the radical individualist model worked so well for them because they are a uniquely high-achieving people operating in a still intact Western society. It didn't occur to them that the model might not work so well for less capable or less assimilable people in a society without a cohesive common culture, such as America was now becoming due to the tolerance absolutism that was supported by the Jews themselves. It didn't occur to them that both the intactness and the liberalism of the society would be threatened if the liberalism were taken too far.



Their belief that radical individualism is true for all mankind is thus for liberal secular Jews a crux of faith, an emotional prop to make sense of the world, and a key component of their identity as a people. More than any pragmatic calculus, it is the reason they bitterly resent any criticism of the liberal ideology and voraciously crave attempts to vindicate it, whether by assimilating Third-World immigrants, democratizing Moslem countries, or liquidating traditional values founded upon the restraint of individual desire. (Consider, for example, the Jewish community's extraordinary degree of support for homosexual marriage, far more extensive than that of any other ethnic or religious group—a uniquely ironic outcome for the first major people in history who saw homosexuality as an abomination to God.)



What the Jews need to see—what they can't help but see under the encroaching reality of jihad in America—is that, like any good idea, the good idea of non-discrimination can be carried too far. The moderate non-discrimination that allowed Jews to thrive in America did not have to be taken to the point of absolute non-discrimination, which required us to open our borders and our culture to unassimilable and hostile aliens, which in turn must result in the disarming and destruction of the society itself.



Notwithstanding the horrific problems created by the open-immigration ideology, I call this the optimistic view of Jewish support for open immigration because it assumes, not an endemic Jewish oppositionalism to America's majority culture, but a correctable misperception stemming from Jews' unique history. Having experienced the liberal paradigm of individual rights and non-discrimination as the recipe for their own earthly salvation after centuries of misery and persecution, Jews have, understandably though mistakenly, carried that ideology to an extreme where it threatens the very country that provided the Jews those protections and benefits in the first place. This is so patently irrational from the point of view of the Jews' own self-interest that they cannot help but eventually see it, if it is clearly and firmly pointed out to them.



No permanent victory

So, while Stephen Steinlight is to be applauded for his efforts to convert his fellow Jews to a sane immigration policy, he needs to recognize that they are bound to their belief in open borders by a larger set of emotional and political attachments than a reluctance to "betray their grandparents." He also needs to recognize that even if, under the pressure of immediate fears of Islamism in America, Jews back off from their open borders ideology, their conversion is unlikely to be very deep. A full and principled abandonment of modern liberalism by liberals and especially by Jews is not to be expected. Just as the Israelis will fight remorselessly against the Arabs when absolutely necessary, and then, as soon as the fighting briefly subsides, instantly turn back once again to the utopian hopes of the "peace-process," American Jews in the face of an imminent Islamist threat may support some kind of tightening of immigration laws, only to revert to their accustomed liberalism the moment that the immediate sense of intolerable danger is past. It is unrealistic to expect any final victory in this area. Liberalism is the organizing ideology of modern society, but for secular Jews (and the great majority of American Jews are essentially secular), it is a sacred trust toward which they feel the same zealous devotion that their religious brethren feel toward their covenant with God.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home