It appears that the Irish-Jewish anti-White alliance that reared its head most notably with the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 is now planning to do the same to Europe. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 was introduced by a Jewish Congressman from New York, Emanuel Celler, who had opposed the Immigration Act of 1924 (see here and here), as well as having agitated for America to absorb Jews — but of course not Slavs – fleeing the Nazis, in violation of American immigration policy.
Celler had close ties to the NAACP, then under Jewish leadership and heavily dependent on Communist financing, and he had drawn the ire of Senator Joseph McCarthy, due to his habit of consorting with Communists. As one might expect, Celler was involved in drafting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Celler’s 1965 immigration legislation was co-sponsored by Congressman Philip Hart (D-MI), and championed by Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy (who had KGB ties) — both Irish Catholics.
With respect to Celler’s alliances with Catholics, it is interesting to note that on 24 July, 1939, he wrote to US Secretary of State Cordell Hull, asking that the State Department re-establish American ties with the Holy See, then under Pope Pius XII. In the letter, Celler praised the recently deceased Pope Pius XI for having condemned “hard and selfish nationalism”, falsely claimed that Jesus and the first Popes were all Jews, and approvingly quoted an Orthodox Jewish exegete and historian, Heinrich Graetz, as having written in his History of the Jews: ”All men are, above all, members of the same great kind. They all belong to the single great family of the living, Humankind is, therefore, a single universal race.” In any case, like Celler, the Catholic Church – which did its best under Pius XII to save Jews during WWII, for which the Jews have displayed their thanks by attempting to prevent the canonization of Pius XII –, has since joined the Third World immigration lobby, perhaps (at least in part) because Catholicism, like Christianity in general, will soon be predominantly a Third World, anti-White religion, and also because the Catholic leadership has long since gone liberal. (Regarding the demographic and ideological future of Christianity, I recommend Matthew Roberts’s 2011 Brussels Journal article, The Rise of Anti-Western Christianity.)
According to Palmer Stacy and John Vinson, writing on the consequences of Celler’s landmark 1965 immigration legislation in The Great Betrayal: American Immigration Policy from 1965 to 2012:
“Senator Ted Kennedy, co-chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and floor manager of the bill, dismissed the opposition to the bill, saying:
‘What the bill will not do: First our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains essentially the same. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from one country or area. . . .’
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach testified that the purpose of the bill was to eliminate the national origins quota system, not to increase immigration, saying that the annual quota would only be raised from 158,000 to 166,000. Senator Kennedy estimated that passage of the bill would increase immigration by only 62,000 a year.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured the Immigration Subcommittee that the bill would not result in massive Asian immigration, estimating that in the first five years of the new law only 16,000 Asians would be admitted. Senator Hyram Fong of Hawaii said that under the bill Asians would never surpass one percent of the U.S. population: ‘I just want to make this point because the argument that the cultural pattern of the U.S. will change needs to be answered. Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.’
How reliable were the promises of the nation’s political leaders? As a result of the Third World chain migration (one immigrant sending for relatives who in turn send for other relatives) permitted and encouraged by the new law, total legal immigration grew dramatically from an average of 252,000 per year in the decade of the 1950s, to around 600,000 per year by the mid-80s. Immigrants from Asia and Latin America crowded out potential immigrants from Europe. By the 1980s, 45 percent of legal immigrants were Latin/Caribbean, 40 percent from Asia and less than 10 percent from Europe. By the mid-1980s around 250,000 Asian immigrants entered every year. In 1960, Asians were less than one half of one percent of our population. By 1990, Asians made up three percent of the U.S. population, and had become the majority in places such as Monterey Park, California. Hispanics were growing at such a rate that they soon supplanted blacks as our largest minority group.
Our political elite either totally failed to understand the effect of the law they passed or intentionally deceived the overwhelming majority of Americans who wanted no dramatic change in our population. If an honest mistake was made, would not lawmakers have made revisions to reduce the flood of Third World immigration? Instead no significant immigration legislation passed Congress until 1986, when lawmakers again promised one thing but delivered another.”
Paul Gottfried, the Jewish paleoconservative, has pointed out that Irish Catholics often share Jews’ Leftist political orientation. The main difference between the two groups, politically, is that Irish Catholics are Protestant-phobic, while Jews are Christophobic. Since America was, historically, a Protestant nation, this gave Jews and Irish Catholics common cause in darkening America – with a steady flow of Irish and Jewish immigrants, of course. Matthew Richer points out the “anti-historic nation envy” of the American Irish, the comical manner in which Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. emulated the manner of the Anglo elite, professing Catholicism while sending his sons to prestigious Protestant boarding schools, and how the Kennedy clan has had “the impudence to compare John F. Kennedy’s presidency to that most idyllic achievement of English folklore: ‘Camelot’”.
Now, a new chapter in the Irish-Jewish anti-White alliance has opened. According to the BBC (Hat Tip: VDare):
“Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.
Mr. Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a ‘crucial dynamic for economic growth’ in some EU nations ‘however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states’.
He told the committee: ‘The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.
‘And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.’
Mr. Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a ‘shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states’ and the EU’s ability to compete at a ‘global level’ was at risk.”
Sutherland is an Irishman, educated in Jesuit schools (Jesuits are heavily Marxist, including their leadership), in addition to being chairman of the London School of Economics (LSE) and a member of the Trilateral Commission, which supported various Western European socialist parties’ collusion with the Soviets in their creation of the EUSSR. As the Wikipedia entry on the Fabian Society explains, the LSE was founded by members of the socialist Fabian Society:
“The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means.
The latest edition of the Dictionary of National Biography (a reference work listing details of famous or significant Britons throughout history) includes 174 Fabians. Four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Graham Wallis and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics with the money left to the Fabian Society by Henry Hutchinson. Supposedly the decision was made at a breakfast party on 4 August 1894. The founders are depicted in the Fabian Window designed by George Bernard Shaw. The window was stolen in 1978 and reappeared at Sotheby’s in 2005. It was restored to display in the Shaw Library at the London School of Economics in 2006 at a ceremony over which Tony Blair presided.”
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Anglo-Saxon Anglophobes (to borrow a phrase from Andrew Fraser) who led the New Labor Party that turned Britain into an anti-nationalist, anti-White, politically correct, multiculturalist police state and effectively ethnically cleansed England of the English, are Fabians. The Wikipedia article on the Fabian Society observes:
“The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India”, and that “Through the course of the 20th century the group has always been influential in Labour Party circles, with members including Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Anthony Crosland, Richard Crossman, Tony Benn, Harold Wilson and more recently Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.”
David Rockefeller, Sr., Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Founder and Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, is a graduate of the LSE. Rockefeller stated in his Memoirs:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Rockefeller is the patriarch of a Baptist family of German descent that, having made its money during the nineteenth century instead of during colonial times, was long regarded by the predominantly Episcopalian (and, to a lesser extent, Presbyterian) Eastern Establishment as nouveau riche; thus, the Rockefellers likely suffer from “anti-historic nation envy”, just as Irish Catholics and Jews in America do. (The investigative journalist Daniel Estulin has described David Rockefeller, Sr.’s activities in The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, now available in a new edition. Estulin’s blog is here.)
According to James Perloff — a Jewish writer who has contributed to The New American, the flagship publication of the John Birch Society, since 1986 –, writing in one of his books, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and American Decline, the Council on Foreign Relations was founded as the American branch of what was supposed to be an Institute of International Affairs with branches in America and in England. The English branch became the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), whose membership was controlled by the Round Table, “a semi-secret internationalist group headquartered in London”. Perloff writes: ”[Carroll Quigley] was very close to members of the Round Table, which was the core of the CFR’s counterpart group in Britain. In the early 1960′s, he was allowed to inspect its secret records. Quigley termed the CFR ‘a front group for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.’” Perloff writes that the two bodies became independent of each other, but have retained close informal ties, as well as retaining control of their respective countries’ foreign policies.
According to Perloff, Woodrow Wilson, prior to his election as President, was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in New York in 1912, led by the Jewish banker Bernard Baruch “like one would lead a poodle on a string”. Perloff writes:
“Wilson received an indoctrination course from the leaders convened there, during which he agreed, in principle, to do the following if elected:
[1.] support the projected Federal Reserve
[2.] support [federal] income tax
[3.] lend an ear to advice should war break out in Europe
[4.] lend an ear to advice on who should occupy his cabinet”
Further, Perloff writes that Wilson, upon being elected President while drawing only forty-two percent of the popular vote (with J.P. Morgan-backed Theodore Roosevelt running on the Progressive ticket, thereby splitting the Republican vote), was guided during his two White House terms by a “front man for the international banking community”, “Colonel” Edward Mandell House. House never served in the military; the title “Col.” was “honorary” (i.e., deceptive nonsense, and an insult to those who earn their military ranks). From page 34 of The Shadows of Power, we learn that Wilson said of House: “Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one. If I were in his place I would do just as he suggested…. If anyone thinks he is reflecting my opinion by whatever action he takes, he is welcome to the conclusion.”
Perloff quotes a House biographer, Charles Seymour, as calling House “the unseen guardian angel” of the Federal Reserve Act; according to Seymour (as described by Perloff), House was regularly in touch with the Jewish banker Paul Warburg while the Act was being written and maneuvered through Congress. Perloff quotes another of House’s biographers, Arthur D. Howden Smith, as having written that House believed “the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds and the quasi-classical, medieval conception of republics, was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten. But as a realist he knew that this was impossible in the existing state of political education.”
Needless to say, the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax soon became staples of American life. Less widely known is that President Wilson twice vetoed literacy tests for immigrants (in 1915 and in 1916), as well as a general ban on Asian immigration, thereby ensuring a steady flow of culturally and racially alien cheap labor. In addition, he dragged the United States into WWI, attempted to drag her into the League of Nations, altered the political geography of Europe beyond recognition, and starved nearly a million Germans to death with a food blockade, which was enforced with full knowledge that famine was sweeping across Central Europe at the time, with the goal of forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles — which, in turn, led to more mass starvation in Germany, and ultimately to WWII.
As Perloff points out, the steeply graduated income tax and the central banking system advocated by the leadership of the American banking community are two planks of the Communist manifesto; in fact, as Perloff points out, House wrote an anonymous novel entitled Philip Dru: Administrator, which he later acknowledged as his own, in which the protagonist installs a graduated income tax and a central bank, proclaiming that he is attempting to install “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx”. Perloff illustrates the connection further, by finding connections — too numerous to list here, but the culprits are Gentiles with only two apparent exceptions, with Jacob Schiff and Oscar Straus being the only Jews whom I was able to identify — between the American banking community and the disproportionately Jewish (see here, here, and here) Bolsheviks, with Schiff and William Boyce Thompson, a copper magnate and convinced Bolshevist, being the most egregious offenders. Perloff notes that many of the bankers in question went on to join the CFR. In particular, he writes that Jacob Schiff died before the incorporation of the CFR, but that his son Mortimer, and his business partner, Federal Reserve architect Paul Warburg, both became founding members of the CFR. For more information on ties between Wall Street and the Bolsheviks, see Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Antony C. Sutton, available for free in PDF format here. In Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Sutton differs from Perloff in his assessment of Jacob Schiff’s relationship to the Bolsheviks, writing of correspondence involving Jacob Schiff and the State Department:
“This is an important series because it refutes the story of a Jewish bank conspiracy behind the Bolshevik Revolution. Clearly Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb was not interested in supporting the Kerensky Liberty Loan[,] and Schiff went to the trouble of drawing State Department attention to [Russian Jewish banker Boris] Kamenka’s pleas for Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks. Obviously Schiff and fellow banker Kamenka, unlike J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, were as unhappy about the Bolsheviks as they had been about the tsars.”
That said, Cholly Knickerbocker of the New York Journal-Constitution reported that Jacob Schiff’s grandson, John Schiff, estimated that Jacob Schiff had sunk about $20 million for the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. In any case, the leading figures in the two main schools of free-market economics (i.e., Austrian and Chicago) — Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman — were both Jewish, pro-open borders, pro-free trade zealots, just as Karl Marx, also Jewish, aimed to abolish national borders by promoting free trade. Thus, as Julius Evola pointed out, communism and capitalism (the latter, at least, as promoted by mainstream free-market economists, who believe that goods and labor should be allowed to move freely across national borders) are really both alien, Jewish, economic ideologies of global subversion, detrimental to the health of Whites, no matter how zealously certain useful idiots (e.g., Anglo-Saxons, Russians) may adopt them. However, some contemporary White economists, especially Paul Craig Roberts and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, have developed pro-White capitalist theories, just as Hitler developed a pro-White form of socialism.
CouncilonForeignRelations.net contains the following information concerning a book, Between Two Ages: America in the Technetronic Era, by the co-founder (with LSE-alumnus David Rockefeller, Sr.) of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had recently served as National Security Advisor to President Carter at the time of the book’s publication in 1982:
“On page 72, Brzezinski writes: ‘Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief.’
On page 83, he states: ‘Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man’s ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world.’
On page 123, we find: ‘Marxism supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality.’”
There is a book, co-authored by Phyllis Schlafly and Rear Admiral Chester Ward and published in 1975, entitled Kissinger on the Couch. Admiral Ward was a member of the CFR for sixteen years. Here is what he and Mrs. Schlafly had to say in Kissinger on the Couch (pp. 149-151) about the nature of the CFR and David Rockefeller, Sr.:
“The first influential CFR clique [...] is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists — more respectfully referred to as the organized internationalists. They are the ones who carry on the tradition of the founders. They act as if strategic nuclear power were merely another type of military force. Their ideology is the only one stated in any official accounts of CFR’s history. For example, the President’s Report dated August 31, 1972, recites:
‘The origins of the Council on Foreign Relations lay in the concern of the founders at what they regarded as the disappointing conduct of the Versailles negotiations (in which most of the founders had been participants), and at the short-sighted, as they saw it, rejection by the United States of membership in the League of Nations. In 1921 they founded the Council as a privately funded, nonprofit and nonpartisan organization of individual members.’
As accurately stated in the 1972 President’s Report quoted above, CFR is an ‘organization of individual members.’ This point has been missed by most of those who have attempted to picture CFR’s power. CFR, as such, does not write the platforms of both political parties or select their respective presidential candidates, or control U.S. defense and foreign policies. But CFR members, as individuals, acting in concert with other individual CFR members, do.
Thus David Rockefeller does not exercise such vast powers because he is chairman of the board of directors of CFR, but because he is chairman of the board of one of the two most powerful banks in the world and a member of one of the world’s wealthiest families. In this country, his influence extends into finance, business, industry, transportation, communications, the press, television, universities, foundations, international organizations, and government. He has similar influence throughout the Free World, and is now rapidly expanding into the Communist World.
When he, or any other influential member of the CFR, decides to take a hand in a policy or program within the cognizance of CFR, he will not act through the organization, but as leader of a sort of floating ad hoc coalition with other influential members having similar objectives. The policy-making members use CFR as an instrument rather than as an organization. It has proven to be a tool of great value, especially for propagandizing.
Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition. The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible. By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be. If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”
In Kissinger on the Couch, Mrs. Schlafly and Admiral Ward also wrote (pp. 144-145):
“In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First’”, citing the conclusion of “Reflections on Our National Purpose”, the lead article in the 50th Anniversary issue of Foreign Affairs, written by Kingman Brewster, Jr.:
“‘It is hard to see how we will engage the young, and stand any chance of competing for the respect of mankind generally, if we continue to be hold-outs, more concerned with the sovereignty of nations than with the ultimate sovereignty of peoples. The problems will define the scope of the solutions. Transnational problems will eventually call forth transnational arrangements. The question is whether these solutions will embody a concern for the rule of law and the dispersion of private and local initiative,
or whether they will bring with them the heavy and often cruel hand of authoritarian prescriptions. If we remain inert, no one else has the power, coupled with a common law
heritage and federal experience, which might achieve a rule of law as we know it. That is, a rule of law which seeks to encourage private initiative and local self-determination, while at the same time keeping private powers or local principalities from overreaching
or overrunning others.
If we continue to be grudging about it—if we are unreliable partners, except when it suits our immediate self-interest, if we wait until leadership is riskless—then, when we appeal for followers, they will not be there.
Our new situation of mutual, national dependence is inescapable. If we would face it in a creative mood, we will have to take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours on matters which none of us can control alone. We shall have to abide by lawfully achieved results even when we might have wished or voted otherwise. Some day, some President must convince all the American people that this is a proud
and exciting call to be faced with zest rather than with reluctance. As we approach the bicentennial of the Republic, perhaps what we need most for 1976 is a resounding Declaration of International Interdependence. Maybe by 1987 we could then celebrate
the two hundredth year of the Constitution of the United States with at least the beginning of global arrangements and institutions to safeguard the common defense and the general
welfare of humanity everywhere. Then we would rediscover the sense of purpose, and once more know the satisfaction, of those who saved the peoples of the colonies by making them into a nation. We, in our turn, might save the peoples of nations by making them into a world community capable of survival.’
Most Middle Americans would dismiss this as the quintessence of utopian slobbering. But these excerpts are from the credo of the policy spokesman for the majority of members of the most powerful private organization in the world. Over the years, we have seen substantially every one of their America-Last programs become the official policy of the United States Government.
Read the Brewster-CFR credo again. It is important not to miss the slightly concealed but intense hate of the terms ‘nation’ and ‘sovereignty of nations.’ Note the holier-than-thou contempt and resentment of those who would serve America first, of those who would be loyal to the sovereignty of the United States, rather than to the ‘world community’ or to the ‘ultimate sovereignty of peoples.’ Notice that we are implored to accept ‘some risks’ in pooling our sovereignty with others. These risks include disarming down to the point where we would be completely helpless against the ’peace-keeping’ forces of the global government; if the plan goes sour, it would be too late to rebuild U.S. military strength.”
In Kissinger on the Couch, Mrs. Schlafly and Admiral Ward wrote of Henry Kissinger (p. 144):
“How much — in thousands of deliverable megatons — are Henry Kissinger’s theories worth to the Kremlin?
The answer to that will depend in large part on whether Kissinger really believes what he says, or merely wants us to believe that he believes it. He probably has the brainpower to recognize that the theories on which he has staked our lives and the survival of the United States have been tried — sometimes under different names — for more than 12 years, and have proved invalid in actual practice. Perhaps his ideology has blocked his brain from recognizing reality; or perhaps he is blocked because of his personal need to retain the active support of the influential factions in the Council on Foreign Relations.
If Kissinger has not recognized that these theories will inexorably plunge the United States into disaster, he has thereby demonstrated that he is incompetent to hold either the position of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or of Secretary of State. If, however, he does know that these theories are inviting disaster, and he still palms them off on the President, suppresses all intelligence that would expose their failures, and destroys the political careers of all who warn against those theories, then his motivation must be far more sinister — and his value to the Kremlin far greater. A fool does not work in conscious cooperation with the enemy.”
As of 2009, Kissinger still controlled the American intelligence community. In light of Russia’s and China’s ongoing modernizations of their respective nuclear arsenals, this is very dangerous for Americans, as Kissinger is not only a New York Jew, but a probable Russian asset (see here and here).
To bring us full circle, the Chairman and CEO of the aforementioned Mr. Sutherland’s current employer, Goldman Sachs, is Lloyd Blankfein, a New York Jew. Blankfein was a chairman of the gala dinner closing the fiftieth anniversary year (2006-2007) of Asia Society, a globalist trade organization founded by David Rockefeller, Sr.’s oldest brother, John D. Rockefeller III. Blankfein has described himself as “a registered Democrat and a Rockefeller Republican”, “more conservative on fiscal issues and more liberal on social issues”. Of course, Blankfein and his firm have contributed greatly to Comrade Obama’s current reelection campaign, perhaps even more than they otherwise would have, since Obama gave them such a generous bailout package following the stock market crash of 2008. (Comrade Zyuganov himself claimed to approve of the bailouts, and it appears the admiration is mutual: Obama allegedly supported Zyuganov over Putin in his failed bid for the office of President of the Russian Federation, which Zyuganov sought to merge with that of Prime Minister of the Russian Federation.) So why shouldn’t a nice, Fabian-approved, Irish Catholic boy like Sutherland — employed by Jews no less — tell the EUSSR to forcibly multiracialize itself (the EUSSR is also known as “Eurabia“, after all), just as Ronald Lauder and the American-Jewish mafia have been doing, since “migration” (i.e., alien invasion) is supposedly a ”crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EUSSR republics, “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”?
Sutherland’s idea of “economic growth” is interesting, assuming he is sincere, which he probably isn’t, especially in a Europe where the “migrants” — generally darkies, of whom the majority are Mohammedans, and who constitute virtually the entirety of rapists in Sweden and Norway, with six percent of Swedish girls in a 2009 survey by Aftenposten (Hat Tip: Brussels Journal) claiming to have been raped in the past year, and with police in Oslo, Norway now admitting the obvious with respect to the rather grisly situation in their city — contribute nothing of note to the economy anyway, preferring to go on the public dole and breed instead, so (or so they hope) they can take over the estate of the soon-to-be-extinct indigenous Whites in a generation or two.
Based on the experience in America, I would say the solution (although it will probably not be implemented) is for patriotic Whites to rise up and do away with their alien and renegade oppressors. That means — as Srdja Trifkovic is almost alone amongst American (naturalized or otherwise) “conservatives” in suggesting – abolishing the EUSSR (and Europol, whose members are immune from prosecution, unlike even the Soviet KGB, and who are tasked with prosecuting political crimes including “racism” and “xenophobia”). Romano Prodi, one of the chief architects of the European Union, as well as a former President of the European Commission (1999-2004) and Prime Minister of Italy (1996-1998 and 2006-2008), has been on the payroll of Goldman Sachs; according to Pavel Stroilov, Alexander Litvinenko recounted to Stroilov having been told by a senior colleague, three-star KGB/FSB General Trofimov, that Prodi was “[their] man in Italy”, and that Prodi had “collaborated with the KGB” and “carried out KGB missions”. As documented by Stroilov and Vladimir Bukovsky, the EUSSR was created as a result of cooperation between European Leftist – including the aforementioned UK Labor Party –and Soviet Communist leaders, with the advice and consent of the Trilateral Commission. According to Stroilov, Trofimov told Litvinenko that the FSB (the new name for the KGB) had resumed contact with the KGB’s old agents of influence in the West after 1996; thus, the tightening of the EUSSR straitjacket and the strengthening of Marxist-Leninist and other Leftist trends in the Americas should surprise no one.
While White nationalists in today’s America may continue to think wishfully of the Russian leadership as an ally, the Russian state is the enemy of the Russian nation (see here), perhaps to an even greater extent than the American state (i.e., the minority occupation government) is the enemy of founding-stock Americans, since Russians have no freedom of speech or alternative media (see here), and the Russian state thus would likely support White nationalists in a America only for as long as required to destroy the Leviathan as a potential rival. In particular, the leading proponent of Russia’s state ideology, Neo-Eurasianism, is Alexander Dugin, who has written that there is a need for the Russian special services “to provoke all forms of instability and separatism within the borders of the United States (it is possible to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists)” and that “It is especially important… to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics… .” Dugin, a darling of the “traditionalist” faux-Right, is on record praising North Korea’s political system (“The great Korean society is the last Marxist, socialist stronghold, despite massive pressure from the entire world”) and expressing his hope that Obama, as a “half African”, would cause the United States to “democratize its own territory, perhaps by giving more rights to [her] Hispanic population, perhaps by paying reparations to Blacks for slavery”. Dugin has also publicly expressed his hope that Obama, as a “Kenyan”, would lead the United States into an “American Perestroika”. Dugin said “American Perestroika means America will suddenly start unilaterally taking apart its missiles”, which would (and probably will) mean subjugation or death for most or all Americans – especially White Americans, who are less sympathetic to Marxism – at the hands of Russia and China.
According to Russia Today, Mikhail Gorbachev told an audience at Lafayette College, while speaking there on October 19, 2011 in support of the Occupy Wall Street protests: “Some people in the United States were pushing the idea of creating a global American empire, and that was a mistake from the start. Other people in America are now giving thought to the future of their country. The big banks, the big corporations, are still paying the same big bonuses to their bosses. Was there ever a crisis for them? . . . I believe America needs its own perestroika.” Later in the speech, Gorbachev said: “We need to build a society where human beings are at the center. A lot of brain power is concentrated in the military-industrial sector; we need to shift that to other goals.” Upon Obama’s election in November 2008, Gorbachev called on him to implement perestroika in the United States, and said of Obama: “This is a man of our times, he is capable of restarting dialogue, all the more since the circumstances will allow him to get out of a dead-end situation. Barack Obama has not had a very long career, but it is hard to find faults, and he has led an election campaign winning over the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. We can judge from this that this person is capable of engaging in dialogue and understanding current realities.” Given that Obama met Gorbachev at the White House soon thereafter, for reasons that remain unclear, it appears the admiration is mutual; Once Upon a Time in the West has an excellent analysis of what Gorbachev and Obama may have discussed. While Gorbachev was a proponent of De Gaulle’s “Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals”, Dugin is a proponent of a notion attributed to Dugin’s fellow National Bolshevist, Jean-Francois Thiriart – namely Europe “from Vladivostok to Dublin“, which has found its way into Russian state propaganda. Dugin has openly expressed his intention of dropping the “National” in “National Bolshevism”, if and when National Bolshevism takes hold in Russia.
The good news is that the educated, elite Jewish supremacists and White pods, who are the financial backbone — along with a significant contribution from the Russian special services, as described by the late KGB/SVR defector Col. Sergei Tretyakov in Comrade J (see here for an FBI white paper containing some information acquired from Col. Tretyakov, and here and here for video interviews with him conducted shortly before his death in 2010) — of what Fjordman aptly calls “cultural and genetic Communism” in the Caucasphere, have low birth rates; thus, despite their predicament, there is still hope for non-elite Whites. The Eastern Bloc intelligence services always regarded American Jews as being more susceptible to ideological manipulation (and, ideally, to recruitment) than most other Westerners, due to American Jews’ liberal tendencies. Similarly, the post-Soviet SVR recruits collaborators from Jewish organizations with pro-Russian political orientations, as well as from Russian organizations (especially from the Russian Orthodox churches, now that the ROCOR has been effectively destroyed, having been lured to a quiet death at the hands of the Stalinist Moscow Patriarchate). Col. Tretyakov mentioned in Comrade J that Jews who applied to serve in the KGB/SVR were almost always rejected, which is not surprising, considering that Anatoliy Golitsyn had earlier claimed most Jews in the KGB were regarded as potential security risks, and were therefore transferred to the “outer KGB” (foreign intelligence) during the reorganization of the KGB under Alexander Shelepin, where they were not privy to Soviet grand strategy, since a leak from the “inner KGB”, whose officers generally did not come into contact with foreigners, could have spelled disaster. It seems that the Russians, unlike modern Westerners, have had the good sense to understand that most Jews are potentially seditious, and that the Russians eventually stopped allowing Jews into the KGB and its successor organizations altogether.
It is worth noting that David Rockefeller, Sr. founded the Trilateral Commission because the Bilderberg Group refused to include Japan, which — unlike formerly White countries — has not been forced to accept unassimilable immigrants, or large numbers of immigrants from anywhere for that matter, despite her having been in a recession for the past generation, and despite her now being in perilous demographic decline. Perhaps the older generation of Leftists thinks such largesse is due to the Japanese because they aren’t White; little do mainstream East Asians in America (and, increasingly, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the EU), who fervently support The System, seem to realize that the younger, hardcore “anti-racists” — who have infiltrated every corner of life in the formerly White regions of the world — hate East Asians for their upward mobility almost as much as they hate Whitey for his superior civilization and physical beauty.
November 17th, 2013 Update:
Matt Parrott has an interesting article at Counter-Currents in which he predicts Japan will open her floodgates to Third World immigration-invasion.