Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Month: February, 2016

The “Russian” Revolution

Part III

 


“The Daily Telegraph reported on April 9, 1937: ‘Since M. Litvinoff ousted Chicherin, no Russian has ever held a high post in the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.’ It seems that the Daily Telegraph was unaware that Chicherin’s mother was a Jewess. The Russian Molotov, who became Foreign Minister later, has a Jewish wife, and one of his two assistants is the Jew, Lozovsky. It was the last-named who renewed the treaty with Japan in 1942, by which the Kamchatka fisheries provided the Japanese with an essential part of their food supplies.” (The Jewish War of Survival, Arnold Leese, p. 84; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, p. 24)


I am quite ready to admit that the Jewish leaders are only a proportionately infinitesimal fraction, even as the British rulers of India are an infinitesimal fraction. But it is none the less true that those few Jewish leaders are the masters of Russia, even as the fifteen hundred Anglo-Indian Civil Servants are the masters of India. For any traveller in Russia to deny such a truth would be to deny any traveller in Russia to deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses. When you find that out of a large number of important Foreign Office officials whom you have met, all but two are Jews, you are entitled to say that the Jews are running the Russian Foreign Office.” (The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, a passage quoted from Impressions of Soviet Russia, by Charles Sarolea, Belgian Consul in Edinburgh and Professor of French Literature in the University of Edinburgh, pp. 93-94; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 31-32)


The Bolsheviks had promised to give the workers the industries, mines, etc., and to make them ‘masters of the country.’ In reality, never has the working class suffered such privations as those brought about by the so-called epoch of ‘socialization.’ In place of the former capitalists a new ‘bourgeoisie’ has been formed, composed of 100 percent Jews. Only an insignificant number of former Jewish capitalists left Russia after the storm of the Revolution. All the other Jews residing in Russia enjoy the special protection of Stalin’s most intimate adviser, the Jew Lazare Kaganovitch. All the big industries and factories, war products, railways, big and small trading, are virtually and effectively in the hands of Jews, while the working class figures only in the abstract as the ‘patroness of economy.’

The wives and families of Jews possess luxurious cars and country houses, spend the summer in the best climatic or bathing resorts in the Crimea and Caucasus, are dressed in costly Astrakhan coats; they wear jewels, gold bracelets and rings, send to Paris for their clothes and articles of luxury. Meanwhile the laborer, deluded by the revolution, drags on a famished existence…

The Bolsheviks had promised the peoples of old Russia full liberty and autonomy…I confine myself to the example of the Ukraine. The entire administration, the important posts controlling works in the region, are in the hands of Jews or of men faithfully devoted to Stalin, commissioned expressly from Moscow. The inhabitants of this land once fertile and flourishing suffer from almost permanent famine.” (Giornale d’Italia, February 17, 1938, M. Butenko, former Soviet Charge d’Affairs at Bucharest; Free Press (London) March, 1938; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 44-45)


“On my arrival in U.S.S.R. in 1934, I remember that I was struck by the enormous proportion of Jewish functionaries everywhere. In the Press, and diplomatic circles, it was difficult to find non-Jews…In France many believe, even amongst the Communists, that, thanks to the present anti-Jewish purge…Russia is no longer Israel’s chosen land…Those who think that are making a mistake.” (Contre-Revolution of December, 1937, by J. Fontenoy, on Anti-Semitism in Russia; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 43-44)


CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, of Hungary quoted in B’nai B’rith Messenger, January 28, 1949: “The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews… they demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary.”


CAPTAIN MONTGOMERY SCHYLER, American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia, in a military intelligence report dated March 1, 1919, to Lt. Col. Barrows in Vladivostok: “It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty.”


OUDENDYK, the Netherlands’ Minister to Petrograd on September 6, 1918, to the British Government, published in the unexpurgated edition of A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, April, 1919: “…I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue before the World, not even excluding the war which is till raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole World, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”


H.H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937: “Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918.”


REV. KENNETH GOFF, in STILL ‘TIS OUR ANCIENT FOE, page 99: “The Frankenstein of Communism is the product of the Jewish mind, and was turned loose upon the world by the son of a Rabbi, Karl Marx, in the hopes of destroying Christian civilization – as well as others. The testimony given before the Senate of the United States which is take from the many pages of the Overman Report, reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jewish bankers financed the Russian Revolution.”

Ted Nugent VS the ADL – Who is Behind Gun Control?

This video, Dr. David Duke, PhD and former member of the House of Representatives-LA completely and utterly refutes the vicious J. Greenblatt, ADL attack on Rocker Ted Nugent. It definitely answers the question of who is behind gun control in America and the hypocrisy of Zionists who have exactly opposite policies for their precious Israel than they do for America and the entirety of the Western World.

Adolf Hitler – proclamation to the German Folk

Fuhrer Headquarters, February 24, 1945

Adolf Hitler-Portrait-3

National Socialists! Party Comrades!

A sense of duty and my work prohibit my leaving headquarters at this time, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the day on which the principal program of our movement was proclaimed and accepted in Munich. The evening of February 24 was marked by the anticipation of a development whose terrible significance is perhaps clear to many people in its full extent only today.

At the time, the same coalition of irreconcilable enemies as today had already joined forces in the fight against the German Volk. The unnatural alliance of exploiting capitalism and misanthropic Bolshevism that today attempts to suffocate the world was the enemy to whom we sounded the battle cry on February 24, 1920, for the preservation of the nation. Just as today, the apparent contradiction of terms in the cooperation of extremist forces was only an expression of the unified will of a joint agitator and beneficiary. For a long time already, international Jewry has made use of both forms in the destruction of the freedom and social happiness of the nations.

When we met for the first time in Munich on February 24, 1920, we already had a clear idea of the tendencies and consequences of the strategy of both attackers. Capitalism and Bolshevism once divided our Volk internally and disarmed it, in order to exploit and destroy it in the end. In contrast to the lesson which history teaches us today, that was only a preliminary exercise.

This vilest conspiracy and bloodiest tyranny of all times against the freedom of all people tries to rise up to strike down the thousands of years of development of civilization in Europe.

There is a tremendous difference between the Germany of 1920 and that of 1945. Back then, it was a nation completely paralyzed-today, it is a military Volk fighting with the utmost fanaticism. Back then, it had an antiquated, disintegrating social order-today, it has an unshakable Volksgemeinschaft which is in the process of building things up. Had the old Germany had only a fraction of the power of resistance of the present one, then it would never have collapsed. Had the Germany of today had only a fraction of the weaknesses of back then, it would have died long ago! It is because of this that February 24, 1920, will one day go down in history as one of the great turning points in the evolution of mankind. Nameless and unknown men-with myself at their head-turned to a nation in the process of disintegration, and proclaimed a program whose theses were not understood by countless others and whose tendencies were rejected by the overwhelming majority. Today, we know the following: without this program, a new socialist German Volk and state would never have happened. Without this creation of the National Socialist German state, neither a German Reich nor a German Volk would exist today! After all, the substance of states, that is, the people themselves, are not eternal; they are born, they grow, and they pass away, according to what they are worth.

 Providence does not show mercy to the weak. Instead, it only recognizes the right to live for the healthy and strong! That the National Socialist movement, which came out of nothing, was, after a long struggle, able to seize power in the year 1933 by legal means was the result of a dogged and fanatical struggle which at times almost appeared hopeless. Whoever admires the miracle of today’s resistance or fails to understand it, should consider what it meant for me at the time to begin as an unknown and nameless man to wage the struggle for an idea and, thereby, the struggle for power, facing a united world of enemies. Who among our later critics would have been able, under similar conditions and starting out from nothing, to begin and complete such a work? What an incredible amount of work, will to fight, and strength of faith characterized those years of the struggle for power! What hurdles and setbacks had to be overcome! Only our doggedness and our unshakable will gained the victory in the end. Even though the framework of the struggle at the time may appear limited to us today, the objective in this fight and its course were the same as they are today. The stake was and is the existence of our German Volk! And that is why this fight was as sacred for us at the time as it is today. After all, on its success depended and still depends our race’s existence or nonexistence in the future. Who can still doubt today that, without the National Socialist revolution and its reorganization of the German Volkskorper-seen only in domestic terms-Germany would never have been in a position to face the present crisis? Who can deny that, without the material armament of the German Volk achieved by the National Socialist revolution, even the strongest will would not have sufficed to defy the devilish coalition which threatens us today! Only a bourgeois blockhead can delude himself into thinking that the flood from the east would not have come, had Germany opposed it with international laws on paper instead of with cannons, panzers, and airplanes! This century and our own age will weigh us in accordance with whether we were steadfast enough to oppose this invasion by Central Asia, the like of which the world has repeatedly witnessed since the turn of the era. As the invasion of the Huns was not repelled with pious wishes and admonitions, as the century-long invasions of our Reich from the southeast were not thwarted by diplomatic artistry, as the Mongol invasion did not stop at the borders of ancient cultures, so this danger cannot be eliminated by right alone, but by the strength which stands behind this right. Right means the duty to defend the life given to us by the Creator. It is the sacred right of self-preservation. The success of this self-preservation depends exclusively on the greatness of our risk and the willingness to take on every sacrifice in order to preserve this life for the future.

By so doing, we are not doing anything different from what the Germanic and Latin races had to do in the age of the migration of the people; it is no different from what our ancestors had to do in the long years of the Turkish Wars and what eventually kept the Mongol invasion from transforming our continent into a desert. No League of Nations’ assembly but the Battle on the Catalaunian Fields broke Attila the Hun’s power. No chatter at Geneva or any type of convention will drive back Asian Bolshevism but only the will to win of our resistance and the force of our arms.

We all know how difficult the fight is. Whatever we may lose in it stands in no relation to what we will lose if it is not now nearing its victorious end.

Individual areas in the east of our Reich are now experiencing what Bolshevism is in reality. What this Jewish plague does to our women, children, and men in these areas represents the cruelest fate that a human brain is capable of concocting. There is only one way of opposing these Jewish-Bolshevik annihilators of mankind and their west European and American pimps: the deployment with utmost zeal and dogged steadfastness of all the strength a merciful God allows man to find in the most difficult times in the defense of his life. Whatever becomes weak in this will fall, must and will fade away. Just as the cowardly bourgeois parties of compromise first were cornered by the Bolshevik wave and then swept away, so today those bourgeois states disappear whose narrow-minded representatives believed they could enter into an alliance with the devil in the hope of being more cunning than he is satanic. A horrifying repetition of the domestic events is taking place today in the mighty international political sphere of the present events. But just as in the end we struck the Bolshevik enemy to the ground by defeating the narrow-minded small-party particularism and founded the National Socialist Volksstaat, so we will today achieve victory by defeating the jumble of bourgeois-democratic views of the state, and we will crown it with the annihilation of Bolshevism.

When Rome faced its most difficult hour after the Battle of Cannae, it won not through the attempt of a cowardly compromise but through the uncompromising decision to continue the struggle for its existence by summoning the remaining strength of its people. Even though the Second Punic War failed to arrest the African advances once and for all, the Third [Punic War] put an end to them! When the greatest king in our history, Frederick II, seemed likely to succumb to an overwhelming world coalition in his Seven Years War, it was likewise only because of his heroic soul that the germ cell and the core of a coming Reich remained victorious in the end.

What we have so often preached at home about the essence of the enemy coalition has now been confirmed: it is a devilish pact between democratic capitalism and Jewish Bolshevism. All nations whose statesmen have signed this pact will sooner or later become the victims of the demonic spirits they have summoned. Let there be no doubt that National Socialist Germany will wage this fight for as long as it takes for this historic turn of events to come about here, too, and this will happen still this year.

No power on earth will make us weak at heart. They have destroyed so many of our beautiful, magnificent, and sacred things that there remains only one mission in our lives: to create a state that will rebuild what they have destroyed. Therefore, it is our duty to preserve the freedom of the German nation for the future and not allow German manpower to be abducted to Siberia, but to deploy it for the rebuilding and dedicate it to the service of our own Volk. They have taught us so many horrible things that there is no more horror for us. What the homeland must endure is dreadful, what the front must accomplish is superhuman. Yet when, in the face of such pain, a whole nation proves itself as reliable as the German Volk, then Providence cannot and will not deny its right to live in the end. As always in history, it will reward its steadfastness with the prize of earthly existence. Since so many of our possessions have been destroyed, this can only reinforce us in our fanatical determination to see our enemies a thousand times over as what they truly are: destroyers of an eternal civilization and annihilators of mankind! And out of this hatred will grow a sacred will: to oppose these annihilators of our existence with all the strength God has given us and defeat them in the end.

Our Volk has survived so many terrible times in its two-thousand-year-old history that we have no right to doubt that we shall also overcome the present times of need! If the homeland continues to do its duty as it does now, even increases its will to do its utmost, if the frontline soldier follows the example of the brave homeland and risks his life for his homeland, then the whole world will be shattered when it runs up against us! If front and homeland continue in their joint determination to destroy him who dares to fail when he confronts the commandment of preservation, who reveals himself to be cowardly, or who sabotages the fight, then they will jointly prevent the destruction of the nation.

Then the German victory will stand at the end of this confrontation! And here we feel pride and joy: when the World War was nearing its end what we feared most was the corruption of our youth. When this war is over, we will place the victory in the hands of a young generation that has been steeled by thousandfold suffering and fire and is the best Germany has ever called its own.

It will set an example in the cities and in the countryside for countless coming generations. This, too, is an accomplishment of the National Socialist education and a result of the challenge to fight which came out of Munich twenty-five years ago.

My own life is given value only by what it means for the nation. I therefore work incessantly for the resurrection and strengthening of our fronts for the defensive and the offensive, the production of old and new weapons, their deployment, the reinforcement of the spirit of our resistance, and if necessary- as in former times-for the elimination of the vermin that does not wish to join the preservation of our Volk but wish to oppose it.

My dear party comrades! These days I read in British papers that there is a plan to destroy my Berghof. I almost regret that this has not yet happened.

After all, whatever I call my own is not worth more than what belongs to my Volksgenossen. I would be happy to bear everything, down to the last detail and as far as humanly possible, that others must bear. The only thing that I would not be able to bear right now would be a sign of weakness from my Volk. What therefore makes me the happiest and the proudest man is the belief that the German Volk demonstrates its strong character precisely in the hour of greatest despair. May every German in the coming weeks and months remember that he is obliged to place everything into the service of our joint preservation for the coming millennia. Whoever is in a bad situation should and must know that many Germans have lost far more than he has. The life which remains for us can be dedicated to only one commandment, namely, to make up for what the international Jewish criminals and their helpers have done to our Volk.

Just as twenty-five years ago we set out, as a community, to obtain compensation for the injustice done to our Volk, so today we again fight as a community to obtain compensation for the suffering which they once more inflicted upon us, the oppression which they brought to us, the damage which they caused here. Therefore, it must be our unshakable will to think of Germany even when we draw our last breath. We must do so at a time when men and women in the cities and in the countryside, down to our youth, live in compliance with the commandment to risk everything in order to free our Volk from this misery, to restore after the war its culture in the cities and in the countryside, and its National Socialist communal life. Above all, they must never again abandon the path to the establishment of a true Volksstaat, one far away from every ideology and [all] classes; a state which rises above the conceit of the individual social strata, which is inspired by the conviction that the eternal values of a people find expression in its best sons and daughters, who must be searched for, educated, and deployed as a merciful God gave them to us, regardless of their birth or origin.

My party comrades! Twenty-five years ago I announced the victory of the movement. Today, I prophesy-as always inspired by my faith in our Volk- the final victory of the German Reich!

Adolf Hitler

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 12

11.Nov-1938-09

12.Dec-1938-01

12.Dec-1938-02

12.Dec-1938-03

12.Dec-1938-04

12.Dec-1938-05

12.Dec-1938-06

12.Dec-1938-08

12.Dec-1938-09

12.Dec-1938-10

12.Dec-1938-11

1938

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/616/

A Historical Review

By Kevin Macdonald
Published: 1998-01-01

Department of Psychology, California State University-Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840-0901

[We apologize for this maimed paper (Notes 1-4 not included in text, apparently missing passages, etc.). We strive to complete it; Codoh ed.]

Population and Environment, Abstract

This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States immigration policy. In addition to a periodic interest in fostering the immigration of co-religionists as a result of anti-Semitic movements, Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they reside as minorities. Jews have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences.

Introduction

Ethnic conflict is of obvious importance for understanding critical aspects of American history, and not only for understanding Black/White ethnic conflict or the fate of Native Americans. Immigration policy is a paradigmatic example of conflict of interest between ethnic groups because immigration policy influences the future demographic composition of the nation. Ethnic groups unable to influence immigration policy in their own interests will eventually be displaced or reduced in relative numbers by groups able to accomplish this goal. This paper discusses ethnic conflict between Jews and gentiles in the area of immigration policy.

Immigration policy is, however, only one aspect of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles in America. The skirmishes between Jews and the gentile power structure beginning in the late nineteenth century always had strong overtones of anti-Semitism. These battles involved issues of Jewish upward mobility, quotas on Jewish representation in elite schools beginning in the nineteenth century and peaking in the 1920s and 1930s, the anti-Communist crusades in the post-World War II era, as well as the very powerful concern with the cultural influences of the major media extending from Henry Ford’s writings in the 1920s to the Hollywood inquisitions of the McCarthy era and into the contemporary era.

That anti-Semitism was involved in these issues can be seen from the fact that historians of Judaism (e.g., Sachar 1992, p. 620ff) feel compelled to include accounts of these events as important to the history of Jews in America, by the anti-Semitic pronouncements of many of the gentile participants, and by the self-conscious understanding of Jewish participants and observers.

The Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy in the United States is especially noteworthy as an aspect of ethnic conflict. Jewish involvement has had certain unique qualities that have distinguished Jewish interests from the interests of other groups favoring liberal immigration policies.

Throughout much of this period, one Jewish interest in liberal immigration policies stemmed from a desire to provide a sanctuary for Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic persecutions in Europe and elsewhere.

Anti-Semitic persecutions have been a recurrent phenomenon in the modern world beginning with the Czarist persecutions in 1881, and continuing into the post-World War II era in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As a result, liberal immigration has been a Jewish interest because “survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands” (Cohen 1972, p. 341). For a similar reason, Jews have consistently advocated an internationalist foreign policy for the United States because “an internationally-minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries” (Cohen 1972, p. 342).

However, in addition to a persistent concern that America be a safe haven for Jews fleeing outbreaks of anti-Semitism in foreign countries, there is evidence that Jews, much more than any other European-derived ethnic group in America, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that America would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous society (e.g., Cohen 1972). Pluralism serves both internal (within-group) and external (between-group) Jewish interests.

Pluralism serves internal Jewish interests because it legitimates the internal Jewish interest in rationalizing and openly advocating an interest in Jewish group commitment and non-assimilation, what Howard Sachar (1992, p. 427) terms its function in “legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society.” The development of an ethnic, political, or religious monoculture implies that Judaism can survive only by engaging in a sort of semi-crypsis. As Irving Louis Horowitz (1993, 86) notes regarding the long-term consequences of Jewish life under Communism, “Jews suffer, their numbers decline, and emigration becomes a survival solution when the state demands integration into a national mainstream, a religious universal defined by a state religion or a near-state religion.” Both Neusner (1987) and Ellman (1987) suggest that the increased sense of ethnic consciousness seen in Jewish circles recently has been influenced by this general movement within American society toward the legitimization of minority group ethnocentrism.

More importantly, ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous (MacDonald, 1994; 1998). Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of anti-Semitism in America compared to Europe was that “Jews did not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists (Higham 1984, p. 156). It follows also that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles.

Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. Reflecting the utility of cultural pluralism in serving internal Jewish group interests in maintaining cultural separatism, Kallen personally combined his ideology of cultural pluralism with a deep immersion in Jewish history and literature, a commitment to Zionism, and political activity on behalf of Jews in Eastern Europe (Sachar 1992, p. 425ff; Frommer 1978).

Kallen (1915; 1924) developed a “polycentric” ideal for American ethnic relationships. Kallen defined ethnicity as deriving from one’s biological endowment, implying that Jews should be able to remain a genetically and culturally cohesive group while nevertheless participating in American democratic institutions. This conception that the United States should be organized as a set of separate ethnic/cultural groups was accompanied by an ideology that relationships between groups would be cooperative and benign: “Kallen lifted his eyes above the strife that swirled around him to an ideal realm where diversity and harmony coexist” (Higham 1984, p. 209). Similarly in Germany, the Jewish leader Moritz Lazarus argued in opposition to the views of the German intellectual Heinrich Treitschke that the continued separateness of diverse ethnic groups contributed to the richness of German culture (Schorsch 1972, p. 63). Lazarus also developed the doctrine of dual loyalty which became a cornerstone of the Zionist movement.

Kallen wrote his 1915 essay partly in reaction to the ideas of Edward A. Ross (1914). Ross was a Darwinian sociologist who believed that the existence of clearly demarcated groups would tend to result in between-group competition for resources. Higham’s comment is interesting because it shows that Kallen’s romantic views of group co-existence were contradicted by the reality of between-group competition in his own day. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Kallen was a prominent leader of the American Jewish Congress (AJ Congress). During the 1920s and 1930s the AJ Congress championed group economic and political rights for Jews in Eastern Europe at a time when there was widespread ethnic tensions and persecution of Jews, and despite the fears of many that such rights would merely exacerbate current tensions. The AJ Congress demanded that Jews be allowed proportional political representation as well as the ability to organize their own communities and preserve an autonomous Jewish national culture. The treaties with Eastern European countries and Turkey included provisions that the state provide instruction in minority languages and that Jews have the right to refuse to attend courts or other public functions on the Sabbath (Frommer 1978, p. 162). Kallen’s idea of cultural pluralism as a model for America was popularized among gentile intellectuals by John Dewey (Higham 1984, p. 209), who in turn was promoted by Jewish intellectuals: “If lapsed Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant sensibilities, Dewey’s kind were resoundingly encouraged in that direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities” (Hollinger, 1996, p. 24).

Kallen’s ideas have been very influential in producing Jewish selfconceptualizations of their status in America. This influence was apparent as early as 1915 among American Zionists, such as Louis D. Brandeis. Brandeis viewed America as composed of different nationalities whose free development would “spiritually enrich the United States and would make it a democracy par excellence” (Gal 1989, p. 70). These views became “a hallmark of mainstream American Zionism, secular and religious alike”(Gal 1989, p. 70). But Kallen’s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived anti-semitism, through the shock of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the post-World War II years swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist fervor of its own. (Sachar 1992, p. 427). Explicit statements linking immigration policy to a Jewish interest in cultural pluralism can be found among prominent Jewish social scientists and political activists. In his review of Kallen’s (1956)Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea appearing in Congress Weekly (published by the AJ Congress), Joseph L. Blau (1958, p. 15) noted that “Kallen’s view is needed to serve the cause of minority groups and minority cultures in this nation without a permanent majority” – the implication being that Kallen’s ideology of multi-culturalism opposes the interests of any ethnic group in dominating America. The well-known author and prominent Zionist Maurice Samuel (1924, p. 215), writing partly as a negative reaction to the immigration law of 1924, wrote that “If, then, the struggle between us [i.e., Jews and gentiles] is ever to be lifted beyond the physical, your democracies will have to alter their demands for racial, spiritual and cultural homogeneity with the State. But it would be foolish to regard this as a possibility, for the tendency of this civilization is in the opposite direction. There is a steady approach toward the identification of government with race, instead of with the political State.” Samuel deplored the 1924 legislation and in the following quote he develops the view that the American state as having no ethnic implications:

We have just witnessed, in America, the repetition, in the peculiar form adapted to this country, of the evil farce to which the experience of many centuries has not yet accustomed us. If America had any meaning at all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above the trend of our present civilization- the identification of race with State… America was therefore the New World in this vital respect- that the State was purely an ideal, and nationality was identical.” {6}

[It is unclear whether the following sentence fragment is part of the quote or not. Apparently a one or two page sequence was scanned twice here. Ed.]

[There is a?] tendency for Jews to be persecuted by a culturally and/or ethnically homogeneous majority that come to view Jews as a negatively evaluated outgroup [?]

Similarly, in listing the positive benefits of immigration, Diana Aviv, director of the Washington Action Office of the Council of Jewish Federations states that immigration “is about diversity, cultural enrichment and economic opportunity for the immigrants” (quoted in Forward, March 8, 1996, p. 5). And in summarizing Jewish involvement in the 1996 legislative battles a newspaper account stated that”Jewish groups failed to kill a number of provisions that reflect the kind of political expediency that they regard as a direct attack on American pluralism” (Detroit Jewish News; May 10, 1996).

It is noteworthy also that there has been a conflict between predominantly Jewish neo-Conservatives and predominantly gentile paleo-conservatives over the issue of Third World immigration into the United States. Many of these neo-conservative intellectuals had previously been radical leftists,[4] and the split between the neo-conservatives and their previous allies resulted in an intense internecine feud (Gottfried 1993; Rothman & Lichter 1982, p. 105). Neo-conservatives Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an article by a paleo-conservative concerned that such immigration would eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants (see Judis 1990, p. 33). Other examples are neo-Conservatives Julian Simon (1990) and Ben Wattenberg (1991), both of whom advocate very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, so that the United States will become what Wattenberg describes as the world’s first “Universal Nation.” Based on recent data, Fetzer (1996) reports that Jews remain far more favorable to immigration to the United States than any other ethnic group or religion.

It should be noted as a general point that the effectiveness of Jewish organizations in influencing American immigration policy has been facilitated by certain characteristics of American Jewry. As Neuringer (1971, p. 87) notes, Jewish influence on immigration policy was facilitated by Jewish wealth, education, and social status. Reflecting its general disproportionate representation in markers of economic success and political influence, Jewish organizations have been able to have a vastly disproportionate effect on United States immigration policy because Jews as a group are highly organized, highly intelligent, and politically astute, and they were able to command a high level of financial, political, and intellectual resources in pursuing their political aims. Similarly, Hollinger (1996, p. 19) notes that Jews were more influential in the decline of a homogeneous Protestant Christian culture in the United States than Catholics because of their greater wealth, social standing, and technical skill in the intellectual arena. In the area of immigration policy, the main Jewish activist organization influencing immigration policy, the American Jewish Committee (AJ Committee), was characterized by 7 “strong leadership [particularly Louis Marshall], internal cohesion, well-funded programs, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies, and good timing” (Goldstein 1990, p. 333).

In this regard, the Jewish success in influencing immigration policy is entirely analogous to their success in influencing the secularization of American culture. As in the case of immigration policy, the secularization of American culture is a Jewish interest because Jews have a perceived interest that America not be a homogeneous Christian culture. “Jewish civil rights organizations have had an historic role in the postwar development of American church-state law and policy” (Ivers 1995, p. 2). Unlike the effort to influence immigration, the opposition to a homogeneous Christian culture was mainly carried out in the courts. The Jewish effort in this case was well funded and was the focus of well-organized, highly dedicated Jewish civil service organizations, including the AJ Committee, the AJ Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). It involved keen legal expertise both in the actual litigation but also in influencing legal opinion via articles in law journals and other forums of intellectual debate, including the popular media. It also involved a highly charismatic and effective leadership, particularly Leo Pfeffer of the AJ Congress: No other lawyer exercised such complete intellectual dominance over a chosen area of law for so extensive a period {5} as an author, scholar, public citizen, and above all, legal advocate who harnessed his multiple and formidable talents into a single force capable of satisfying all that an institution needs for a successful constitutional reform movement… That Pfeffer, through an enviable combination of skill, determination, and persistence, was able in such a short period of time to make church-state reform the foremost cause with which rival organizations associated the AJ Congress illustrates well the impact that individual lawyers endowed with exceptional skills can have on the character and life of the organizations for which they work… As if to confirm the extent to which Pfeffer is associated with post-Everson [i.e., post-1946] constitutional development, even the major critics of the Court’s church-state jurisprudence during this period and the modern doctrine of separationism rarely fail to make reference to Pfeffer as the central force responsible for what they lament as the lost meaning of the establishment clause. (Ivers 1995, pp. 222-224). Similarly, Hollinger (1996, p. 4) notes “the transformation of the ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews” in the period from the 1930s to the 1960s, as well as the Jewish influence on trends toward the secularization of American society and in advancing an ideal of cosmopolitanism (p. 11). The pace of this influence was very likely influenced by immigration battles of the 1920s. Hollinger notes that the “old Protestant establishment’s influence persisted until the 1960s 8 in large measure because of the Immigration Act of 1924: had the massive immigration of Catholics and Jews continued at pre-1924 levels, the course of American history would have been different in many ways, including, one may reasonably speculate, a more rapid diminution of Protestant cultural hegemony. Immigration restriction gave that hegemony a new lease of life” (p. 22). It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the immigration battles from 1881 to 1965 have been of momentous historical importance in shaping the contours of American culture in the late twentieth century.

The ultimate success of Jewish attitudes on immigration was also influenced by intellectual movements that collectively resulted in a decline of evolutionary and biological thinking in the academic world. Although playing virtually no role in the restrictionist position in the Congressional debates on the immigration (which focused mainly on the fairness of maintaining the ethnic status quo; see below), a component of the intellectual zeitgeist of the 1920s was the prevalence of evolutionary theories of race and ethnicity (Singerman 1986), particularly the theories of Madison Grant. In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant (1921) argued that the American colonial stock was derived from superior Nordic racial elements and that immigration of other races would lower the competence level of the society as a whole as well as threaten democratic and republican institutions. Grant’s ideas were popularized in the media at the time of the immigration debates (see Divine 1957, pp. 12ff) and often provoked negative comments in Jewish publications such as The American Hebrew (e.g., March 21, 1924, pp. 554, 625).[5] The debate over group differences in IQ was also tied to the immigration issue. C. C. Brigham’s study of intelligence among United States army personnel concluded that Nordics were superior to Alpine and Mediterranean Europeans, and Brigham (1923, p. 210) concluded that “(i)mmigration should not only be restrictive but highly selective.” In the Foreword to Brigham’s book, Harvard psychologist Robert M. Yerkes stated that “The author presents not theories but facts. It behooves us to consider their reliability and meaning, for no one of us as a citizen can afford to ignore the menace of race deterioration or the evident relation of immigration to national progress and welfare” (in Brigham 1923, pp. Vii-viii).

Nevertheless, as Samelson (1975) points out, the drive to restrict immigration originated long before IQ testing came into existence and restriction was favored by a variety of groups, including organized labor, for reasons other than those related to race and IQ, including especially the fairness of maintaining the ethnic status quo in the United States. Moreover, although Brigham’s IQ testing results did indeed appear in the statement submitted by the Allied Patriotic Societies to the House hearings,[6] the role of IQ testing in the immigration debates has been greatly exaggerated (Snyderman & Herrnstein, 1983). Indeed, IQ testing was never even mentioned in either the House Majority Report or the Minority {9} Report, and “there is no mention of intelligence testing in the Act; test results on immigrants appear only briefly in the committee hearings and are then largely ignored or criticized, and they are brought up only once in over 600 pages of congressional floor debate, where they are subjected to further criticism without rejoinder. None of the major contemporary figures in testing … were called to testify, nor were their writings inserted into the legislative record” (Snyderman & Herrnstein 1983, 994).

It is also very easy to over-emphasize the importance of theories of Nordic superiority as an ingredient of popular and Congressional restrictionist sentiment. As Singerman (1986, 118-119) points out, “racial anti-Semitism” was employed by only “a handful of writers;” and “the Jewish ‘problem’ … was a minor preoccupation even among such widely-published authors as Madison Grant or T. Lothrop Stoddard and none of the individuals examined [in Singerman’s review] could be regarded as professional Jew-baiters or fulltime propagandists against Jews, domestic or foreign.” As indicated below, arguments related to Nordic superiority, including supposed Nordic intellectual superiority, played remarkably little role in Congressional debates over immigration in the 1920s, the common argument of the restrictionists being that immigration policy should reflect equally the interests of all ethnic groups currently in the country.

Nevertheless, it is probable that the decline in evolutionary/biological theories of race and ethnicity facilitated the sea change in immigration policy brought about by the 1965 law. As Higham (1984) notes, by the time of the final victory in 1965 which removed national origins and racial ancestry from immigration policy and opened up immigration to all human groups, the Boasian perspective of cultural determinism and anti-biologism had become standard academic wisdom. The result was that “it became intellectually fashionable to discount the very existence of persistent ethnic differences. The whole reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful ideological weapon” (Higham 1984, pp. 58-59).

Jewish intellectuals were prominently involved in the movement to eradicate the racialist ideas of Grant and others (Degler 1991, p. 200). Indeed, even during the earlier debates leading up to the immigration bills of 1921 and 1924, restrictionists perceived themselves to be under attack from Jewish intellectuals. In 1918, Prescott F. Hall, secretary of the Immigration Restriction League, wrote to Grant that “What I wanted … was the names of a few anthropologists of note who have declared in favor of the inequality of the races… I am up against the Jews all the time in the equality argument and thought perhaps you might be able offhand to name a few (besides Osborn) whom I could quote in support” (in Samelson 1975, p. 467)

{10} Grant also believed that Jews were engaged in a campaign to discredit racial research. In the Introduction to the 1921 edition of Passing of the Great Race, Grant complained that “(I)t is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when not mentioned by name. The underlying idea seems to be that if publication can be suppressed the facts themselves will ultimately disappear. Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France.” Particularly important was the work of Columbia University anthropologist Franz Boas and his followers. “Boas’ influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated” (Degler 1991, p. 61). He engaged in a “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture” (p. 61). “Boas, almost single-handedly, developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science” (p. 71).

Throughout this explication of Boas’s conception of culture and his opposition to a racial interpretation of human behavior, the central point has been that Boas did not arrive at the position from a disinterested, scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question. Instead, his idea derived from an ideological commitment that began in his early life and academic experiences in Europe and continued in America to shape his professional outlook… there is no doubt that he had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that would rebut or refute an ideological outlook – racism – which he considered restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society… there is a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public. (Degler 1991, pp. 82-83) There is evidence that Boas strongly identified as a Jew and viewed his research as having important implications in the political arena and particularly in the area of immigration policy. Boas was born in Prussia to a “Jewish-liberal” family in which the revolutionary ideals of 1848 remained influential (Stocking 1968, p. 149). Boas developed a “left-liberal posture which … is at once scientific and political” (Stocking 1968, p. 149) and was intensely concerned with antiSemitism from an early period in his life (White 1966, p. 16). Moreover, Boas was deeply alienated from and hostile toward gentile culture, particularly the cultural ideal of the Prussian aristocracy (Degler 1991, p. 200; Stocking 111968, p. 150). For example, when Margaret Mead was looking for a way to persuade Boas to let her pursue her research in the South Sea islands, “she hit upon a sure way of getting him to change his mind: ‘I knew there was one thing that mattered more to Boas than the direction taken by anthropological research. This was that he should behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian autocrat.’ The ploy worked because she had indeed uncovered the heart of his personal values” (Degler 1991, p. 73).

Boas was greatly motivated by the immigration issue as it occurred early in the century. Carl Degler (1991, p. 74) notes that Boas’ professional correspondence “reveals that an important motive behind his famous headmeasuring project in 1910 was his strong personal interest in keeping America diverse in population.” The study, whose conclusions were placed into the Congressional Record by Representative Emanuel Celler during the debate on immigration restriction (Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, pp. 59155916), concluded that the environmental differences consequent to immigration caused differences in head shape. (At the time, head shape as determined by the “cephalic index” was the main measurement used by scientists involved in racial differences research.) Boas argued that his research showed that all foreign groups living in favorable social circumstances had become assimilated to America in the sense that their physical measurements converged on the American type. Although he was considerably more circumspect regarding his conclusions in the body of his report (see also Stocking 1968, p. 178), Boas (1911, p. 5) stated in his Introduction that “all fear of an unfavorable influence of South European immigration upon the body of our people should be dismissed.” As a further indication of Boas’ ideological commitment to the immigration issue, Degler makes the following comment regarding one of Boas’ environmentalist explanations for mental differences between immigrant and native children: “Why Boas chose to advance such an ad hoc interpretation is hard to understand until one recognizes his desire to explain in a favorable way the apparent mental backwardness of the immigrant children” (p. 75)

Boas and his students were intensely concerned with pushing an ideological agenda within the american anthropological profession (Degler 1991; Freeman 1991; Torrey 1992). In this regard it is interesting that Boas and his associates had a much more highly developed sense of group identity, a commitment to a common viewpoint, and an agenda to dominate the institutional structure of anthropology than did their opponents (Stocking 1968, pp. 279-280). The defeat of the Darwinians “had not happened without considerable exhortation of ‘every mother’s son’ standing for the ‘Right.’ Nor had it been accomplished without some rather strong pressure applied both to staunch friends and to the ‘weaker brethren’ – often by the sheer force of Boas’ personality” (Stocking 1968, 286). By 1915 the 12 Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on the Executive Board (Stocking 1968, 285). By 1926 every major department of anthropology in the United States was headed by a student of Boas, the majority of whom were Jewish. According to White (1966, p. 26), Boas’ most influential students were Ruth Benedict, Alexander Goldenweiser, Melville Herskovits, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Margaret Mead, Paul Radin, Edward Sapir, and Leslie Spier

All of this “small, compact group of scholars … gathered about their leader” (White 1966, p. 26) were Jews with the exception of Kroeber, Benedict and Mead. Indeed, Herskovits (1953, p. 91), whose hagiography of Boas qualifies as one of the most worshipful in intellectual history, noted that “(T)he four decades of the tenure of [Boas’] professorship at Columbia gave a continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their turn, they trained the students who … have continued the tradition in which their teachers were trained.” By the mid-1930s the Boasian view of the cultural determination of human behavior had a strong influence on social scientists generally (Stocking 1968, p. 300).

The ideology of racial equality was an important weapon on behalf of opening immigration up to all human groups. For example, in a 1951 statement to Congress, the AJ Congress stated that “The findings of science must force even the most prejudiced among us to accept, as unqualifiedly as we do the law of gravity, that intelligence, morality and character, bear no relationship whatever to geography or place of birth.”[7] The statement went on to cite some of Boas’ popular writings on the subject as well as the writings of Boas’ protege Ashley Montagu, perhaps the most visible opponent of the concept of race during this period. Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, theorized that humans are innately cooperative (but not innately aggressive) and there is a universal brotherhood among humans (see Shipman 1994, p. 159ff). And in 1952 another Boas’ protege, Margaret Mead, testified before the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953, p. 92) that “all human beings from all groups of people have the same potentialities… Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that the people of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities.” Another witness stated that the executive board of the American Anthropological Association had unanimously endorsed the proposition that “(A)ll scientific evidence indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of acquiring or adapting to our civilization” (PCIN 1953, p. 93). By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits (Cong. Rec., 111, 1965, p. 24469) confidently announced to the Senate during the debate on the immigration bill that “(B)oth the dictates of our consciences as well as the precepts of sociologists tell us that immigration, as {13} it exists in the national origins quota system, is wrong, and without any basis in reason or fact for we know better than to say that one man is better than another because of the color of his skin.” The intellectual revolution and its translation into public policy had been completed.

Jewish Anti-Restrictionist Political Activity

Jewish Anti-Restrictionist Activity up to 1924

While Jewish involvement in altering the intellectual discussion of race and ethnicity appears to have had long term repercussions on United States immigration policy, Jewish political involvement was ultimately of much greater significance. Jewish opinion is not monolithic. Nevertheless, although there have been dissenters, Jews have been “the single most persistent pressure group favoring a liberal immigration policy” in the United States in the entire immigration debate beginning in 1881 (Neuringer 1971, p. Ii). In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokesmen and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokesmen had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons

As recounted by Nathan C. Belth (1979, p. 173) in his history of the AntiDefamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), “In Congress, through all the years when the immigration battles were being fought, the names of Jewish legislators were in the forefront of the liberal forces: from Adolph Sabath to Samuel Dickstein and Emanuel Celler in the House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob Javits in the Senate. Each in his time was a leader of the Anti-Defamation League and of major organizations concerned with democratic development.” The Jewish congressmen who are most closely identified with anti-restrictionist efforts in Congress have therefore also been leaders of the group most closely identified with Jewish ethnic political activism and self-defense.

Throughout the entire period of almost 100 years prior to achieving success with the immigration law of 1965, Jewish groups opportunistically made alliances with other groups whose interests temporarily converged with Jewish interests (e.g., a constantly changing set of ethnic groups, religious groups, pro-Communists, anti-Communists, the foreign policy interests of various presidents, the political need for president’s to curry favor with groups influential in populous states in order to win 14 national elections, etc.). Particularly noteworthy was the support of a liberal immigration policy from industrial interests wanting cheap labor, at least in the period prior to the 1924 temporary triumph of restrictionism. Within this constantly shifting set of alliances, Jewish organizations persistently pursued their goals of maximizing the number of Jewish immigrants and opening up the United States to immigration from all of the peoples of the world. As indicated in the following, the historical record supports the proposition that making the United States into a multicultural society has been a major goal of organized Jewry beginning in the nineteenth century.

The ultimate Jewish victory on immigration is remarkable because it was waged in different arenas against a potentially very powerful set of opponents. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, leadership of the restrictionists was provided by Eastern patricians such as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. However, the main political basis of restrictionism from 1910 to 1952 (in addition to the relatively ineffectual labor union interests) derived from “the common people of the South and West” (Higham 1984, p. 49) and their representatives in Congress. Fundamentally, the clashes between Jews and gentiles in the period between 1900 and 1965 were a conflict between Jews and this geographically centered group. “Jews, as a result of their intellectual energy and economic resources, constituted an advance guard of the new peoples who had no feeling for the traditions of rural America.” (Higham 1984, pp. 168-169)

Although often concerned that Jewish immigration would fan the flames of anti-Semitism in america, Jewish leaders fought a long and largely successful delaying action against restrictions on immigration during the period from 1891-1924, particularly as they affected the ability of Jews to immigrate. These efforts continued despite the fact that by 1905, there was “a polarity between Jewish and general American opinion on immigration” (Neuringer 1971, p. 83). In particular, while other religious groups such as Catholics and ethnic groups such as the Irish remained divided and ambivalent on their attitudes toward immigration and were poorly organized and ineffective in influencing immigration policy, and while labor unions opposed immigration in their attempt to diminish the supply of cheap labor, Jewish groups engaged in an intensive and sustained effort against attempts to restrict immigration.

As recounted by Cohen (1972, p. 40ff), the AJ Committee’s efforts in opposition to immigration restriction in the early twentieth century constitute a remarkable example of the ability of Jewish organizations to influence public policy. Of all the groups affected by the immigration legislation of 1907, Jews had the least to gain in terms of numbers of possible immigrants, but they played by far the largest role in shaping the legislation (Cohen 1972, p. 41). In the subsequent period leading up to the 15 relatively ineffective restrictionist legislation of 1917, when restrictionists again mounted an effort in congress, “only the Jewish segment was aroused” (Cohen 1972, p. 49).

Nevertheless, because of the fear of anti-Semitism, efforts were made to prevent the perception of Jewish involvement in anti-restrictionist campaigns. In 1906, Jewish anti-restrictionist political operatives were instructed to lobby Congress without mentioning their affiliation with the AJ Committee because of “the danger that the Jews may be accused of being organized for a political purpose” (comments of Herbert Friedenwald, AJ Committee secretary; in Goldstein 1990, p. 125). Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals, and as part of this universalizing effort, gentiles from old line Protestant families were recruited to act as window dressing for their efforts and Jewish groups such as the AJ Committee funded pro-immigration groups composed of non-Jews (Neuringer 1971, p. 92)

As was the case in later pro-immigration efforts, much of the activity was behind-the-scenes personal interventions with politicians in order to minimize public perception of the Jewish role and provoke activities of the opposition. Opposing politicians, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, and organizations like the Immigration Restriction League were kept under close scrutiny and pressured by lobbyists. Lobbyists in Washington also kept a daily scorecard of voting tendencies as immigration bills wended their way through Congress and engaged in intense and successful efforts to convince Presidents Taft and Wilson to veto restrictive immigration legislation. Catholic prelates were recruited to protest the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from Italy and Hungary. When restrictionist arguments appeared in the media, the AJ Committee made sophisticated replies, based on scholarly data and typically couched in universalist terms as benefiting the whole society (e.g., Neuringer 1971, p. 44).

Articles favorable to immigration were published in national magazines and letters to the editor were published in newspapers. And efforts were made to minimize the negative perceptions of immigration by attempting to distribute Jewish immigrants around the country and by getting Jewish aliens off public support. Legal proceedings were filed to prevent the deportation of Jewish aliens. And eventually the Committee organized mass protest meetings.

Indeed, writing in 1914, the sociologist Edward A. Ross had a clear sense that liberal immigration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue. Ross provides the following quote from prominent author and Zionist pioneer Israel Zangwill as clearly articulating the idea that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests:

America has ample room for all the six millions of the Pale [i.e., the Pale of Settlement, home to most of Russia’s Jews]; any one of her fifty states could absorb them. And next to being in a {16} country of their own, there could be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against future persecution.” (Israel Zangwill, in Ross 1914, p. 144)

Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States.
Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission’s bill. The power of the million Jews in the Metropolis lined up the Congressional delegation from New York in solid opposition to the literacy test. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. From the paper before the commercial body or the scientific association to the heavy treatise produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains.” (Ross 1914, pp. 144-145)

Ross (1914, p. 150) also reported that immigration officials had “become very sore over the incessant fire of false accusations to which they are subjected by the Jewish press and societies. United states senators complain that during the close of the struggle over the immigration bill they were overwhelmed with a torrent of crooked statistics and misrepresentations of Hebrews fighting the literacy test.” It is also noteworthy that Zangwill’s views on immigration were highly salient to restrictionists in the debates over the 1924 immigration law (see below). In an address reprinted in The American Hebrew (Oct. 19, 1923, p. 582), Zangwill noted that “There is only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses, and all other devices that make of the population of our planet not a co-operating civilization but a mutual irritation society.” It is noteworthy that, despite elaborate and deceptive attempts to present the pro-immigration movement as broad-based, Jewish activists were well aware of the lack of enthusiasm of other groups.

During the fight over restrictionist legislation at the end of the Taft administration, Herbert Friedenwald, AJ Committee secretary, wrote that it was “very difficult to get any people except the Jews stirred up in this fight” (in Goldstein 1990, p. 203). The AJ Committee also contributed heavily to staging anti-restrictionist rallies in major American cities, but allowed other ethnic groups to take credit for the events, and it organized groups of nonJews from the West to influence President Taft to veto restrictionist legislation (Goldstein 1990, pp. 216, 227). Later, during the Wilson Administration, Louis {17} Marshall stated that “We are practically the only ones who are fighting [the literacy test] while a “great proportion” [of the people] is “indifferent to what is done” (in Goldstein 1990, p. 249).

The forces of immigration restriction were temporarily successful with the immigration laws of 1921 and 1924 which passed despite the intense opposition of Jewish groups. Divine (1957, p. 8) notes that “Arrayed against [the restrictionist forces] in 1921 were only the spokesmen for the southeastern European immigrants, mainly Jewish leaders, whose protests were drowned out by the general cry for restriction.” Similarly during the 1924 congressional hearings on immigration, “the most prominent group of witnesses against the bill were representatives of southeastern European immigrants, particularly Jewish leaders” (Divine 1957, 16).

Neuringer (1971, p. 164) notes that Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.

The Jewish interest was thus to oppose the ethnic interests of the peoples of northwestern Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or increasing their percentage of the population. However, even prior to this period Jewish organizations were adamantly opposed to any restrictions on immigration based on race or ethnicity, indicating that they had a very different view of the ideal racial/ethnic composition of the United States than did the nonJewish European-derived peoples.

Thus in 1882 the Jewish press was unanimous in its condemnation of the Chinese Exclusion Act (Neuringer 1971, p. 23) even though this act had no direct bearing on Jewish immigration. In the early twentieth century the AJ Committee at times actively fought against any bill that restricted immigration to white persons or non-Asians, and only refrained from active opposition if it judged that AJ Committee support would threaten the immigration of Jews (Cohen 1972, p. 47; Goldstein 1990, p. 250). In 1920 the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution urging that “the Nation … keep the gates of our beloved Republic open … to the oppressed and distressed of all mankind in conformity with its historic role as a haven of refuge for all men and women who pledge allegiance to its laws” (in the American Hebrew, Oct. 1, 1920, p. 594). The American Hebrew (Feb. 17, 1922; p. 373), a publication founded in 1867, that represented the German-Jewish establishment of the period, reiterated its long-standing policy that it “has always stood for the admission of worthy immigrants of all classes, irrespective of nationality.” And in his testimony in the 1924 hearings before the House Committee on immigration and Naturalization, the AJ Committee’s Louis Marshall stated that the bill echoed the sentiments of the Ku Klux Klan and characterized it as being inspired by the racialist theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. At a time when the population of the United States was over {18} 100, 000, 000, Marshall stated that “we have room in this country for ten times the population we have” (p. 309), and advocated admission of all of the peoples of the world without quota limit, excluding only those who “were mentally, morally and physically unfit, who are enemies of organized government, and who are apt to become public charges;”[8] similarly Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, representing the AJ Congress and a variety of other Jewish organizations, asserted “the right of every man outside of America to be considered fairly and equitably and without discrimination.”[9] By prescribing that immigration be restricted to 3% of the foreign born as of the 1890 census, the 1924 law prescribed an ethnic status quo approximating the 1920 census. The House Majority Report emphasized the idea that prior to the legislation, immigration was highly biased in favor of Eastern and Southern Europeans and that this imbalance had been continued by the 1921 legislation in which quotas were based on the numbers of foreign born as of the 1910 census. The expressed intention was that the interests of other groups to pursue their ethnic interests by expanding their percentage of the population should be balanced against the ethnic interests of the majority in retaining their ethnic representation in the population.

The 1921 law gave 46% of quota immigration to Southern and Eastern Europe even though these areas constituted only 11.7% of the United States population as of the 1920 census. The 1924 law prescribed that these areas would get 15.3% of the quota slots – a figure that was actually higher than their present representation in the population. “The use of the 1890 census is not discriminatory. It is used in an effort to preserve as nearly as possible, the racial status quo of the United States. It is hoped to guarantee as best we can at this late date, racial homogeneity in the United States. The use of a later census would discriminate against those who founded the Nation and perpetuated its institutions.” (House Rep. 350, 1924, p. 16). After 3 years, quotas were derived from a national origins formula based on 1920 census data for the entire population, not only the foreign born. While there is no doubt that this legislation represented a victory for the northwestern European peoples of the United States, there was no attempt to reverse the trends in the ethnic composition of the country but rather to preserve the ethnic status quo.

While motivated by a desire to preserve an ethnic status quo, these laws may also have been motivated partly by anti-Semitism, since during this period opposition to immigration was perceived as mainly a Jewish issue (see above). This certainly appears to have been the perception of Jewish observers: for example, prominent Jewish writer Maurice Samuel (1924), writing in the immediate aftermath of the 1924 legislation, wrote that “it is chiefly against the Jew that anti-immigration laws are passed here in America as in England and Germany (p. 217), ” and such perceptions continue among 19 historians of the period (e.g., Hertzberg 1989, 239). This perception was not restricted to Jews. In remarks before the Senate, the anti-restrictionist Senator Reed of Missouri noted that “Attacks have likewise been made upon the Jewish people who have crowded to our shores. The spirit of intolerance has been especially active as to them” (Cong. Rec. Feb. 19, 1921; p. 3463), and during World War II Secretary of War Robert Stimson stated that it was opposition to unrestricted immigration of Jews that resulted in the restrictive legislation of 1924 (Breitman & Kraut, 1987, p. 87). Moreover, the House Immigration Committee Majority Report (House Report #109, Dec. 6, 1920) stated that “by far the largest percentage of immigrants (are) peoples of Jewish extraction, ” (p. 4), and it implied that the majority of the expected new immigrants would be Polish Jews. The report “confirmed the published statement of a commissioner of the Hebrew Sheltering and Aid Society of America made after his personal investigation in Poland, to the effect that ‘If there were in existence a ship that could hold 3,000,000 human beings, the 3,000,000 Jews of Poland would board it to escape to America'” (p. 6)

The Majority Report also included a report by Wilbur S. Carr, head of the United States Consular Service, that stated that the Polish Jews were “abnormally twisted because of (a) reaction from war strain; (b) the shock of revolutionary disorders; (c) the dullness and stultification resulting from past years of oppression and abuse… ; Eighty-five to ninety percent lack any conception of patriotic or national spirit. And the majority of this percentage are unable to acquire it” (p. 9; see also Breitman and Kraut [1987, 12] for a discussion of Carr’s anti-Semitism). Consular reports warned that “many Bolshevik sympathizers are in Poland” (p. 11). Similarly in the Senate, Senator McKellar cited the report that if there were a ship large enough, 3,000,000 Poles would immigrate. He also stated that “the Joint Distribution Committee, an American committee doing relief work among the Hebrews in Poland, distributes more than $1,000,000 per month of American money in that country alone. It is also shown that $100,000,000 a year is a conservative estimate of money sent to Poland from America through the mails, through the banks, and through the relief societies. This golden stream pouring into Poland from America makes practically every Pole wildly desirous of going to the country from which such marvelous wealth comes.” (Cong. Rec., Feb. 19, 1921, p. 3456)

As a further indication of the salience of Polish-Jewish immigration issues, the letter on alien visas submitted by the State Department in 1921 to Albert Johnson, Chairman of the Committee on Migration and Naturalization, devoted over four times as much space to the situation in Poland as it did to any other country. The report emphasized the activities of the Polish-Jewish newspaper Der Emigrant in promoting emigration to the United States of Polish Jews, the activities of the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Society and wealthy private citizens from the United States in facilitating immigration by {20} providing money and performing the paperwork. (There was indeed a large network of agents in Eastern Europe who, in violation of United States law, “did their best to drum up business by enticing as many emigrants as possible” [Nadell 1984, 56].) The report also noted the poor condition of the prospective immigrants: “At the present time it is only too obvious that they must be subnormal, and their normal state is of very low standard. Six years of war and confusion and famine and pestilence have racked their bodies and twisted their mentality. The elders have deteriorated to a marked degree. Minors have grown into adult years with the entire period lost in their rightful development and too frequently with the acquisition of perverted ideas which have flooded Europe since 1914 [presumably a reference to radical political ideas that were common in this group; see below]” (Cong. Rec., April 20, 1921, p. 498).

The report also stated that articles in the Warsaw press had reported that “propaganda favoring unrestricted immigration” is being planned, including celebrations in New York aimed at showing the contributions of immigrants to the development of the United States. The reports for Belgium (who see migrants originated in Poland and Czechoslovakia) and Romania also highlighted the importance of Jews as prospective immigrants. In response, Representative Isaac Siegel stated that the report was”edited and doctored by certain officials” and commented that the report did not mention countries with larger numbers of immigrants than Poland. (For example, there was no mention of Italy in the report.) Without explicitly saying so (“I leave it to every man in the House to make his own deductions and his own inferences therefrom” (Cong. Rec., April 20, 1921, p. 504)), the implication was that the focus on Poland was prompted by anti-Semitism.

The House Majority report (signed by 15 of its 17 members with only Reps. Dickstein and Sabath not signing) also emphasized the Jewish role in defining the intellectual battle in terms of Nordic superiority and “American ideals” rather than in the terms of an ethnic status quo actually favored by the committee: The cry of discrimination is, the committee believes, manufactured and built up by special representatives of racial groups, aided by aliens actually living abroad. Members of the committee have taken notice of a report in the Jewish Tribune (New York) February 8, 1924, of a farewell dinner to Mr. Israel Zangwill which says: Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in a strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no restriction. “If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense, ” he said, “you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are {21} destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.” The Committee does not feel that the restriction aimed to be accomplished in this bill is directed at the Jews, for they can come within the quotas from any country in which they were born. The Committee has not dwelt on the desirability of a “Nordic” or any other particular type of immigrant, but has held steadfastly to the purpose of securing a heavy restriction, with the quota so divided that the countries from which the most came in the two decades ahead of the World War might be slowed down in order that the United States might restore its population balance. The continued charge that the Committee has built up a “Nordic” race and devoted its hearing to that end is part of a deliberately manufactured assault for as a matter of fact the committee has done nothing of the kind (House Rep. 350, 1924, p. 16)

Indeed, one is struck in reading the 1924 Congressional debate by the rarity with which the issue of Nordic racial superiority is raised by those in favor of the legislation, while virtually all of the anti-restrictionists raised this issue.[10] After a particularly colorful comment in opposition to the theory of Nordic racial superiority, restrictionist leader Albert Johnson remarked that “I would like very much to say on behalf of the committee that through the strenuous times of the hearings this committee undertook not to discuss the Nordic proposition or racial matters” (Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924; p. 5911).

Earlier, during the hearings on the bill, Johnson remarked in response to the comments of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise representing the AJ Congress that “I dislike to be placed continually in the attitude of assuming that there is a race prejudice, when the one thing I have tried to do for 11 years is to free myself from race prejudice, if I had it at all.”[11] Several restrictionists explicitly denounced the theory of Nordic superiority, including Senators Bruce (p. 5955) and Jones (p. 6614) and Representatives Bacon (p5902), Byrnes (p. 5653), Johnson (p. 5648), McLoed (p. 5675-6), McReynolds (p. 5855), Michener (p5909), Miller (p. 5883), Newton (p. 6240); Rosenbloom (p. 5851), Vaile (p. 5922), Vincent (p. 6266), White, (p. 5898), and Wilson (p. 5671; all references to Cong. Rec., April 1924).

Indeed, it is noteworthy that there are indications in the Congressional debate that representatives from the far West were concerned about the competence and competitive threat presented by Japanese immigrants, and their rhetoric suggested they viewed the Japanese as racially equal or superior, not inferior. For example, Senator Jones stated that “we admit that [the Japanese] are as able as we are, that they are as progressive as we are, that they are as honest as we are, that they are as brainy as we are, and that they are equal in all that goes to make a great people and nation” (Cong. Rec., April 18, 1924, p6614); Representative MacLafferty emphasized Japanese domination of certain agricultural markets 22[??](Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5681), and Representative Lea noted their ability to supplant “their American competitor” (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5697). Representative Miller described the Japanese as “a relentless and unconquerable competitor of our people wherever he places himself” (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924, p. 5884); See also comments of Representatives Gilbert (Cong. Rec. April 12, 1924, p6261) Raker (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924, p. 5892} and Free (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924, p. 5924Ff).

Moreover, while the issue of Jewish/gentile resource competition was not raised during the Congressional debates, quotas on Jewish admissions to Ivy League universities were a highly salient issue among Jews during this period. The quota issue was highly publicized in the Jewish media and the focus of activities of Jewish self-defense organizations such as the ADL (see, e.g., the ADL statement published in The American Hebrew, Sept. 29, 1922, p. 536). Jewish/gentile resource competition may therefore have been on the minds of some legislators. Indeed, President A. Lawrence Lowell of Harvard was the national vice-president of the Immigration Restriction League as well as a proponent of quotas on Jewish admission to Harvard (Symott 1986, 238), suggesting that resource competition with an intellectually superior Jewish group was an issue for at least some prominent restrictionists.

It is probable that anti-Jewish animosity related to resource competition issues were widespread.

Higham (1984, 141) writes of “the urgent pressure which the Jews, as an exceptionally ambitious immigrant people, put upon some of the more crowded rungs of the social ladder” (Higham 1984, 141).

Beginning in the nineteenth century there were fairly high levels of covert and overt anti-Semitism in patrician circles resulting from the very rapid upward mobility of Jews and their competitive drive. In the period prior to World War I, the reaction of the gentile power structure was to construct social registers and emphasize genealogy as mechanisms of exclusion- “criteria that could not be met my money alone” (Higham 1984, 104ff, 127). During this period Edward A. Ross (1914, 164) described gentile resentment for “being obliged to engage in a humiliating and undignified scramble in order to keep his trade or his clients against the Jewish invader” – suggesting a rather broad-based concern with Jewish economic competition. Attempts at exclusion in a wide range of areas were increased in the 1920s and reached their peak during the difficult economic situation of the Great Depression (Higham 1984, 131ff).

However, in the 1924 debates the only Congressional comments suggesting a concern with Jewish/gentile resource competition (as well as a concern that the interests of Jewish intellectuals are not the same as their gentile counterparts) that I have been able to find are the following from Representative Wefald: {23} “I for one am not afraid of the radical ideas that some might bring with them. Ideas you cannot keep out anyway, but the leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals nor with those of northern Europe, who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us. Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories, they compose and dish out to us our jazz music, they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers.” (Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924, p. 6272)

The immigration debate also occurred amid discussion in the Jewish media of Thorsten Veblen’s famous essay “The Intellectual Pre-eminence of Jews in Modern Europe” (serialized in The American Hebrew beginning September 10, 1920). In an editorial of July 13, 1923 (p. 177), The American Hebrew noted that Jews were disproportionately represented among the gifted in Louis Terman’s study of gifted children and commented that “this fact must give rise to bitter, though futile, reflection among the so-called Nordics.” The editorial also noted that Jews were over represented among scholarship winners in competitions sponsored by the state of New York. The editorial pointedly noted that “perhaps the Nordics are too proud to try for these honors. In any event the list of names just announced by the State Department of Education at Albany as winners of these coveted scholarships is not in the least Nordic; it reads like a confirmation roster at a Temple.” There is indeed evidence that Jews, like East Asians, have higher IQ’s than Caucasians (Lynn, 1987; MacDonald, 1994; Rushton, 1995).

The most common argument made by those favoring the legislation, and the one reflected in the majority report, is the argument that in the interests of fairness to all ethnic groups, the quotas should reflect the relative ethnic composition of the entire country. Restrictionists noted that the census of 1890 was chosen because the percentages of the foreign born of different ethnic groups in that year approximated the general ethnic composition of the entire country in 1920. Senator Reed of Pennsylvania and Representative Rogers of Massachusetts proposed to achieve the same result by directly basing the quotas on the national origins of all people in the country as of the 1920 census, and this was eventually incorporated into the law. Representative Rogers argued that “Gentlemen, you cannot dissent from this principle because it is fair. It does not discriminate for anybody and it does not discriminate against anybody” (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924; p. 5847). Senator Reed noted, “The purpose, I think, of most of us in changing the quota basis is to cease from discriminating against the native born here and against the group of our citizens who come from northern and western Europe. I think the 24 present system discriminates in favor of southeastern Europe (Cong. Rec., April. 16, 1924; p. 6457) (i.e., because 46% of the quotas under the 1921 went to Eastern and Southern Europe when they constituted less than 12% of the population).

As an example illustrating the fundamental argument asserting a legitimate ethnic interest in maintaining an ethnic status quo without claiming racial superiority, consider the following statement from Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer, with a very low percentage of crime and insanity, that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has a spiritual grasp and an artistic sense which have greatly enriched the world and which have, indeed, enriched us, a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble. What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924; p. 5922)

The debate in the House also illustrated the highly salient role of Jewish legislators in combating restrictionism. Representative Robison singled out Representative Sabath as the leader of anti-restrictionist efforts, and, without mentioning any other opponent of restriction, he also focused on Reps. Jacobstein, Celler, and Perlman as being opposed to any restrictions on immigration (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5666). Representative Blanton, complaining of the difficulty of getting restrictionist legislation through Congress, noted “When at least 65 per cent of the sentiment of this House, in my judgment, is in favor of the exclusion of all foreigners for five years, why do we not put that into law? Has Brother Sabath such a tremendous influence over us that he holds us down on this proposition?” (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5685). Representative Sabath responded that “There may be something to that.” In addition, the following comments of Representative Leavitt clearly indicate the salience of Jewish congressmen to their opponents during the debate: {25} The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. (Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924; pp. 6265-6266) The view that Jews had a strong tendency to oppose genetic assimilation with surrounding groups occurred among other observers as well and was a component of contemporary anti-Semitism(see Singerman 1986, pp. 110-111). Jewish avoidance of exogamy certainly had a basis in reality (MacDonald 1994, Ch. 2-4). Indeed, it is noteworthy that there was powerful opposition to intermarriage even among the more liberal segments of early twentieth-century American Judaism and certainly among the less liberal segments represented by the great majority of Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe who had come to constitute the great majority of American Jewry. For example, the prominent nineteenth-century Reform leader David Einhorn was a lifelong opponent of mixed marriages and refused to officiate at such ceremonies, even when pressed to do so (Meyer 1988, 247). Einhorn was also a staunch opponent of conversion of gentiles to Judaism because of the effects on the “racial purity” of Judaism (Levenson 1989, 331). Similarly, the influential Reform intellectual Kaufman Kohler was also an ardent opponent of mixed marriage. In a view that is highly compatible with Horace Kallen’s multi-culturalism, Kohler concluded that Israel must remain separate and avoid intermarriage until it leads mankind to an era of universal peace and brotherhood among the races (Kohler 1918, 445-446).

The negative attitude toward intermarriage was confirmed by survey results. A 1912 survey indicated that only seven of 100 Reform rabbis had officiated at a mixed marriage, and a 1909 resolution of the Central Council of American Rabbis declared that “mixed marriages are contrary to the tradition of the Jewish religion and should be discouraged by the American Rabbinate” (Meyer 1988, 290). Gentile perceptions of Jewish attitudes on intermarriage therefore had a strong basis in reality. {26}

The Involvement of Jewish Immigrants in Radical Politics

The Congressional debates of 1924 reflected a highly charged context in which Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were widely perceived to not only avoid intermarriage but also to retain a separatist culture and to be disproportionately involved in radical political movements. The perception of radicalism among Jewish immigrants was common in Jewish as well as gentile publications. The American Hebrew editorialized that “we must not forget the immigrants from Russia and Austria will be coming from countries infested with Bolshevism, and it will require more than a superficial effort to make good citizens out of them” (in Neuringer 1971, p. 165). The fact that Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were viewed as “infected with Bolshevism … unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable” resulted in a wave of anti-Semitism in the 1920s and contributed to the restrictive immigration legislation of the period (Neuringer 1971, p. 165). In Sorin’s (1985, 46) study of immigrant Jewish radical activists, over half had been involved in radical politics in Europe before emigrating, and for those immigrating after 1900, the percentage rose to 69%. Jewish publications warned of the possibilities of anti-Semitism resulting from the leftism of Jewish immigrants, and the official Jewish community engaged in “a near-desperation … effort to portray the Jew as one hundred per cent American” by, e.g., organizing patriotic pageants on national holidays and by attempting to get the immigrants to learn English (Neuringer, 1971, p. 167).

Similarly, in England, the immigration of Eastern European Jews into England after 1880 had a transformative effect on the political attitudes of British Jewry in the direction of socialism, trade-unionism, and Zionism, often combined with religious orthodoxy and devotion to a highly separatist traditional lifestyle (Alderman, 1983; p. 47ff). The more established Jewish organizations fought hard to combat the well-founded image of Jewish immigrants as Zionist, religiously orthodox political radicals who refused to be conscripted into the armed forces during World War I in order to fight the enemies of the officially anti-Semitic Czarist government (Alderman, 1992, p. 237Ff).

The Jewish Old Left, including the unions, the leftist press, and the leftist fraternal orders (which were often associated with a synagogue), was a part of the wider Jewish community, and Jewish members typically retained a strong Jewish ethnic identity (Howe 1976; Liebman 1979; Buhle 1980). This phenomenon occurred within the entire spectrum of leftist organizations, including organizations such as the Communist Party and the Socialist Party whose membership also included gentiles(Liebman, 1979, p. 267ff; Buhle 1980).

Werner Cohn (1958, p. 621) describes the general milieu of the immigrant Jewish community in the period from 1886-1920 as “one big radical debating society”: 27 By 1886 the Jewish community in New York had become conspicuous for its support of the third-party (United Labor) candidacy of Henry George, the theoretician of the Single Tax.

From then Jewish districts in New York and elsewhere were famous for their radical voting habits. The Lower East Side repeatedly picked as its congressman Meyer London, the only New York Socialist ever to be elected to Congress. And many Socialists went to the State Assembly in Albany from Jewish districts. In the 1917 mayoralty campaign in New York City, the Socialist and anti-war candidacy of Morris Hillquit was supported by the most authoritative voices of the Jewish Lower East Side: The United Hebrew Trades, the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and most importantly, the very popular Yiddish Daily Forward. This was the period in which extreme radicals – like Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman – were giants in the Jewish community, and when almost all the Jewish giants – among them Abraham Cahan, Morris Hillquit, and the young Morris R. Cohen – were radicals. Even Samuel Gompers, when speaking before Jewish audiences, felt it necessary to use radical phrases.

In addition, The Freiheit, which was an unofficial organ of the Communist Party from the 1920s to the 1950s “stood at the center of Yiddish proletarian institutions and subculture … [which offered] identity, meaning, friendship, and understanding” (Liebman, 1979, pp. 349-350). The newspaper lost considerable support in the Jewish community in 1929 when it took the Communist party position in opposition to Zionism, and by the 1950s it essentially had to choose between satisfying its Jewish soul or its status as a Communist organ. It chose the former, and by the late 1960s it was justifying not returning the Israeli occupied territories in opposition to the line of the American Communist Party.

The relationship of Jews and the American Communist Party (CPUSA) is particularly interesting because a concern with Communist subversion under the direction of the Soviet Union was a feature of the immigration debates of the 1920s and because a substantial proportion of the CPUSA were foreign born.[12] Beginning in the 1920s Jews whose backgrounds derived from Eastern Europe played a very prominent and disproportionate role in the CPUSA (Klehr, 1978, p. 37ff). Merely citing percentages of Jewish leaders probably does not adequately indicate the extent of Jewish influence in the CPUSA, since active efforts were made to recruit gentiles as a sort of “window dressing” to conceal the extent of Jewish influence in the movement (Klehr, 1978, p. 40; Rothman & Lichter, 1982, p. 99).

Klehr (1978, p. 40) estimates that from 1921 to 1961, Jews constituted 33.5% of the Central Committee members and the representation of Jews was often above 40% (Klehr, 1978, p. 46). In the 1920s a majority of the members of the Socialist Party were immigrants and that an “overwhelming” (Glazer 1961, 38, 40) percentage of the CPUSA consisted of recent immigrants, a substantial percentage {28} of whom were Jews. In Philadelphia in the 1930’s, fully 72.2% of the CP members were the children of Jewish immigrants who came to the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (Lyons 1982, 71). As late as 1929, 90% of the members of the Communist Party in Philadelphia were foreign born and in June of 1933 the national organization of the CPUSA was still 70% foreign born (Lyons 1982, 72-73). Jews were the only native-born ethnic group from which the party was able to recruit. Glazer (1969; p. 129) states that at least half of the CPUSA membership of around 50,000 were jews into the 1950s and that there was a very high rate of turnover, so that perhaps 10 times that number of individuals were involved in the Party and there were “an equal or larger number who were Socialists of one kind or another.” Writing of the 1920’s, Buhle (1980, p. 89) notes that “most of those favorable to the party and the Freiheit simply did not join – no more than a few thousand out of a following of a hundred times that large.” There was also great concern within the Jewish community that the over representation of Jews within the CPUSA would lead to anti-Semitism from the 1920s through the Cold War period: “The fight against the stereotype of Communist-Jew became a virtual obsession with Jewish leaders and opinion makers throughout America” (Liebman 1979, p. 515), and indeed, the association of Jews with the CPUSA was a focus of anti-Semitic literature (e.g., Henry Ford’s [1920] International Jew; John Beaty’s [1951] The Iron Curtain Over America). As a result, the AJ Committee engaged in intensive efforts to change opinion within the Jewish community by showing that Jewish interests were more compatible with advocating American democracy than Soviet Communism (e.g., emphasizing Soviet anti-Semitism and Soviet support of nations opposed to Israel in the period after World War II) (Cohen, 1972, p. 347Ff).

Jewish Anti-Restrictionist Activity, 1924-1945

The saliency of Jewish involvement in United States immigration policy continued after the 1924 legislation. Particularly objectionable to Jewish groups was the national origins quota system. For example, a writer for the Jewish Tribune stated in 1927, “we … regard all measures for regulating immigration according to nationality as illogical, unjust, and un-American” (in Neuringer, 1971, p. 205).

During the 1930s the most outspoken critic of further restrictions on immigration (motivated now mainly by the Great Depression) was Representative Samuel Dickstein, and Dickstein’s assumption of the chairmanship of the House Immigration Committee in 1931 marked the end of the ability of restrictionists to enact further reductions in quotas (Divine, 1957, pp. 79-88). Jewish groups were the primary opponents of restriction and the primary supporters of liberalized regulations during the 1930s {29} while their opponents emphasized the economic consequences of immigration during a period of high unemployment (Divine, 1957, pp. 85-88). Between 1933 and 1938, Representative Dickstein introduced a number of bills aimed at increasing the number of refugees from Nazi Germany and supported mainly by Jewish organizations, but the restrictionists prevailed (Divine, 1957, p. 93).

During the 1930s, concerns about the radicalism and unassimilability of Jewish immigrants as well as the possibility of Nazi subversion were the main factors influencing the opposition to changing the immigration laws (Breitman & Kraut, 1987). Moreover, “(c)harges that the Jews in America were more loyal to their tribe than to their country abounded in the United States in the 1930s” (Breitman &Kraut, 1987, p. 87). There was a clear perception among all parties that the public opposed any changes in immigration policy and that the public was particularly opposed to Jewish immigration. The 1939 hearings on the proposed legislation to admit 20,000 German refugee children therefore minimized the Jewish interest in the legislation. The bill referred to people “of every race and creed suffering from conditions which compel them to seek refuge in other lands”.[13] The bill did not mention that Jews would be the main beneficiaries of the legislation, and witnesses in favor of the bill emphasized that only approximately 60% of the children would be Jewish. The only person identifying himself as “a member of the Jewish race” who testified in favor of the bill was “one-fourth Catholic and three-quarters Jewish” with Protestant and Catholic nieces and nephews, and from the South which was a bastion of anti-immigration sentiment.[14] On the other hand, opponents of the bill threatened to publicize the very large percentage of Jews already being admitted under the quota system – presumably an indication of the powerful force of a “virulent and pervasive” anti-Semitism among the American public (Breitman & Kraut, 1987, p. 80).

Opponents noted that the immigration permitted by the bill “would be for the most part of the Jewish race,” and a witness testified “that the Jewish people will profit most by this legislation goes without saying” (in Divine, 1957, p. 100). The restrictionists argued in economic terms, e.g., by frequently citing President Roosevelt’s statement in his second inaugural speech “one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished” and citing large numbers of needy children already in the United States. However, the main restrictionist concern was that the bill was yet another in a long history of attempts by anti-restrictionists to develop precedents that would eventually undermine the 1924 law. For example, Francis Kinnecutt, President of the Allied Patriotic Societies, emphasized that the 1924 law had been based on the idea of proportional representation based on the ethnic composition of the country. The legislation would be a precedent “for similar unscientific and favored-nation legislation in response to {30} the pressure of foreign nationalistic or racial groups, rather than in accordance with the needs and desires of the American people.”[15] Wilbur S. Carr and other State Department officials were important in minimizing the entry of Jewish refugees from Germany during the 1930s. Undersecretary of State William Phillips was an ardent anti-Semite with considerable influence on immigration policy between 1933-1936 (Breitman &Kraut, 1987, p. 36). Throughout the period until the end of World War II attempts to foster Jewish immigration, even in the context of knowledge that the Nazis were persecuting Jews, were largely unsuccessful because of an unyielding Congress and the activities of bureaucrats, especially those in the state Department. Public discussion in periodicals such as The Nation (Nov. 19, 1938), and The New Republic (Nov. 23, 1938) charged that the restrictionism was motivated by anti-Semitism, while opponents of admitting large numbers of Jews argued that admission would result in an increase in anti-Semitism. Henry Pratt Fairchild (1939, p. 344), who was a restrictionist and was highly critical of the Jews (see Fairchild, 1947), emphasized the “powerful current of anti-foreignism and anti-Semitism that is running close to the surface of the American public mind, ready to burst out into violent eruption on relatively slight provocation.” Public opinion remained steadfast against increasing the quotas for European refugees: a 1939 poll in Fortune (April, 1939) magazine showed that 83% answered “no” to the following question: “If you were a member of Congress would you vote yes or no on a bill to open the doors of the United States to a larger number of European refugees than now admitted under our immigration quotas?” Less than 9% replied “yes” and the remainder had no opinion

Jewish Anti-Restrictionist Activity, 1946-1952

Although Jewish interests were defeated by the 1924 legislation, “the discriminatory character of the Reed-Johnson Act continued to rankle all sectors of American Jewish opinion” (Neuringer, 1971, 196). During this period, an article by Will Maslow (1950) in Congress Weekly reiterated the belief that the restrictive immigration laws intentionally targeted Jews: “Only one type of law, immigration legislation which relates to aliens outside the country, is not subject to constitutional guarantees, and even here hostility toward Jewish immigration has had to be disguised in an elaborate quota scheme in which eligibility was based on place of birth rather than religion.” The Jewish concern to alter the ethnic balance of the United States is apparent in the debates over immigration legislation during the post World War II era. In 1948 the AJ Committee submitted a statement to the Senate subcommittee which simultaneously denied the importance of the material interests of the United States as well as affirmed its commitment to immigration of all races: {31} Americanism is not to be measured by conformity to law, or zeal for education, or literacy, or any of these qualities in which immigrants may excel the native-born. Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities (in Cohen 1972, p. 369).

In 1945 Representative Emanuel Celler introduced a bill ending Chinese exclusion by establishing token quotas for Chinese, and in 1948 the AJ Committee condemned racial quotas on Asians (Divine, 1957, p. 155). On the other hand, Jewish groups had an attitude of indifference or even hostility toward immigration of non-Jews from Europe (including Southern Europe) in the post-World War II era (Neuringer, 1971, pp. 356, 367-369, 383). Thus Jewish spokesmen did not testify at all during the first set of hearings on emergency legislation which allowed immigration of a limited number of German, Italian, Greek, and Dutch immigrants, escapees from Communism, and a small number of Poles, Orientals, and Arabs. When Jewish spokesmen eventually testified (partly because a small number of the escapees from Communism were Jews), they took the opportunity to once again focus on their condemnation of the national origins provisions of the 1924 law.

Jewish involvement in opposing restrictions during this period was motivated partly by attempts to establish precedents in which the quota system was bypassed and partly by attempts to increase immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe. The Citizen’s Committee on Displaced Persons, which advocated legislation to admit 400,000 refugees as nonquota immigrants over a period of 4 years, was funded mainly by the AJ Committee and other Jewish contributors (See Cong. Rec., October 15, 1949, pp. 14647-14654; Neuringer 1971, p. ii) and maintained a staff of 65 people. Witnesses opposing the legislation complained that the bill was an attempt to subvert the ethnic balance of the United States established by the 1924 legislation (Divine 1957, p. 117). In the event, the bill that was reported out of the subcommittee did not satisfy Jewish interests because it established a cutoff date that excluded Jews who had migrated from Eastern Europe after World War II, including Jews fleeing Polish anti-Semitism.

The Senate subcommittee “regarded the movement of Jews and other refugees from eastern Europe after 1945 as falling outside the scope of the main problem and implied that this exodus was a planned migration organized by Jewish agencies in the United States and in Europe” (Senate Report No. 950 [1948], pp. 15-16).

Jewish representatives led the assault on the bill (Divine 1957, p. 127), Representative Emanuel Celler terming it as “worse than no bill at all. All it does is exclude … Jews” (in Neuringer, 1971, p298; see also Divine, 1957, p. 127). In reluctantly signing the bill, President Truman noted that the 1945 cutoff date “discriminates in callous fashion against displaced persons of the Jewish faith” (Interpreter 32 Releases, 25 [July 21, 1948], pp. 252-254). On the other hand, Senator Chapman Revercomb stated that “there is no distinction, certainly no discrimination, intended between any persons because of their religion or their race, but there are differences drawn among those persons who are in fact displaced persons and have been in camp longest and have a preference” (Cong. Rec. May 26, 1948, p. 6793). In his analysis, Divine (1957, p. 143) concludes that the expressed motive of the restrictionists, to limit the program to those people displaced during the course of the war, appears to be a valid explanation for these provisions. The tendency of Jewish groups to attribute the exclusion of many of their co-religionists to anti-Semitic bias is understandable; however, the extreme charges of discrimination made during the 1948 presidential campaign lead one to suspect that the northern wing of the Democratic party was using this issue to attract votes from members of minority groups. Certainly Truman’s assertion that the 1948 law was anti-Catholic, made in the face of Catholic denials, indicates that political expediency had a great deal to do with the emphasis on the discrimination issue.

In the aftermath of this bill, the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons released a report labeling the bill as characterized by “hate and racism” and Jewish organizations were unanimous in denouncing the law (Divine, 1957, p. 131). After the 1948 elections resulted in a Democratic Congress and a sympathetic President Truman, Representative Celler introduced a bill without the 1945 cutoff date, but the bill, after passing the House, failed in the Senate because of the opposition of Senator Pat McCarran. During the hearings, McCarran noted that the Citizens Committee had spent over $800,000 lobbying for a liberalized bill, with the result that “there has been disseminated over the length and breadth of this nation a campaign of misrepresentation and falsehood which has misled many public-spirited and well-meaning citizens and organizations” (Cong. Rec., April 26, 1949, pp. 5042-5043). After defeat, the Citizen’s Committee increased expenditures to over $1,000,000 and succeeded in passing a bill, introduced by Representative Celler, with a 1949 cutoff date that did not discriminate against Jews but largely excluded ethnic Germans who had been expelled from Eastern Europe. In an odd twist in the debate, restrictionists now accused the anti-restrictionists of ethnic bias (e.g., Senator Eastland, Cong. Rec. April 5, 1950, p. 2737; Senator McCarran, Cong. Rec. April 5, 1950, p. 4743).

At a time when there were no outbreaks of anti-Semitism in other parts of the world creating an urgent need for Jewish immigration and with the presence of Israel as a safe haven for Jews, Jewish organizations still vigorously objected to the continuation of the national origins provisions of the 1924 law in the McCarran-Walter law of 1952 (Neuringer 1971, p. 337ff). Indeed, when District Court of Appeals Judge Simon H. Rifkind testified on behalf of a wide range of Jewish organizations against the {33} McCarran-Walter bill he noted emphatically that because of the international situation and particularly the existence of Israel as a safe haven for Jews, Jewish views on immigration legislation were not predicated on the “plight of our co-religionists but rather the impact which immigration and naturalization laws have upon the temper and quality of American life here in the United States.”[16] The argument was now typically couched in terms of “democratic principles and the cause of international amity” (Cohen 1972, p. 368) – the implicit theory being that the principles of democracy required ethnic diversity and the theory that the good will of other countries depended on American willingness to accept their citizens as immigrants. Rifkind noted that “(T)he enactment of [the McCarran-Walter bill] will gravely impair the national effort we are putting forth. For we are engaged in a war for the hearts and minds of men. The free nations of the world look to us for moral and spiritual reinforcement at a time when the faith which moves men is as important as the force they wield.”[17] The McCarran-Walter law explicitly included racial ancestry as a criterion in its provision that Orientals would be included in the token Oriental quotas no matter where they were born. Herbert Lehman, a senator from New York and the most prominent senatorial opponent of immigration restriction during the 1950s (Neuringer 1971, p. 351), argued during the debates over the McCarran-Walter bill that immigrants from Jamaica of African descent should be included in the quota for England and stated that the bill would cause resentment among Asians (Neuringer 1971, pp. 346, 356). Representative Emanuel Celler and Representative Jacob Javits, the leaders of the anti-restrictionists in the House, made similar arguments (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, pp. 4306, 4219).

As was also apparent in the battles dating back to the nineteenth century (see above), the opposition to the national origins legislation went beyond its effects on Jewish immigration to include advocacy of immigration into the United States of all of the racial/ethnic groups of the world.

Reflecting a concern for maintaining the ethnic status quo as well as the salience of Jewish issues during the period, the hearings of the subcommittee considering the McCarran immigration law noted that “The population of the United States has increased three-fold since 1877, while the Jewish population has increased twenty-one fold during the same period” (Senate Report No. 1515 [1950], pp2-4). The bill also included a provision that naturalized citizens automatically lost citizenship if they resided abroad continuously for 5 years. This provision was viewed by Jewish organizations as motivated by anti-Zionist attitudes: “Testimony by Government officials at the hearings … made it clear that the provision stemmed from a desire to dissuade naturalized American Jews from subscribing to a deeply held ideal which some officials in contravention of American policy regarded as undesirable…”[18]{34} Reaffirming the logic of the 1920s restrictionists, the subcommittee report emphasized that a purpose of the 1924 law was “the restriction of immigration from southern and eastern Europe in order to preserve a predominance of persons of northwestern European origin in the composition of our total population” but noted that this purpose did not imply “any theory of Nordic supremacy” (Senate Report, No. 1515, [1950], pp. 442, 445-446). The argument was sometimes phrased in terms of an emphasis on the “similarity of cultural background” of prospective immigrants, but again the underlying logic was that ethnic groups already in the country had legitimate interests in maintaining the ethnic status quo.

It is important to note that Jewish spokesmen differed from other liberal groups in their motives for opposing restrictions on immigration during this period. In the following I emphasize the Congressional testimony of Judge Simon H. Rifkind who represented a very broad range of Jewish agencies in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951.[19]

(1.) Immigration should come from all racial/ethnic groups: We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men (p. 566).

2.) The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “(T)he regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability” (p. 567). Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively (e.g., p. 569).

3.) Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States: Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights – at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them, ” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought. (p. 570) {35} The opposition to needed skills as the basis of immigration was consistent with the prolonged Jewish attempt to delay the passage of a literacy test as a criterion for immigration beginning in the late nineteenth century until a literacy test was finally passed in 1917.

While Rifkind’s testimony was free of the accusation that present immigration policy was based on the theory of Nordic superiority, Nordic superiority continued to be a prominent theme of other Jewish groups advocating immigration from all ethnic groups, particularly the AJ Congress. The statement of the AJ Congress at these hearings focused a great deal of attention on the importance of the theory of Nordic supremacy as motivating the 1924 legislation, but also noted the previous history of ethnic discrimination that existed long before these theories were developed, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the gentlemen’s agreement with Japan of 1907 which limited immigration of Japanese workers, and the exclusion of other Asians in 1917. The statement noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in its aim of preserving the ethnic balance of the U.S. as of the 1920 census. However, it noted that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”[20] Moreover, in an explicit statement of Horace Kallen’s multicultural ideal, the AJ Congress statement advocated “the thesis of cultural democracy which would guarantee to all groups ‘majority and minority alike … the right to be different and the responsibility to make sure that their differences do not conflict with the welfare of the American people as a whole.'”[21] During this period, the Congress Weekly, the journal of the AJ Congress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the “myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks” (Oct. 17, 1955; p. 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of “need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin” (May 4, 1953, p. 3). Particularly objectionable from the perspective of the AJ Congress was the implication that there should be no change in the ethnic status quo prescribed by the 1924 legislation (e.g., Goldstein, 1952 a, p. 6). The national origins formula “is outrageous now … when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples” (Goldstein, 1952 b, p. 5).

As indicated above, there is some evidence that the 1924 legislation and the restrictionism of the 1930s was motivated partly by anti-Semitic attitudes. Anti-Semitism and its linkage with anti-Communism was also apparent in the immigration arguments during the 1950s preceding and following the passage of the McCarran-Walter act. Restrictionists often pointed to evidence that over 90% of American Communists had backgrounds linking them to Eastern Europe and a major thrust of their efforts was to prevent immigration from this area and to ease deportation procedures to prevent {36} Communist subversion. Since Eastern Europe was also the origin of most Jewish immigration and because Jews were disproportionately represented among American Communists, these issues became linked and the situation lent itself to broad anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the role of Jews in American politics (e.g., Beaty, 1951). In Congress, the notorious anti-Semite Representative John Rankin, without making explicit reference to Jews, stated that “They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation… I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South… Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here” (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, p. 4320).

Reinforcing these links, the position of mainstream Jewish organizations such as the AJ Committee, which opposed communism, often coincided with the position of the CPUSA on issues of immigration. For example, both the AJ Committee and the CPUSA condemned the McCarran-Walter act while, on the other hand, the AJ Committee had a major role in influencing the recommendations of President Truman’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) for relaxing the security provisions of the McCarranWalter act, and these recommendations were warmly greeted by the CPUSA at a time when a prime goal of the security provisions was to exclude communists (Bennett, 1963, p166). Jews were disproportionately represented on the PCIN as well as in the organizations viewed by Congress as Communist front organizations involved in immigration issues, and this was undoubtedly highly salient to anti-Semites. The Chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman and the staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director)and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director), and its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJ Congress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952, p. 3). The proceedings were printed as the report “Whom We Shall Welcome” with the cooperation of Representative Emanuel Celler.

In Congress, Senator McCarran accused the PCIN of containing communist sympathizers, and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) released a report stating that “some two dozen Communists and many times that number with records of repeated affiliation with known Communist enterprises testified before the Commission or submitted statements for inclusion in the record of the {37} hearings… Nowhere in either the record of the hearings or in the report is there a single reference to the true background of these persons” (House Report No. 1182, 85th Congress, 1st Session, p. 47). The report referred particularly to Communists associated with the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB) headed by Abner Green. Green, who was Jewish, figured very prominently in these hearings, and Jews were generally disproportionately represented among those singled out as officers and sponsors of the ACPFB (pp. 13-21). HUAC provided evidence that ACPFB had close ties with the CPUSA and noted that 24 of the individuals associated with the ACPFB had signed statements incorporated into the printed record of the PCIN.

The AJ Committee was also heavily involved in the deliberations of the PCIN, including providing testimony and distributing data and other material to individuals and organizations testifying before the PCIN (Cohen, 1972, p. 371). All of its recommendations were incorporated into the final report (Cohen, 1972, p. 371) (including a de-emphasis on economic skills as criteria for immigration, scrapping the national origins legislation, and opening immigration to all the peoples of the world on a “first come, first served basis”), the only exception being that the report recommended a lower total number of immigrants than recommended by the AJ Committee and other Jewish groups. The AJ Committee thus went beyond merely advocating the principle of immigration from all racial/ethnic groups (token quotas for Asians and Africans had already been included in the McCarran-Walter act) to attempt to maximize the total number of immigrants from all parts of the world within the current political climate.

Indeed, the Commission (PCIN, 1953, p. 106) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system (because there were already high levels of non-quota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas) but the total number of immigrants allowed into the United States. The Commission thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total amount of immigration (PCIN, 1953, p. 42). As Bennett (1963, p. 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants “was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.” Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system “would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation” (in 38 Bennett, 1963, p. 185), and Richard Arens, a Congressional staff member who had a prominent role in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill as well as in the activities of the HUAC, stated that “these are the critics who do not like America as it is and has been. They think our people exist in unfair ethnic proportions. They prefer that we bear a greater resemblance or ethnic relationship to the foreign peoples whom they favor and for whom they are seeking disproportionately greater immigration privileges” (in Bennett, 1963, 186). As Divine (1957, p. 188) notes, ethnic interests predominated on both sides; the charges of racism made against the restrictionists who were advocating the ethnic status quo were balanced against the attempts by antirestrictionists to alter the ethnic status quo in a manner that conformed to their own perceived ethnic interests.

The salience of Jewish involvement in immigration during this period is also apparent in several other incidents. In 1950 the representative of the AJ Congress testified that the retention of national origins in any form would be “a political and moral catastrophe” (“Revision of Immigration Laws” Joint Hearings, 1950, pp. 336-337). The national origins formula implies that “persons in quest of the opportunity to live in this land are to be judged according to breed like cattle at a country fair and not on the basis of their character fitness or capacity” (Congress Weekly 21, 1952, pp. 3-4). Divine (1957, p173) characterizes the AJ Congress as representing “the more militant wing” of the opposition because of its principled opposition to any form of the national origins formula, whereas other opponents merely wanted to be able to distribute unused quotas to Southern and Eastern Europe.

Representative Francis Walter noted the “propaganda drive that is being engaged in now by certain members of the American Jewish Congress opposed to the Immigration and Nationality Code” (Cong. Rec. Mar, 13, 1952, p. 2283), noting particularly the activities of Dr. Israel Goldstein, president of the AJ Congress, who had been reported in the New York Times as having stated that the Immigration and Nationality law would place “a legislative seal of inferiority on all persons of other than Anglo-Saxon origin.” Representative Walter then noted the special role that Jewish organizations had played in attempting to foster family reunion rather than special skills as the basis of United States immigration policy. After Representative Jacob Javits stated that opposition to the law was “not confined to the one group the gentleman mentioned” (Congressional Record, March 13, 1952, p. 2284), Walter responded as follows: I might call your attention to the fact that Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, Commissioner of the Displaced Persons Commission and incidentally a brother-in-law of a lawyer who is stirring up all this agitation, in a speech recently said: {39} The proposed legislation is America’s Nuremberg trial. It is “racious” and archaic, based on a theory that people with different styles of noses should be treated differently.

Representative Walter then went on to note that during the hearings on the bill, the only two organizations that were hostile to the entire bill were the AJ Congress and the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers, the latter “represented by an attorney who is also advising and counseling the American Jewish Congress.” (Indeed, Goldstein [1952b] himself noted that “at the time of the Joint House-Senate hearings on the McCarran bill, the American Jewish Congress was the only civic group which dared flatly to oppose the national origins quota formula.”) Representative Emanuel Celler then stated that Walter “should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bill” (p. 2285). Representative Walter agreed with Celler’s comments, noting that “there are other very fine Jewish groups who endorse the bill.” Nevertheless, the principle Jewish organizations, including the AJ Congress, the AJ Committee, the ADL, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, did indeed oppose the bill (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, p. 4247), and when Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in the Joint Hearings, he emphasized that he represented a very wide range of Jewish groups, “the entire body of religious opinion and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left” (p. 563).[22] Rifkind represented a long list of national and local Jewish groups, including in addition to the above, the Synagogue Council of America, the Jewish Labor Committee, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, and 27 local Jewish councils throughout the United States

Moreover, the fight against the bill was led by Jewish members of Congress, including especially Celler, Javits, and Lehman, all of whom, as indicated above, were prominent members of the ADL

Albeit by indirection, Representative Walter was clearly calling attention to the special Jewish role in the immigration conflict of 1952. The special role of the AJ Congress in opposing the McCarran-Walter act was a source of pride within the group: on the verge of victory in 1965, the Congress biWeekly editorialized that it was “a cause of pride” that Rabbi Israel Goldstein had been “singled out by Rep. Walter for attack on the floor of the House of Representatives as the prime organizer of the campaign against the measures he co-sponsored” (Feb. 1, 1965; p. 3).

The perception that Jewish concerns were an important feature of the opposition to the McCarran-Walter act can also be seen in the following exchange between Representative Celler and Representative Walter. Celler noted that “The national origin theory upon which our immigration law is based … [mocks] our protestations based on a question of equality of opportunity for all peoples, {40} regardless of race, color, or creed.” Representative Walter replied that “a great menace to America lies in the fact that so many professionals, including professional Jews, are shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever” (Cong. Rec. Jan. 13, 1953, p. 372). And in a comment referring to the peculiarities of Jewish interests in immigration legislation, Richard Arens, Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the McCarran-Walter act, pointedly noted that “one of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is ‘discriminatory’ and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel” (in Bennett, 1963, p. 181).

The McCarran-Walter Act was passed over President Truman’s veto, and Truman’s “alleged partisanship to Jews was a favorite target of antiSemites” (Cohen, 1972, p. 377). Prior to the veto, Truman was intensively lobbied, “particularly [by] Jewish societies” opposed to the bill, while government agencies, including the State Department urged Truman to sign the bill (Divine, 1957, p184). Moreover, individuals with openly anti-Semitic attitudes, such as John Beaty (1951), often focused on Jewish involvement in the immigration battles during this period.

Jewish Anti-Restrictionist Activity, 1953-1965

During this period, the Congress Weekly regularly noted the role of Jewish organizations as the vanguard of liberalized immigration laws: For example, in its editorial of Feb. 20, 1956 (p. 3), it congratulated President Eisenhower for his “unequivocal opposition to the quota system which, more than any other feature of our immigration policy, has excited the most widespread and most intense aversion among Americans. In advancing this proposal for ‘new guidelines and standards’ in determining admissions, President Eisenhower has courageously taken a stand in advance of even many advocates of a liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the american Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.” The AJ Committee made a major effort to keep the immigration issue alive during a period of widespread apathy among the American public between the passage of the McCarran-Walter act and the early 1960s. Jewish organizations intensified their effort during this period (Cohen, 1972, pp. 370-373; Neuringer, 1971, p. 358), with the AJ Committee helping to establish the Joint Conference on Alien Legislation and the American Immigration Conference (organizations representing pro-immigration forces) as well as providing most of the funding and performing most of the work of these groups. In 1955 the AJ Committee organized a group of influential citizens as the National Commission on {41} Immigration and Citizenship “in order to give prestige to the campaign” (Cohen, 1972, p. 373). “All these groups studied immigration laws, disseminated information to the public, presented testimony to Congress, and planned other appropriate activities… There were no immediate or dramatic results; but AJC’s dogged campaign in conjunction with like-minded organizations ultimately prodded the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to action” (Cohen, 1972, p. 373).

An article by Oscar Handlin (1952), the prominent Harvard historian of immigration, is a fascinating microcosm of the Jewish approach to immigration during this period. Writing in Commentary (a publication of the AJ Committee) almost 30 years after the 1924 defeat and in the immediate aftermath of the McCarran-Walter act, Handlin entitled his article “The immigration fight has only begun: Lessons of the McCarran-Walter setback.” The title is a remarkable indication of the tenacity and persistence of Jewish commitment to this issue. The message is to not be discouraged by the recent defeat which occurred despite “all the effort toward securing the revision of our immigration laws” (p. 2).

Handlin attempts to cast the argument in universalist terms as benefiting all Americans and as conforming to American ideals that “all men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Americans” (p.7). Current immigration law reflects “racist xenophobia” (p. 2) by its token quotas for Asians and its deprivation of the right of West Indian Blacks to take advantage of British quotas. Handlin ascribes the restrictionist sentiments of Pat McCarran to “the hatred of foreigners that was all about him in his youth and by the dim, recalled fear that he himself might be counted among them” (p. 3) – a sort of psychoanalytic identification-with-the-aggressor argument (McCarran was Catholic).

In his article Handlin repeatedly uses the term “we” (as in “(i)f we cannot beat McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons (p. 4), “suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged “chipping away” of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years. Handlin’s antirestrictionist strategy included altering the views of social scientists to the effect “that it was possible and necessary to distinguish among the ‘races’ of immigrants that clamored for admission to the United States” (p. 4).

Handlin’s proposal to recruit social scientists in the immigration battles is congruent with the political agenda of the Boasian school of anthropology discussed above. And as Higham (1984) notes, the ascendancy of such views was as an important component of the ultimate victory over restrictionism.

In an arguably tendentious rendering of the logic of preserving the ethnic status quo that underlay the arguments for restriction in the period from 1921-1952, Handlin stated: {42} The laws are bad because they rest on the racist assumption that mankind is divided into fixed breeds, biologically and culturally separated from each other, and because, within that framework, they assume that Americans are Anglo-Saxons by origin and ought to remain so. To all other peoples, the laws say that the United States ranks them in terms of their racial proximity to our own ‘superior’ stock; and upon the many, many millions of Americans not descended from the Anglo-Saxons, the laws cast a distinct imputation of inferiority (p. 5)

Handlin then deplored the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” to share the enthusiasm of the Jewish effort: “Many groups failed to see the relevance of the McCarran-Walter Bill to their own position;” he suggested that they ought to act as groups to assert their rightful interests: “The Italian American has the right to be heard on these issues precisely as an Italian American” (p. 7; italics in text). The implicit assumption is that America ought to be composed of cohesive subgroups with a clear sense of their group interests in opposition to the peoples deriving from Northern and Western Europe or of the United States as a whole. And there is the implication that Italian-Americans have an interest in furthering immigration of Africans and Asians and in creating such a multiracial and multicultural society

Shortly after Handlin’s article, William Petersen (1955), also writing in Commentary, argued that pro-immigration forces should be explicit in their advocacy of a multicultural society, and that the importance of this goal transcended the importance of achieving any self-interested goal of the United states, such as obtaining needed skills or improving foreign relations. In making his case he cited a group of predominantly Jewish social scientists whose works, beginning with Horace Kallen’s plea for a multicultural, pluralistic society, “constitute the beginning of a scholarly legitimization of the different immigration policy that will perhaps one day become law” (p. 86), including, besides Kallen, Melville herskovits, Geoffrey Gorer, Samuel Lubell, David Riesman, Thorsten Sellin, and Milton Konvit.

These social scientists did indeed contribute to the immigration battles. For example, the following quotation from a scholarly book on immigration policy by Milton Konvitz of Cornell University reflects the rejection of national interest as an element of United States immigration policy-a hallmark of the Jewish approach to immigration: “To place so much emphasis on technological and vocational qualifications is to remove every vestige of humanitarianism from our immigration policy. We deserve small thanks from those who come here if they are admitted because we find that they are “urgently” needed, by reason of their training and experience, to advance our national interests. This is hardly immigration; it is the importation of special skills or know-how, not greatly different from the importation of 43 coffee or rubber. It is hardly in the spirit of American ideals to disregard a man’s character and promise and to look only at his education and the vocational opportunities he had the good fortune to enjoy.” (Konvitz, 1953, p. 26)

Handlin wrote that the McCarran-Walter law was only a temporary setback and he was right. Thirty years after the triumph of restrictionism, only Jewish groups remained as persistent and tenacious advocates of a multicultural America. Forty-one years after the 1924 triumph of restrictionism and the national origins provision and only 13 years after its reaffirmation with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, Jewish organizations successfully supported ending the geographically based national origins basis of immigration intended to result in an ethnic status quo in what was now a radically altered intellectual and political climate.

Particularly important is the provision in the Immigration Act of 1965 that expanded the number of non-quota immigrants. Beginning in their testimony on the 1924 law, Jewish spokesmen had been in the forefront in attempts to admit family members on a nonquota basis (Neuringer, 1971, p. 191). During the House debates on immigration surrounding the McCarran-Walter Act, Representative Walter (Cong. Rec., p. 2284, March 13, 1952) noted the special focus that Jewish organizations had on family reunion rather than on special skills. Responding to Representative Javits who had complained that under the bill 50% of the quota for “Negroes” from the British West Indies colonies would be reserved for people with special skills, Walter noted that “I would like to call the gentleman’s attention to the fact that this is the principle of using 50 percent of the quota for people needed in the United States. But, if that entire 50 percent is not used in that category, then the unused numbers go down to the next category which replies to the objections that these Jewish organizations make much of, that families are being separated.” Prior to the 1965 law, Bennett (1963, p. 244), commenting on the family unification aspects of the 1961 immigration legislation, noted that the “relationship by blood or marriage and the principle of uniting families have become the ‘open Sesame’ to the immigration gates.” Moreover, despite repeated denials by the anti-restrictionists that their proposals would affect the ethnic balance of the country, Bennett (1963, p. 256) commented that the “repeated, persistent extension of nonquota status to immigrants from countries with oversubscribed quotas and flatly discriminated against by [the McCarran-Walter act] together with administrative waivers of inadmissibility, adjustment of status and private bills, is helping to speed and make apparently inevitable a change in the ethnic face of the nation” (p. 257) – a reference to the “chipping away” of the 1952 law recommended as a strategy in Handlin’s article. Indeed, a major argument apparent in the debate over the 1965 legislation was that the {44} 1952 law had been so weakened that it had largely become irrelevant and there was a need to overhaul immigration legislation to legitimize a de facto situation.

Bennett also noted that “(t)he stress on the immigration issue arises from insistence of those who regard quotas as ceilings, not floors [opponents of restriction often referred to unused quotas as “wasted”], who want to remake America in the image of small-quota countries and who do not like our basic ideology, cultural attitudes and heritage. They insist that it is the duty of the United States to accept immigrants irrespective of their assimilability or our own population problems. They insist on remaining hyphenated Americans” (1963, p. 295).

The family-based emphasis of the quota regulations of the 1965 law (e.g., the provision that at least 24% of the quota for each area be set aside for brothers and sisters of citizens) has resulted in a multiplier effect which ultimately subverted the quota system entirely by allowing for a “chaining” phenomenon in which endless chains of the close relatives of close relatives are admitted outside the quota system: Imagine one immigrant, say an engineering student, who was studying in the U. S. during the 1960’s. If he found a job after graduation, he could then bring over his wife [as the spouse of a resident alien], and six years later, after being naturalized, his brothers and sisters [as siblings of a citizen]. They, in turn, could bring their wives, husbands, and children. Within a dozen years, one immigrant entering as a skilled worker could easily generate 25 visas for in-laws, nieces, and nephews (McConnell 1988, p. 98).

The 1965 law also de-emphasized the criterion that immigrants should have needed skills. (In 1986, less than 4% of immigrants were admitted on the basis of needed skills, while 74% were admitted on the basis of kinship [see Brimelow, 1995].) As indicated above, the rejection of a skill requirement or other tests of competence in favor of “humanitarian goals” and family unification had been an element of Jewish immigration policy at least since debate on the McCarran-Walter act of the early 1950s and extending really to the long opposition to literacy tests dating from the end of the nineteenth century.

Senator Jacob Javits played a prominent role in the Senate hearings on the 1965 bill, and Emanuel Celler, who fought for unrestricted immigration for over 40 years in the House of Representatives, introduced similar legislation in that body. Jewish organizations (American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund; Council of Jewish Federations & Welfare Funds; B’nai B’rith Women) filed briefs in support of the measure before the Senate Subcommittee, as did organizations such as the ACLU and the Americans for Democratic Action with a large Jewish membership. {45} Indeed, it is noteworthy that well before the ultimate triumph of the Jewish policy on immigration, Javits (1951) authored an article entitled “Let’s open the gates” that proposed immigration level of 500,000 per year for 20 years with no restrictions on national origin. In 1961 Javits proposed a bill that “sought to destroy the [national origins quota system] by a flank attack and to increase quota and nonquota immigration” (Bennett, 1963, p. 250). In addition to provisions aimed at removing barriers due to race, ethnic and national origins, included in this bill was a provision that brothers, sisters, and married sons or daughters of United States citizens and their spouses and children who had become eligible under the quota system in legislation of 1957 be included as nonquota immigrants – an even more radical version of the provision whose incorporation in the 1965 law facilitated non-European immigration into the United States. Although this provision of Javit’s bill was not approved at the time, the bill’s proposals for softening previous restrictions on Asian and Black immigration as well as removing racial classification from visa documents (thus allowing unlimited nonquota immigration of Asians born in the Western Hemisphere) were approved.

It is also interesting that the main victory of the restrictionists in 1965 was that Western Hemisphere nations were included in the new quota system thus ending the possibility of unrestricted immigration from those regions. In speeches before the Senate, Senator Javits (Cong. Rec. 111, 1965, p24469) bitterly opposed this extension of the quota system, arguing that placing any limits on immigration of all of the people of the Western Hemisphere would have severely negative implications on United States foreign policy. In a highly revealing discussion of the bill before the Senate, Senator Sam Ervin (Cong. Rec. 89th Congress, 1st session, pp. 24446-51, 1965) noted that “those who disagree with me express no shock that Britain, in the future, can send us 10,000 fewer immigrants than she has sent on an annual average in the past. They are only shocked that British Guyana cannot send us every single citizen of that country who wishes to come.” Clearly the forces of liberal immigration really wanted unlimited immigration into the United States.

The pro-immigrationists also failed to prevent a requirement that the Secretary of Labor determine that there are insufficient Americans able and willing to perform the labor which the aliens intend to perform, and that the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of American workers. Writing in the American Jewish Year Book, Liskofsky (1966, 174) notes that pro-immigration groups opposed these regulations but agreed to them in order to get a bill that ended the national origins provisions. After passage “they became intensely concerned. They voiced publicly the fear that the new, administratively cumbersome procedure might easily result in {46} paralyzing most immigration of skilled and unskilled workers as well as of non-preference immigrants.” Reflecting the long Jewish opposition to the idea that immigration policy should be in the national interest, the economic welfare of American citizens was irrelevant; securing high levels of immigration had become an end in itself.

The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along: the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples will no longer be a majority of the population of America. Moreover, multiculturalism has already become a powerful ideological and political reality (Brimelow, 1995). Although the proponents of the 1965 legislation continued to insist that the bill would not affect the ethnic balance of the United States or even impact its culture, it is difficult to believe that at least some of the proponents were unaware of the eventual implications. Opponents, certainly, were quite clear that it would indeed affect the ethnic balance of the United States. Given the intense involvement of organizations such as the AJ Committee in the details of immigration legislation and their very negative attitudes toward the NorthWestern European bias of pre-1965 United States immigration policy and very negative attitudes toward the idea of an ethnic status quo embodied, e.g., in the PCIN document Whom We Shall Welcome, it appears unlikely to suppose that these organizations were unaware of the inaccuracy of the projections of the effects of this legislation that were made by its supporters. Given the clearly articulated interests in ending the ethnic status quo evident in the arguments of anti-restrictionists throughout the period from 1924-1965, the 1965 law would not have been perceived by its proponents as a victory unless they viewed it as ultimately changing the ethnic status quo. Revealingly, the 1965 law was viewed as a victory by the anti-restrictionists, and it is noteworthy that after regularly condemning United States immigration law and championing the eradication of the national origins formula precisely because it had produced an ethnic status quo, The Congress bi-Weekly completely ceased publishing articles on this topic.

Moreover, Lawrence Auster (1990, p. 31ff) shows that the supporters of the legislation repeatedly glossed over the distinction between quota and non-quota immigration and failed to mention the effect that the legislation would have on non-quota immigration. Projections of the number of new immigrants failed to take account of the well-known and often commentedupon fact that the old quotas favoring Western European countries were not being filled. Moreover, continuing a tradition of over 40 years, the rhetoric of those in favor of the bill presented the legislation of 1924 and 1952 as based on theories of racial superiority and as involving racial discrimination rather than in terms of an attempt to create an ethnic status quo. {47}

Even in 1952, Senator McCarran was well aware of the high stakes at risk in immigration policy: “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the united States… I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.” (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518.)

Conclusion

The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority in the period from 1924-1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of the peoples of northern and Western Europe in maintaining a status quo as of 1924.

During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely thwarted, but this did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish perspective on immigration. In a very real sense the result of the immigration changes fostered by Jewish intellectual and political activity have constituted a long term victory over the political, demographic, and cultural representation of “the common people of the South and West” (Higham 1984, 49) whose congressional delegates were in the forefront of the restrictionist forces. Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb (1995) notes that it is the descendants of those WASPS who settled the West and South who “by and large did the most to lay out the {48} infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the price of pioneering. Today they have the least, socioeconomically, to show for these contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices.” Webb’s ideas are not new but reflect the sentiments a great many congressmen voiced during the immigration debates of the 1920’s.

It is instructive to consider the possible long term effects of this sea change in American immigration policy combined with the current emphasis on multiculturalism. The shift to multiculturalism has coincided with an enormous growth of immigration from non-European-derived peoples beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965 which favored immigrants from non-European countries. Many of these immigrants come from non-Western countries where cultural, gender, and genetic segregation are the norm. Within the context of multicultural America, they are encouraged to retain their own languages and religions and encouraged to marry within the group

The movement toward ethnic separatism is highly problematic. Historically, ethnic separatism has been an extremely divisive force within societies. At the present time there are ethnically based conflicts on every continent, and formerly multi-ethnic societies are breaking away and establishing ethnostates based on ethnic homogeneity (Tullberg & Tullberg, 1997). These results confirm the expectation that indeed ethnicity is important in human affairs. People appear to be extremely aware of group membership, and ethnicity remains a common source of group identity. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and social status.

And they are willing to take extraordinary steps in order to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives.

It is instructive to think of the circumstances which could minimize group conflict given the assumption of ethnic separatism. Theorists of cultural pluralism, such as Horace Kallen, envision the possibility that different ethnic groups would retain their distinctive identity in the context of complete political equality and economic opportunity. The difficulty with this scenario is that no provision is made for the results of competition for resources within the society.

In the best of circumstances one might suppose that the separated ethnic groups would engage in absolute reciprocity with each other, so that there would be no differences in terms of any measure of success in the society, including social class membership, economic role (e.g., producer versus consumer; creditor versus debtor; manager versus worker), or fertility between the separated ethnic {49} groups. All groups would have approximately equal numbers and equal political power, or if there were different numbers there would be provisions ensuring that minorities could retain equitable representation in terms of the markers of success. Such conditions would minimize hostility between the groups because it would be difficult to attribute one’s status to the actions of the other group.

However, given the existence of ethnic separatism, it would still be in the interests of each group to advance its own interests at the expense of the other groups. All things being equal, a given ethnic group would be better off if it ensured that the other group had fewer resources, a lower social status, lower fertility, and proportionately less political power than itself. (Indeed, lowering the political and demographic power of the European-derived peoples of the United States has clearly been the aim of the Jewish political and intellectual activities discussed here.) The hypothesized steady state of equality therefore implies a set of balance of power relationships – each side constantly checking to make sure that the other is not cheating; each side constantly looking for ways to obtain dominance and exploitation by any possible means; each side willing to compromise only because of the threat of retaliation by the other side; each side willing to cooperate in a manner which involves a cost only if forced to do so by, e.g., the presence of external threat. Clearly any type of cooperation which would involve true altruism toward the other group would not be expected.

Thus the ideal situation of absolute equality would certainly require a great deal of monitoring and undoubtedly be characterized by a great deal of mutual suspicion. However, in the real world even this rather grim ideal is highly unlikely. In the real world, ethnic groups differ in their talents and abilities; they differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage parenting practices conducive to resource acquisition; and they differ in the resources held at any point in time and in their political power. Equality or proportionate equity would be extremely difficult to attain, or to maintain after it has been achieved, without extraordinary levels of monitoring and without extremely intense social controls which would enforce ethnic quotas on the accumulation of wealth, admission to universities, obtaining high status jobs, etc.

Because of differing talents and abilities and differing parenting styles between ethnic groups, there would be a need to have different criteria for qualifying and retaining jobs depending on ethnic group membership.[23] In the real world, therefore, there would have to be extraordinary efforts made to attain this steady state of ethnic balance of power and resources. It is of great interest that the ideology of Jewish-gentile co-existence has sometimes included the idea that the different ethnic groups develop a similar occupational profile and (implicitly) control resources in proportion to their numbers. The dream of the German assimilationists during the nineteenth-century was that the occupational profile of the {50} Jews after emancipation would be highly similar to that of the gentiles – a “utopian expectation . . shared by many, Jews and non-Jews alike” (Katz, 1986, p. 67). Efforts were made to decrease the percentage of Jews involved in trade and increase the percentages involved in agriculture and artisanry. In the event, however, the result of emancipation was that Jews were vastly over represented among the economic and cultural elite of the society, and this over representation was a critical feature of German anti-Semitism from 1870-1933

Similarly, during the 1920s plans were proposed in which each ethnic group received a percentage of placements at Harvard and other universities reflecting the percentage of racial and national groups in the United States. These plans certainly reflect the importance of ethnicity in human affairs, but surely a society based on this type of ethnic special interest is not one which a social engineer in the manner of Lycurgus, Moses, Plato, or the American Founding Fathers would design as a blueprint for an entire society. The levels of social tension are bound to be chronically high. Moreover, there is a considerable chance that ethnic warfare would occur even if precise parity had been achieved via intensive social controls: as indicated above, it would always be in the interests of any ethnic group to obtain hegemony over the others.

If one adopts a cultural pluralism model in which there is free competition for resources and reproductive success, differences between ethnic groups are inevitable, and history suggests that such differences would result in animosity from the groups that are losing out. The Tutsi/Hutu struggle in Rwanda and its neighbors is only the latest of many tragic examples. Assuming that there are ethnic differences in talents and abilities, the supposition that ethnic separatism could be a stable situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance of power situation maintained with powerful social controls, as described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups be unconcerned that they are losing in the competition

I regard this last possibility as remote at best. The proposition that an ethnic group should or would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by any theoretical or ideological perspective of which I am aware. The present immigration policy essentially places America “in play” as an arena of ethnic competition in a sense which does not apply in the non-Western nations of the world where the implicit assumption is that territory is held by its historically-dominant people. Under present policies, each racial/ethnic group in the world is encouraged to press its interest in expanding its demographic and political presence in America and can be expected to do so if given the opportunity. {51} Contrary to policies they advocate for the United States, American Jews have had no interest at all in proposing that immigration to Israel should be similarly multi-ethnic or that Israel should have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews in Israel. Indeed, the very deep ethnic conflict within Israel is an excellent example of the failure of multiculturalism. Similarly, while Jews have been on the forefront of movements to separate church and state in the United States and often protested lack of religious freedom in the Soviet Union, the control of religious affairs by the Orthodox in Israel has received only belated and half-hearted opposition by American Jewish organizations (Cohen, 1972, 317) and has not prevented the all-out support of Israel by American Jews, despite the fact that Israel’s policy regarding immigration is quite the opposite of that of Western democracies.

At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, while the attempts of the European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control are represented as “racist” and patently immoral. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prescribed morality entails altruism and self-sacrifice, and it is unlikely to be viable in the long run. And, as we have seen, the viability of such a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which everyone is highly conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources.

Although the success of the anti-restrictionist effort is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue to occur if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of the European-derived group is decreasing while the power of other groups increases as a result of immigration and other social policies. The prediction, both on common sense grounds and on the basis of psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1987), is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive influences among the European-derived peoples of the United States (e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social class differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of common interest in their interactions with the other ethnic groups with profound consequences on the future history of America and the West. {52}


Notes

[1] Raab is associated with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), and is executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. He is also a columnist for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin. Among other works, he is co-author, with Seymour Lipset of The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing-Extremism in America, 1790-1970 (Lipset & Raab 1970), a volume in a series of books on anti-Semitism in the United States sponsored by the ADL.

[2] In Australia, Miriam Faine, an editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat stated that “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian” (in McCormack 1994, p. 11).

[3] Moreover, a deep concern that an ethnically and culturally homogeneous America would compromise Jewish interests can be seen in Silberman’s comments on the attraction of Jews to “the Democratic party… with its traditional hospitality to non-WASP ethnic groups… A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale’s economic policies voted for him nonetheless. ‘I watched the conventions on television, ‘ he explained, ‘and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.”That same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him; ‘I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican convention’ a well-known author told me” (pp. 347-348).

[4] Goldberg (1996, 160) notes that the future neo-conservatives were disciples of Trotskyist theoretician Max Schachtman. A good example is Irving Kristol’s (1983) “Memoirs of a Trotskyist.”

[5] Grant’s letter to the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization emphasized the principle argument of the restrictionists, i.e., that the use of the 1890 census of the foreign born as the basis of the immigration law was fair to all ethnic groups currently in the country, and that the use of the 1910 census discriminated against the “native Americans whose ancestors were in this country before its independence.” He also argued in favor of quotas from Western Hemisphere nations because these countries “in some cases furnish very undesirable immigrants. The Mexicans who come into the United states are overwhelmingly of Indian blood, and the recent intelligence tests have shown their very low intellectual status. We have already got too many of them in our Southwestern States, and a check should be put on their increase” (p. 571). Grant was also concerned about the unassimilability of recent immigrants. He included with his letter a Chicago Tribune editorial commenting on a situation in Hamtramck, Michigan in which recent immigrants were described as demanding “Polish rule, ” the expulsion of nonPoles, and that only the Polish language be spoken even by federal officials. Grant also {53} argued that differences in reproductive rate would result in displacement of groups that delayed marriage and had fewer children- clearly a concern that as a result of immigration his ethnic group would be displaced by ethnic groups with a higher rate of natural increase. (Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p. 570.)

[6] Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p. 580-581.

[7] Statement of the AJ Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p391.

[8] Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 303.

[9] Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 341.

[10] For example, in the Senate debates of April 15-19, 1924, Nordic superiority was not mentioned by any of the proponents of the legislation but was mentioned by the following opponents of the legislation: Senators Colt (p. 6542), Reed (p. 6468), Walsh (p. 6355). In the House debates of April 5, 8, and 15, virtually all of the opponents of the legislation raised the racial inferiority issue, including Reps. Celler(p. 5914-5915), Clancy (p. 5930), Connery (p. 5683), Dickstein (p. 5655-5656, 5686), Gallivan (p5849), Jacobstein (p. 5864), James (p. 5670), Kunz (p. 5896), LaGuardia (p. 5657), Mooney (p. 5909-5910), O’Connell (p. 5836), O’Connor (p. 5648), Oliver (p. 5870), O’Sullivan (p. 5899), Perlman (p5651); Sabath (p. 5651, 5662), and Tague (p. 5873). Several representatives (e.g., Reps. Dickinson [p6267), Garber [pp. 5689-5693] and Smith [p. 5705]) contrasted the positive characteristics of the Nordic immigrants with the negative characteristics of more recent immigrants without distinguishing genetic from environmental reasons as possible influences. They, along with several others, noted especially the lack of assimilation of the recent immigrants and their tendencies to cluster in urban areas. Rep. Allen argued that there is a “necessity for purifying and keeping pure the blood of America” (p. 5693). Rep. McSwain, who argued for the need to preserve Nordic hegemony, did not do so on the basis of Nordic superiority but on the basis of legitimate ethnic self-interest (pp. 5683-5; see also comments of Reps. Lea and Miller). Rep. Gasque introduced a newspaper article that referred to the “laws of heredity” and to the swamping of the race that had built America (p. 6270). {54}

[11] Restriction of Immigration. Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 351.

[12] See, e.g., Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p. 733Ff.

[13] Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, May 24-June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to Authorize the Admission to the United States of a Limited Number of German Refugee Children, p. 1.

[14] Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, May 24-June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to Authorize the Admission to the United States of a Limited Number of German Refugee Children, p. 78.

[15] Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, May 24-June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to Authorize the Admission to the United States of a Limited Number of German Refugee Children, p. 140.

[16] Statement of the AJ Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p565.

[17] Statement of the AJ Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p566. See also statement of Rabbi Bernard J. Bamberger, President of the Synagogue Council of America; See also the statement of the AJ Congress, pp. 560-561.

[18] Statement of Will Maslow representing the AJ Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816 March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 394.

[19] Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, pp. 562-595.

[20] Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 410.

[21] Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 404.

[22] Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 563. {55}

[23] Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a very high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or employment opportunities, and would even entail a large taxation on Jews in order to prevent the present Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly over-represented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States (e.g., Ginsberg, 1994; Lipsett & Raab, 1995). Beginning in the 1920s, studies have repeatedly shown that Ashkenazi Jews have a full-scale IQ of approximately 117 and a verbal IQ in the range of 125 (see MacDonald, 1994 for a review). By 1988, Jews constituted about 40% of admissions to Ivy League colleges and Jewish income was at least double that of gentiles (Shapiro1992, p. 116). Shapiro also shows that Jews are over represented by at least a factor of nine on indexes of wealth, but that this is a conservative estimate because much Jewish wealth is in real estate which is difficult to determine and easy to hide. While constituting approximately 2.4% of the population of the united States, Jews represented one half of the top 100 Wall Street executives. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between onequarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United states, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions. Indeed, many Jewish intellectuals (including “neoconservatives” such as Daniel Bell, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, and Earl Raab) as well as Jewish organizations (including the ADL, the AJ Committee, and the AJ Congress) have been eloquent opponents of affirmative action and quota mechanisms for distributing resources (see Sachar 1992, p818ff)


Bibliography

Alderman, G. (1983). The Jewish community in British politics. Oxford: The Clarendon Press

Alderman, G. (1992). “Modern British Jewry.” Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Auster, L. (1990). The path to national suicide: An essay on immigration and multiculturalism. Monterey, VA: The American Immigration Control Foundation

Beaty, J. (1951). The iron curtain over America. Dallas, TX: Wilkinson Publishing Co

Belth, N. C. (1979). A promise to keep. New York: Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith/Times Books

Bennett, M. T. (1963). American immigration policies: A history. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press

Blau, J. L. “Theory of cultural pluralism.” Congress Weekly, June 16, 15.

Boas, F. (1911). Reports of the Immigration Commission, “Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants, ” 61st Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document #208 Washington, DC: Government Printing Office

Breitman, R. D., & Kraut, A. M. (1986). “Anti-Semitism in the State Department, 1933-44: Four case studies.” In D. A. Gerber (Ed.). AntiSemitism in American history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press

Breitman, R., & Kraut, A. M. (1987). American refugee policy and European Jewry, 1933-1945. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Brigham, C. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Brimelow, P. (1995). Alien nation. New York: Random House

Buhle, P. (1980). “Jews and American Communism: The cultural question.” Radical History Review, 23, 9-33. Reprinted in G. E. Pozzetta (Ed.), Immigrant radicals: The view from the left. New York: Garland Publishing, 1991

Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not free to desist: The American Jewish Committee 1906-1966. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America

Cohn, W. (1958). “The politics of American Jews. In M. Sklare (Ed.). The Jews: Social patterns of an American group, pp. 614-626. Glencoe, IL: Free Press

Degler, C. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York: Oxford University Press

Divine, R. A. (1957). American immigration policy, 1924-1952. New Haven: Yale University Press

Ellman, Y. (1987). “Intermarriage in the United States: A comparative study of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups. Jewish Social Studies, 49, 126

Fairchild, H. P. (1939). “Should the Jews come in?” The New Republic, 97, January 25, 344-345

Fairchild, H. P. (1947). Race and nationality as factors in American life. New York: The Ronald Press

Fetzer, J. S. (1996). “Anti-immigration sentiment and nativist political movements in the United states, France and Germany: Marginality or economic self-interest?” Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, Aug. 29-Sept. 1

Ford, H. (1920). The International Jew, the world’ s foremost problem. Dearborn, MI: The Dearborn Publishing Co

Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge University Press

Freeman, D. (1991). “On Franz Boas and the Samoan researches of Margaret Mead.” Current Anthropology, 32, 322-330

Frommer, M. (1978). The American Jewish Congress: A history 1914-1950 (2 vols.). Ph. D Dissertation, Ohio State University

Gal, A. (1989). Brandeis, Judaism, and Zionism. In N. L. Dawson (Ed.). Brandeis in America. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press

Ginsberg, B. (1993). The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Glazer, N. (1961). The Social Basis of American Communism. New York: Harcourt Brace

Glazer, N. (1969). “The New Left and the Jews.” Jewish Journal of Sociology, 11, 120-132

Goldberg, J. J. (1996). Jewish power: Inside the American Jewish establishment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Goldstein, I. (1952a). “The racist immigration law.” Congress Weekly 19(11), March 17, 6-7

Goldstein, I. (1952b). “An American immigration policy.” Congress Weekly, November 3, 1952, p4

Goldstein, J. (1990). The politics of ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish committee’ s fight against immigration restriction, 1906-1917. New York: Garland Publishing

Gottfried, P. (1993). The Conservative Movement, rev. ed. New York: Twayne Publishers

Grant, M. (1921). The passing of the great race or the racial basis of European history, 4th ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s

Handlin, O. (1948). Race and nationality in American life. Boston: Little, Brown and Co

Handlin, O. (1952). “The immigration fight has only begun.” Commentary, 14(July), 1-7

Herskovits, M. (1953). Franz Boas. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Hertzberg, A. (1989). The Jews in America. New York: Simon & Schuster

Higham, J. (1984). Send these to me: Immigrants in urban America, revised edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (1987). Social identifications. New York: Routledge

Hollinger D. A. (1996). Science, Jews, and secular culture: Studies in midtwentieth century American intellectual history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Horowitz, I. L. (1993). The decomposition of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press

Howe, I. (1978). The world of our fathers. New York: Harcourt Brace

Ivers, G. (1995). To build a wall: American Jews and the separation of church and state. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press

Javits, J. (1951). “Let’s open our gates.” New York Times Magazine (July 8), 8, 31-33

Judis, J. (1990). “The conservative crack-up.” The American Prospect (Fall), 30-42

Kallen, H. M. (1915). “Democracy versus the melting pot.” Nation, 100 (18 and 25 February), 190-194; 217-220

Kallen, H. M. (1924). Culture and democracy in the United States. New York: Arno Press

Kallen, H. M.(1956) Cultural pluralism and the American idea. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Katz, J, (1961b). Exclusiveness and tolerance. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Klehr, H. (1978). Communist cadre: The social background of the American Communist party elite. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press

Kohler, K. (1918). Jewish theology. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc (republished in 1968)

Konvitz, M. R. (1953). Civil rights in immigration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press

Kristol, I. (1983). “Memoirs of a Trotskyist.” In I. Kristol Reflections of a neoconservative, pp3-13. New York: Basic Books

Levenson, A. (1989). Reform attitudes, in the past, toward intermarriage. Judaism, 38, 320-332

Liebman, A. (1979). Jews and the left. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1970). The Politics of unreason: Right wingextremism in America, 1790-1970. New York: Harper & Row

Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1995). Jews and the new American scene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Liskofsky, S. (1966). “United States immigration policy.” In M. Fine & M. Himmelfarb (Eds.), American Jewish Yearbook 1966 (vol. 67), 164-175

Lynn, R. (1987). “The intelligence of the Mongoloids: A psychometric, evolutionary and neurological theory.” Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 813-844

Lyons, P. (1982). Philadelphia Communists, 1936-1956. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport, CT: Praeger

MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger

Maslow, W. (1950). “Is American Jewry secure?” Congress Weekly 17(13) March 27, 6-9

McConnell, S. (1988). “The new battle over immigration.” Fortune, May 9

McCormack, D. (1994). “Immigration and multiculturalism.” In Censorship immigration and multiculturalism, by J. Bennett. Australian Civil Liberties Union

Meyer, M. A. (1988). Response to modernity: A history of the Reform movement in Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press

Nadell, P. S. (1984). “From shtetl to border: Eastern European Jewish emigrants and the “agents”system, 1869-1914.” In Studies in the American Jewish Experience II. Lanham, MD: University Press of America

Neuringer, S. M. (1969). American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953. PhD. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1971; reprinted by Arno Press (New York), 1980

Neusner, J. (1987). Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Petersen, W. (1955). “The “scientific” basis of our immigration policy.” Commentary, 20(July), 77-86

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953). Whom we shall welcome, reprinted 1971. New York: De Capo Press

Raab, E. (1993a). Jewish Bulletin, July 23

Raab, E. (1993b). Jewish Bulletin, February 19

Raab. E. (1995). “Can antisemitism disappear?” In J. A. Chanes (Ed.). Antisemitism in America today: Outspoken experts explode the myths, pp. 84-99. New York: Birch Lane Press

Ross, E. A. (1914). The old world and the new: The significance of past and present immigration to the American people. New York: The Century Co

Rothman, S., & Lichter S. R. (1982). Roots of radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left. New York: Oxford University Press

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life-history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers

Sachar, H. M. (1992). A history of Jews in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

Samelson, F. (1975). “On the science and politics of the IQ.” Social Research, 42, 467-488

Samuel, M. (1924). You gentiles. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co

Shapiro, E. S. (1992). A time for healing: American Jewry since World War II. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Shipman, P. (1994). The evolution of racism: Human differences and the use and abuse of science. New York: Simon & Schuster

Silberman, C. E. (1985). A certain people: American Jews and their lives today. New York: Summit Books

Simon, J. (1990). Population matters: People, resources, environment, and immigration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Singerman, R. (1986). “The Jew as racial alien.” In D. A. Gerber (Ed.). AntiSemitism in American history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press

Snyderman, M., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1983). “Intelligence tests and the immigration Act of 1924.” American Psychologist, 38, 986-995

Sorin, G. (1985). The prophetic minority: American Jewish immigrant radicals 1820-1920. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Stocking, G. W. (1968). Race, evolution, and culture: Essays in the history of anthropology. New York: The Free Press

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties. New York: Columbia University Press

Symott, M. G. (1986). “Anti-Semitism and American Universities: Did quotas follow the Jews?” In D. A. Gerber (Ed.). Anti-Semitism in American history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press

Torrey, E. F. (1992). Freudian fraud: The malignant effect of Freud’s theory on American thought and culture. New York: Harper Collins Publishers

Tullberg, J., & Tullberg, B. S. (1997). “Separation or Unity? A model for solving ethnic conflicts.” Politics and the Life Sciences, 16, 237-277

Wattenberg, B. (1991). The first universal nation: Leading indicators and ideas about the surge of America in the 1990s. New York: Free Press

White, L. (1966). “The social organization of ethnological theory.” Rice University Studies: Monographs in Cultural Anthropology, 52(4), 1-66

Wisse, R. (1987). “The New York (Jewish) intellectuals.” Commentary, 84(Nov.), 28-39

How Liberals Think

Liberals tend to be Childish, Resentful, and Authoritarian

by Dr. William Pierce

Every few days I get a telephone call from a newspaper or television reporter wanting an interview. The things they want to talk about change from time to time: a couple of years ago they were interested in some of the videos the sponsor of American Dissident Voices, National Vanguard Books, distributes; last summer it was the Montana Freemen; right now it’s domestic unrest and terrorism. They want to know why terrorism is on the rise, what do I think about the Oklahoma City bombing, was there a conspiracy behind that bombing, do I believe there will be more such bombings, do I think people should worry that there may be biological or chemical terror attacks in the future, what do I believe is the motivation of most terrorists, etc.

I never have pretended to be an expert on terrorism, and I tell the reporters that – but I also tell them, although no single act of terrorism is predictable, I am sure that, averaged over periods of two or three years, terrorism will continue to become more common. I tell them I am sure of this because the underlying causes of terrorism are on the rise.

Those underlying causes are growing hostility on the part of the government toward citizens, growing governmental intrusion into the lives of citizens, growing resentment against the government by the citizens, a growing sense of having been betrayed by the government. On top of all this is the growth of a more general sort of alienation, as reflected in the decline in citizen participation in elections, the growth in crime and the use of drugs, and the rise in the divorce and suicide rates.

I tell the reporters that there is no chance at all that the government will make the changes necessary to cure these problems. The government will respond to terrorism with counterterrorism, which will provoke more terrorism. The government certainly will not take the measures necessary to decrease citizen alienation, because the greatest single cause of citizen alienation is government-promoted “diversity”.

Can you imagine the Clinton administration – or any administration, Republican or Democrat –saying, “Well, we made a mistake in pushing ‘diversity.’ We shouldn’t have forced racial mixing in the schools, the workplaces, and neighborhoods. We shouldn’t have let a flood of non-White immigrants into the country. We’ll straighten things out and restore the citizens’ faith in the government by separating the races, by sending the non-White immigrants back where they came from, and by taking other steps to clean up the mess we’ve made of things. And the first thing we’ll do is put on trial all of the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, including those responsible for the massacre at Waco.

„No, the government is locked into its present course of social and racial destruction. It does not have the will to change its fundamentally destructive policies. Nothing but a total revolution can bring about the changes necessary to minimize alienation, restore the faith of White citizens in the government, and eliminate terrorism. That’s why I’m a revolutionary instead of a conservative or a reformer.

I tell the reporters all of these things, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I’m saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars as trying to explain to the average newspaper or television reporter the things that are wrong with American society today and why so many people are reacting badly to these things. To me, one of the more interesting aspects of these interviews is the opportunity to study the mentality of journalists. On the whole, they’re not really stupid. In fact, they’re probably a little brighter, on the average, than the population as a whole. But they really do have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single ultra-liberal prototype.

They all understand, of course, that their Jewish bosses expect a certain slant on the reporting they do. They understand which side their bread is buttered on. They don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. But their liberal bias goes beyond just trying to please the Jewish media bosses who employ them.

I think it’s clear that most journalists really don’t understand why American society is coming unraveled. They really don’t understand why alienation is growing, why divorce and suicide rates are up, why so many people hate and fear the government. They don’t understand, and part of the reason may be a selection process in the journalism profession. It may be that students who major in journalism in college tend to be authoritarian types. It may be that they tend to be those who are only comfortable when they are marching in ideological lockstep with all the rest of their profession. And it may be that the journalism professors tend to weed out any students who show a streak of independence or who aren’t trendy enough. That may be part of the explanation for why journalists are so uniformly liberal.

I think, though, that another part of the explanation may be found in the phenomenon of the1960s. The great bulk of the reporters I talk with today went through their formative period, their period of social imprinting, during the 1960s or 1970s. The 1960s and 1970s were a period of deliberately induced chaos, a period during which American society deliberately was turned upside down, a period during which all of our traditional values and standards were ridiculed relentlessly by Jewish critics and arbiters of fashion. Young people on our college campuses were told that everything which had come before was old-fashioned and outdated and had to be scrapped to make way for a new order. The old way was racist and sexist and homophobic and had to go.

And these young people were the first TV generation, the first generation to be exposed more to artificial social situations and social interactions constructed by television scriptwriters than to natural social situations and interactions in the real world. They were the first generation to be socialized by Jewish television, before we had had any opportunity to develop defense mechanisms against this sort of brainwashing. They also were a generation raised according to Dr. Spock, a generation in which permissiveness ruled. They were kids raised without corrective punishment and with a minimum of discipline, kids raised without any reality checks. They’ve been called the “me” generation because of their narcissistic tendencies, but there’s really more to it than just selfishness and egoism.

You know, when the question of Nature versus nurture is debated, I’m nearly always to be found on the side of Mother Nature. But in trying to understand what has made today’s journalists what they are, I believe that we must look very carefully into the way they were nurtured. Our ancestors spent thousands of generations learning how to raise children so that they had a reasonable chance to become valuable and effective adults. This process of learning wasn’t done with books. It was a matter of trial and error, of failure and success, of life or death.

Communities or tribes which had correct ways of raising their young survived and prospered, on the average. Tribes which had faulty methods stagnated or perished.

Within the past century some very foolish people let themselves be sold on the idea that the old ways of raising children to adulthood no longer have any relevance, because we have made so many changes in our environment. What worked back in tribal days a thousand years ago is no longer any good under modern conditions we were told. Discipline and hardness and self-reliance and courage may have been necessary qualities to instill in young people back in the days when survival was much more difficult. But in the days of the welfare state and day-care centers and working mothers and MTV, permissiveness isn’t so bad, we were told. The consequences of that theory are to be seen all around us today. Journalists as a class show the consequences a little more strongly, a little more clearly, than the rest of the “me” generation, because, I believe, those most corrupted by the new nurturing have been attracted to journalism. The corruption, however, has permeated much of our society today. Many others besides journalists have been infected.

I don’t want to overemphasize the effects of nurture. It is clear that many of our personality traits are inborn. Even many of the worst traits that we see in journalists and other members of the „me” generation are inborn traits which merely have been strengthened and brought to the fore by the disastrous nurturing environment of the 1960s and 1970s. In a healthier nurturing environment healthier traits are brought to the fore and unhealthy traits are at least partially suppressed.

In trying to understand liberals we also should keep in mind the fact that most people cannot properly be classified as real liberals or real conservatives. Most people have no real ideology of any sort: they simply parrot whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, their ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. But there are, unfortunately, plenty of real liberals, and I believe that their unwholesome abundance these days can best be explained as I have just outlined. And if we understand what has caused the current plague of liberals, I believe that we can understand better how their minds work – although that still is not an easy task.

In some ways it is unfortunate that I quit my university teaching when I did, in the mid-1960s. Liberalism was really starting to take hold on the campuses then, and if I had remained a physics professor for another ten years I might have been able to observe some of these psychological phenomena directly and figured things out much more quickly.

First, at the core of the liberal personality is an excessive degree of egoism, which in the worst cases amounts to narcissism. This excessive egoism is an infantile characteristic. Which is to say, it is a normal characteristic in infants, but in the case of healthy growth it recedes as the individual develops and matures. A permissive upbringing retards the normal process of maturing.

A second very important element in the liberal personality – an element closely related to the egoism – is resentment coupled with envy. That is why in the past liberalism has sometimes been called an ideology based on resentment. The liberal finds very distasteful the notion that some people are brighter than he is, better looking, more industrious, more righteous or moral, more cultured, more artistic, more capable, or more successful. And he regards these people who are better than he is – and because of being better, more powerful – as a threat, as an irksome constraint. This envy and resentment is in a way a carryover into adult life of the sort of resentment that a spoiled, self-indulgent child might feel toward a parent who won’t let him do exactly what he wants to do, a parent who won’t let him eat all the cookies in the cookie jar or torment an animal for his amusement or “play with himself,” to use a familiar euphemism. It may express itself in infancy in the form of a tantrum. In adulthood it is expressed as a strong attraction to the ideology of egalitarianism: the idea that no one is better than anyone else.

If you believe that I’m on thin ice in tracing the adult liberal’s egalitarianism back to an infantile resentment of parental restraint, let me remind you of a significant refrain in the Jews ‘indoctrination of young Gentiles during the 1960s and 1970s. The refrain was “kill your parents. „In most cases this incitement to parenticide was symbolic. It meant get rid of every restraint, everything which keeps you from spending all of your time doing exactly what you feel like doing, whether that be smoking dope, having sex, or whatever. In one of the more popular books on the campuses in those days, a book published in 1970 and titled Do It! by Jerry Rubin, one of the Jewish leaders of the Youth International Party, or the “Yippies” for short, the incitement is quite literal. Rubin wrote, “When we start playing with our private parts, our parents say, ‘Don’t do that.’ The mother commits a crime against her child when she says, ‘Don’t do that.’

“The remainder of Rubin’s book is a non-stop effort to build resentment in his infantile collegiate readers with a long recitation of the “crimes” their parents, their schools, and the rest of society have committed against them by restraining them in one way or another and of the need to end this parental oppression. And, of course, Rubin manages to bring the racial angle and the Communist angle into this ideology of resentment. Blacks, he tells the kids, are your natural allies against your parents, because they have been oppressed too. They are Black niggers, and we are White niggers, Rubin says. Blacks will help you overthrow society, so that you can have everything you want. And Rubin idolizes Fidel Castro, as someone who succeeded in killing his parents. And he holds up the Communist guerrilla Che Guevara as another idol who was fighting to end parental oppression.

Rubin winds up his book with a description on the last page of how wonderful life will be for everyone after young people have gotten rid of their parents, burned their schools, and killed all of the police. He writes, and I quote: “There will be no more jails, courts, or police. The world will become one big commune with free food and housing, everything shared. There will be no such crime as ‘stealing’ because everything will be free. People will farm in the morning, make music in the afternoon, and have sex whenever and wherever they want to.

„And there’s more, but you get the picture. This is the image of the ideal life in an ideal world which the Jews were busy selling to young, White Americans during the 1960s and the 1970s. The ones who bought this image were the most infantile ones: that is the ones who had been raised most permissively and were most narcissistic. And the worst of these went into journalism.

Unfortunately, however, some of this Jewish poison was absorbed by millions of other young people during that period of deliberate chaos and confusion, when the old America was being trashed. That’s how the current crop of liberals was created. Most of them are in their 30s and40s now; a few are in their 50s. Some of them went into business, some into education, some into the churches, some into government work. One couple, a man and wife, are in the White House now. Wherever they went, they continue the destruction, in a thousand ways.

It is in the journalists, though, where the poison has produced the most profound effects, that the phenomenon of liberalism is easiest to study and understand, I believe. When I explain to a reporter that terrorism is the consequence of a loss of a sense of belonging and identity – when I explain that a person who feels that he is no longer a part of the society around him, that it is no longer his family and he has no responsibility to it, may strike out violently at that society – when I explain this, the reporter may smile politely and take notes, but I can see the total lack of comprehension in his eyes. He lives in a different world, a different moral universe, where words like “responsibility” and “belonging” and “identity” have no meaning – or at least, they have a totally different meaning to him than they have to me. He lives in a universe shaped by egoism and resentment, a world in which the individual, the self, is everything, and anyone who tries to impose any constraints at all on the individual is an enemy. He cannot comprehend a world in which the individual is just one part in a complex and interrelated natural order, and that for that order to be healthy the individual needs to be able to find his proper place, the place where he can be useful, and that he has a responsibility to be useful. That’s an alien concept to the journalist.

I hope that I haven’t bored you with these comments on the way a journalist’s mind works. I believe that it’s important to try to understand these things. If we’re to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for our people, we have to overcome all of those who are now infected by liberalism, and then we have to restructure our society in a way which will prevent the production of a new crop of liberals – or at least, minimize the size and destructiveness of that crop. The more we know about them the more likely we are to succeed.

Israel Demands World Internet Censorship

Source: http://newobserveronline.com/israel-demands-world-internet-censorship/

The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan has unveiled plans to censor the Internet’s worldwide social media platforms with the building of an “international coalition” to counter criticism of Israel.

Israel Demands World Internet Censorship-Gilad Erdan

According to an article in the Times of Israel, Erdan’s plan calls for “developing legislation in conjunction with European countries,” most of which “are very interested in this idea.”

The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are, a spokesman for the minister told the Israeli-based newspaper.

“Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty,” he added.

Israel Demands World Internet Censorship-TOI censorship

According to the plan, the participating countries would be part of a “loose coalition that would keep an eye on content and where it was being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content that was posted in any of their countries at the request of members.”

“This is a perfectly logical and just project,” Erdan’s spokesperson said. “If a hotel was being used as a venue for a hate group, we would demand that the hotel break its contract, and we would lean on other hotels to abstain from hosting them, so that the hate group would not be able to hold its event. This is no different.”

Although the Israelis are attempting to disguise the project as a counter to Palestinians posting “violence promoting material” on the Internet, it is clear that the extension of this “coalition” has a far wider scope.

Justifying the plan, Erdan’s office used an example of a Palestinian who allegedly posted up a body chart showing where the best places were to stab someone fatally—apparently a reference to the recent spate of knife attacks on Jews in Israel.

The number of postings of that nature are, however, tiny in comparison to the volume of material going up on the Internet, and there are already more than sufficient methods in place to deal with such incidents and get them removed.

Nonetheless, Erdan’s spokesman said the “coalition” would “force the world’s leading social media giants to prevent their platforms from being abused to peddle incitement to terrorism.”

The social media giants “make millions but claim they are not responsible for content, and that they only provide a platform,” a spokesperson for Erdan told the Times of Israel. “That is not going to wash. We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility, and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behavior as well.”

Rethinking Hitler & National Socialism

Source: http://johnfriendsblog.blogspot.ru/2012/06/rethinking-hitler-national-socialism.html

I suppose it would eventually come to this: all the reading, investigating, and research I’ve done since discovering the truth about 9/11 would lead to a re-examination and re-learning of much of history, especially the mainstream version of WWI and WWII history. Since I began looking into 9/11, I’ve explored all sorts of “conspiracy theories”, but lately, largely as a result of following the work of Deanna Spingola, ZionCrimeFactory, Carolyn Yeager, Veronica Clark, and others, I’ve began to delve deeper and deeper into revisionist history and what Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) really stood for. And today I’d like to share some of my thoughts with you about this subject.

I’ve mentioned before that I once bought into Jim Condit, Jr.’s thesis about Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP, namely, that Hitler and many of the top Nazi leaders were either Jews themselves, or puppets of the international bankers and Jewish crime network, operating as part of the bankers controlled opposition in order to facilitate the establishment of the illegitimate, terrorist state of Israel as a safe haven and central headquarters for the global Jewish mafia, in the process fulfilling messianic Jewish prophecy in order to advance what is commonly known as “The New World Order”, whose foundations are laid out in detail in the supremacist Jewish Talmud. However, I’ve always kept an open mind about this and many other subjects, and only recently (i.e., the past six months or so) began to really explore it in greater detail. And I’m now firmly convinced that Condit and others that promote this ridiculous theory about the NSDAP being puppets of the Rothschilds are 100% wrong in their assessment. I’ve concluded that all the other ridiculous theories and outright slanders against Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany are merely attempts to divert people’s attention away from what Hitler and his movement actually stood for, what they represented, what they actually said, and what they actually did. By the way, Deanna Spingola and Veronica Clark refute many of these outlandish theories in a recent interview for those interested.

One thing I want to make clear here: Hitler and the National Socialist movement were most definitely “anti-Semites”, and used “anti-Semitism” in their political propaganda and messaging. After all, even critics of Hitler and the NSDAP recognize that their propaganda was based on truth, and in our ass-backwards, Jew-run world, the truth is fundamentally “anti-Semitic”. So let’s not get caught up in this childish meme of “Hitler and the Nazis were evil, racist anti-Semites’” nonsense, and simply refuse to investigate objectively what they stood for. Look at what they said, did, wrote about, and represented, and you will come to the obvious conclusion that I have: that this movement was the greatest threat the world has ever known to the parasitic, subversive, and destructive nature of the international Jewish criminal cabal largely controlling the West, pushing for their “New World Order” on every front imaginable.

This is why Hitler and National Socialist Germany had to be destroyed. This is why Hitler and the NSDAP are constantly demonized, slandered, and blamed for every evil in the world. This is why the mass media, Hollywood and our educational system projects the crimes that the Jew-run Allies (the U.K., U.S. and Soviet Union) actually committed on to Hitler and National Socialist Germany. The Jews have completely flipped the script, blaming Hitler and the NSDAP for a fake “Holocaust” of European Jews and countless other alleged atrocities when in fact the Allies were responsible for the real holocausts and other crimes against humanity during WWII.  Organized international Jewry, the primary network behind the push for a “New World Order”, understand and recognize how dangerous Adolf Hitler and National Socialist ideology was – and potentially remains – to their totalitarian plan for world domination and subjugation.

As Veronica Clark explains in her must read article titled, Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP, Hitler sought to overcome the class antagonism prevalent throughout Germany (and much of Europe) by establishing a political and social order based on merit, rather than class or wealth, and sought to unify German society around their common German heritage and Nordic race.  Consider the following quote from Hitler, which underscores how he felt about the capitalist system that prevailed in Europe, Britain, and the United States:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

How true does that statement ring to you, especially in light of the criminal bailout of Wall Street and the absurd bonuses all the big shots were doling out for themselves and their crooked henchman following the (still on-going) financial collapse initiated in 2008?

National Socialist ideology did have opinions about and openly discussed race and the “Jewish Problem”, but it’s far more nuanced than the mainstream version of history.  For starters, National Socialism was more pro-German, pro-Aryan than anti-other races – except the Jewish “race”. They cherished and sought to preserve their German race and identity, recognizing the destructive and subversive nature of Jewry, and their innate ability to corrupt society. They said and wrote some “extreme” things by today’s Orwellian standards – but truthful things. The National Socialists were just being honest about the nature of organized Jewry, and their threat to Gentile societies.

For instance, consider this excerpt from a 1935 bulletin published by the Reichspropagandaleitung, the Nazi Party’s Central Propaganda office:

Some believe that we are using methods in this battle that are too harsh. We reply that our attacks and methods in this battle cannot be determined by our way of thinking, by whether we find them ugly or harsh, but rather we must use methods in our attacks that are appropriate for the opponent that we are attacking. One cannot battle the Jews with the politeness of the noble Aryan soul, for which he as no understanding. We need only think back on the methods that the Jew used against our movement during the period of struggle. No lie or slander was too crude to be used, to be seized and passed on by the Jews and their Jewish lackeys with eagerness, enthusiasm, and Satanic joy. We would have had little success replying then with refined arguments. It is just as impossible today to combat this creeping, subterranean danger with methods that the Jew would only laugh at.

The Führer’s contribution has been to make the Jewish Question a matter for the entire people. The efforts völkisch groups, organizations, etc., made in the past to spread knowledge about the world enemy were never of great significance, since only a very limited circle was reached. With his movement, Adolf Hitler created an instrument that went far beyond these groups and made the nation see that the solution to this question was a prerequisite to changing Germany’s fate. In answer to his brave act, all the powers at the command of the Jewish world were called on, including the mobilization of parties, of the press, of the radio, of finance, and of bloody terror. […]

I also recommend reading Those Damned Nazis, written by Joseph Goebbles in 1932, which explains National Socialist ideology in greater detail.  Here are some excerpts that stand out to me:

Why Are We Socialists?

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. […]

Why a Workers’ Party?

Work is not mankind’s curse, but his blessing. A man becomes a man through labor. It elevates him, makes him great and aware, raises him above all other creatures. It is in the deepest sense creative, productive, and culture-producing. Without labor, no food. Without food, no life.

The idea that the dirtier one’s hands get, the more degrading the work, is a Jewish, not a German, idea. […]

We call ourselves a workers’ party because we want to rescue the word work from its current definition and give it back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a creator, that is, a worker. We refuse to distinguish kinds of work. Our only standard is whether the work serves the whole, or at least does not harm it, or if it is harmful. Work is service. If it works against the general welfare, then it is treason against the fatherland. […]

Why Do We Oppose the Jews?

We oppose the Jews because we are defending the freedom of the German people. The Jew is the cause and beneficiary of our slavery. He has misused the social misery of the broad masses to deepen the dreadful split between the right and left of our people, to divide Germany into two halves thereby concealing the true reason for the loss of the Great War and falsifying the nature of the revolution.

The Jew has no interest in solving the German question. He cannot have such an interest. He depends on it remaining unsolved. If the German people formed a united community and won back its freedom, there would be no place any longer for the Jew. His hand is strongest when a people lives in domestic and international slavery, not when it is free, industrious, self-aware and determined. The Jew caused our problems, and lives from them.

That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists. He has ruined our race, corrupted our morals, hollowed out our customs and broken our strength. We owe it to him that we today are the Pariah of the world. He was the leper among as long as we were German. When we forgot our German nature, he triumphed over us and our future.

The Jew is the plastic demon of decomposition. Where he finds filth and decay, he surfaces and begins his butcher’s work among the nations. He hides behind a mask and presents himself as a friend to his victims, and before they know it he has broken their neck.

The Jew is uncreative. He produces nothing, he only haggles with products. With rags, clothing, pictures, jewels, grain, stocks, cures, peoples and states. He has somehow stolen everything he deals in. When he attacks a state he is a revolutionary. As soon as he holds power, he preaches peace and order so that he can devour his conquests in comfort.

What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

What does anti-Semitism have to do with nationalism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with nationalism? Nationalism has to do with blood and race. The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race. As nationalists we oppose the Jews because we see the Hebrews as the eternal enemy of our national honor and of our national freedom.

But the Jew, after all, is also a human being. Certainly, none of us doubts that. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He does not get along with us. He lives by other laws than we do. The fact that he is a human being is not sufficient reason for us to allow him to subject us in inhumane ways. He may be a human being — but what kind of a human being is he! If someone slaps your mother in the face, do you say: “Thank you! He is after all a human being!” That is not a human being, it is a monster. Yet how much worse has the Jew done to our mother Germany, and is still doing today! […]

Finally, consider Adolf Hitler’s political testament he dictated shortly before he committed suicide:

More than thirty years have passed since 1914 when I made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the First World War, which was forced upon the Reich.

In these three decades love and loyalty to my people have guided all my thoughts, actions and my life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions ever to confront mortal man. In these three decades I have spent my strength and my health.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen. […]

Hitler and the National Socialist movement in Germany, from what I can tell after honestly assessing the situation, were leaders and statesmen in the truest sense. They were true patriots that cared deeply about their country and their people, unlike the puppets, sell-outs and traitors in the West today that do nothing but lie to the people they allegedly represent, all the while serving a foreign criminal cabal. The National Socialists were honest with their fellow Germans, and treated them with respect by and large, certainly compared to governments in the West today.

Is it any wonder then that Hitler specifically, and National Socialist Germany generally, are so demonized, slandered, and hated by the Jews, and thus much of Western society due to their control over the mass media and educational system? Hitler and the National Socialists not only spoke openly and honestly about important subjects, clearly identifying the enemy of all humanity – international Jewry – they made serious moves against this destructive, parasitic network of criminals that had wrecked their country and sought to destroy their people. Hitler and National Socialism were the anti-thesis to Jewish Communism and Jewish plutocratic capitalism, and it’s time we recognize this fact.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 11

10.Oct-1938-09

10.Oct-1938-10

11.Nov-1938-01

11.Nov-1938-02

11.Nov-1938-03

11.Nov-1938-04

11.Nov-1938-05

11.Nov-1938-06

11.Nov-1938-07

11.Nov-1938-08

Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP

By Veronica Clark
Published: 2011-10-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/3157/

What exactly did the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker’s Party) represent and who were its founding members? Why and how did Adolf Hitler transform the party from an unimpressive proletariat workers’ party to a full-fledged political machine that obtained absolute power in Germany? Perhaps more important, how was it funded? We answer these questions in this introduction. But first, we begin with an examination of the early stages of the NSDAP and its recruiting process. One must understand how this process unfolded if one is to understand the NSDAP’s position on Judaism and Freemasonry as well as the prevailing social and political order of the day. Naturally, we also reveal some of the other important aspects of its early development, which necessitates a fair amount of myth busting about Hitler, including who actually gave him money.

Triumvirate: Leadership, development and unity

Adolf Hitler, contrary to his own self-myths and the myths of others, was not poor—at least not until he had drained his savings and entitlements gallivanting in Vienna. Many historians have written that Hitler simply lived day-to-day wasting both his money and time, but in so doing they overlook Hitler’s experiences and ‘life education’ that later played such an important role in the development and direction of National Socialism as well as the Second World War. The development and direction of both can be traced to Hitler’s experiences during those “lost” years.

Hitler, like so many other young German men and women of his day, fell from middle-class status into that of the “wretched proletariat.” This was something that young Hitler refused to accept. He was deeply embittered by his Vienna experiences, which offered false promises of prosperity and hope for young people with enough willpower and talent. The prevailing dissonance of the time and place in which he grew up inculcated in him a burning desire to change these circumstances, which is precisely what he did after 1933. Hitler was so resentful of the class-ridden society that was Vienna, and Austria and Europe generally, that one of his key aims throughout both the peace and war years was cultivating a system of merit. One’s birth station was not what mattered. What mattered were one’s talent, loyalty, dependability and fortitude, notably in the face of adversity and uncertainty. Hitler was able to overcome most imbedded class barriers in two distinct ways:

  1. He recruited both men and women from all social classes and accordingly tailored his speech and disposition to each, depending on his/her social standing.
  2. He supplanted economic valuation with racial valuation.

Let’s look at the first point. Hitler needed the broadest spectrum of German society he could get, so this meant that he needed to appeal to men, women, young, old, wealthy, poor, unemployed and employed alike. Women were amongst Hitler’s most devoted and fervent supporters in the early years. So were low-wage earners, small businessmen and foreign nobles, such as White Russian émigrés who wished to see the return of the Russian monarchy. They provided Hitler with a physical audience, elite and business connections and monetary support, most of which ended up being granted in the form of loans. Hitler needed industrialists as much as he needed the workers, elites and disenfranchised foreigners. Since his goal was to raise the station of all lower-class ethnic Germans, he had to win them all together, which required a strategy of multi-class appeal. When he met and spoke with counts, duchesses and other members of the former royalty, he addressed them in a royal manner. His etiquette, speech and personal manners proved impeccable in such company. When he met or spoke with industrialists, such as Fritz Thyssen, he tailored his behavior and manner to match that of the hopes and fears of industrialist Germany. At the same time he was careful to scale back his socialistic language in such company, so that the industrialists would not misidentify him as a Marxist-Communist. He had to convince them that he would crush Marxist-Communism and uphold their industrial power base in the face of the growing mass of disenchanted, underpaid workers who felt they were being cheated and exploited by German industry. Whenever things got economically tough, the workers suffered wage and benefit cuts. They blamed the industrialists, but Hitler saw that the industrialists were also suffering: many went bankrupt during the inflation as well as during the Great Depression. The crippling Versailles reparations forced most German industrialists and exporters into an untenable economic position, which in turn harmed German workers. This meant that Hitler had to at least hint at future German rearmament, which was covertly occurring anyway. On the other hand, Hitler had to promise the workers, his single largest and most important support base in almost every respect in the formative years, that he would not allow the state or industry to exploit them or continue treating them as automatons. We can see that balancing the wants and needs of these three core sectors of class-ridden Germany was far from simple. But Hitler did it, and nearly bloodlessly (relative to the Communist revolutions in Russia and throughout Eastern Europe).

Now to the second point: Hitler had to come up with a unifying ideology for Germanic peoples. This task seems simple in retrospect, because Germany was a homogenous society by today’s standards. However, back then this was not how the German situation was seen. Germany may have been racially homogenous, but class antagonisms were so deep-seated that few if any German elites and nobles were interested in sharing political or social power with lower-class and middle-class Germans. The Junkers (estates Lords) treated their farmhands (serfs) as second- or third-class citizens and ordered them to pack up and get out if they dared to vote against their landlord employers. According to James and Suzanne Pool’s research, many of the Junkers, notably the friends of von Hindenburg, refused to discontinue living the feudal order, which helped fuel the growing mass discontent for monarchy. This only served the interests of republicans and Freemasons, both of whom wished to see the end of monarchy for good. We will discuss their motivations later. For now it is enough to say that their motives were far from benevolent. German class divisions trumped any sort of racial or ethnic solidarity. Not surprisingly, one finds that the desire to unite all Germans as racial comrades was a desire shared almost entirely amongst the lower and middle classes, and even many middle-class Germans did everything they could to cling to their bourgeois life station, even if it meant keeping the lower-classes downtrodden. As one can see, Hitler’s goal was anything but simple.

How, then, did Hitler unite Germans? And how successful was he? Hitler united Germans by invoking an ideological concept similar to Italy’s Romanita, as espoused by Benito Mussolini. Hitler’s concept was Nordicism: the basic, simplified premise of which was that all Germanic peoples were united by their Nordic racial component, and because they were united by this common “race soul” or blood component, how could they fight or be divided? While such a unifying idea sounded feasible and reasonable to many, some resisted nonetheless. The Junkers, former nobility, and many other business elites in Germany saw Hitler as nothing other than a lowly former corporal who had no clout given his petit bourgeois (lower middle-class) upbringing. Hitler was only partially successful in uniting all Germans as Volksgenossen. His lack of complete success in this regard, an unattainable goal to be sure, later proved to be his undoing. Elites amongst the officer corps did immeasurable damage to Hitler and his war effort, but the story of their treachery and sabotage is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Might Hitler have been more successful had he been more racially inclusive early on? Not necessarily. Mussolini, unlike Hitler, was not racially exclusive at any point and expended a great deal of effort and time attempting to recruit non-Italians to the Italian fascist cause. He was largely unsuccessful, especially in Ethiopia—this in spite of the fact that he had Ethiopians trained as pilots (before the Tuskegee Airmen even came into being) and promised them higher status within a Fascist Italian Empire. We may deduce from this example that Hitler having merely extended his hand openly in the beginning to non-Germans would not have guaranteed National Socialism’s political or military success. Mussolini did so and his tolerant hand was rejected. Indeed the U.S. and Britain did not win the Second World War due to non-white conscription, but because they supported and funded the Soviet war machine and were willing to bomb Germany indiscriminately. Anyway, this brings us back to our main point, which is that unifying a body of people, regardless of whether it is homogenous or diverse, is no easy task. Hitler was only able to convince the lower and middle classes that racial value must supersede economic (class) value. Most of the German elites were never won over to his Nordicism.

So, what does all of this mean? First, it means that a party that wishes to succeed in a Western Liberal-Democratic context must appeal to women and men both, citizens of all ages, and all social classes. A sensible and serious leader and party cannot afford to leave any group out. Naturally this all depends on the individual nation and citizenry in question, as Hitler’s brand of politics and leadership were formed with a specific time, culture, people and place in mind. It was not intended for export, but for adaptation in multiple contexts. Hitler’s brand of politics was in fact largely modeled after Mussolini’s as well as the leadership of the Austrian mayor Karl Lueger.

Second, it means that the masses are more important to a party’s success than the elites, because of their numbers. Only the masses have the power to invoke fear in the upper-class by threatening to support violent revolutionary parties and organizations, which are often led and funded by hostile fifth-columnists. The Communist Party (KPD) was the only party besides Hitler’s that evoked genuine fear in the elite classes of Germany. Hitler and the NSDAP could not be ignored for the very reason that they, besides the Marxist-Communists, had the largest mass following in Germany at the time. Industrialists could not afford to anger or rebuff Hitler and the NSDAP; if they did, then Hitler’s followers would quickly have swelled the ranks of the Communists or perhaps have even overthrown him, as Ernst Röhm and many SA members wished to do. Hitler’s party was the only non-Communist, nationalist party that offered the lower and middle classes a better standing in German society. Given Hitler’s ability to keep the overwhelming majority of his followers in line and loyal meant that he alone could prevent a transitional bloodbath, which is what most of the upper-class Germans feared the most. And this is exactly what he did. What’s important to bear in mind, however, is that Hitler needed a credible threat to maintain his personal and political leverage over the upper classes and big business. Without the Communists to threaten them via mass upheaval and bloodshed, the industrialists and former nobility had little reason other than patriotism to support Hitler and the NSDAP.

Third, a citizenry that wishes to remain united needs a party that can accomplish this. Bavarians wanted to secede from Germany and become an independent state. Big business demanded an end to the Junker estates that squandered numerous government bailouts and demanded trade tariffs that harmed German industry. The Junkers did not care whether the industrialists suffered, so long as their estates were still in their name and they could live a lavish lifestyle of luxury at the German taxpayers’ expense. To mediate such divisiveness, Hitler invoked Nordicism, which called on Germans to recognize and value their blood ties instead of their social standing (based on wealth). This unifying ideology provided Hitler with the necessary means to develop a system of merit: one could rise to the top of National Socialist society regardless of one’s parents’ or personal finances, because one was equal to all other Germans from the racial point-of-view. Hitler’s German racialism and anti-Semitism were the practical means for achieving classless unity among formerly divided Germans. Hitler used a similar approach later on with the Waffen-SS. He turned an exclusively German organizational concept (the Allgemeine SS) into an international, multiethnic idea by uniting everyone who participated against Jewish-Bolshevism, the enemy of “all peoples.”

Adolf Hitler in Weimar, October 1930

Hitler salutes marching National Socialists in Weimar, October 1930.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-10541 / Unknown / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Initial member recruitment

Like any grassroots party, the NSDAP developed organically from amongst a handful of hardcore ideologues, the primary catalyst having been Adolf Hitler. But the NSDAP did not spring up on its own; it instead arose from out of a party that already had a platform, leadership core, and small committed following. This was the German Workers’ Party led by Anton Drexler. Hitler was actually appointed by the Army to spy on the German Workers’ Party. The Army was interested in two things: locating nationalists for its own designs and rooting out Communists who threatened to turn Germany into a subservient satellite of Moscow. Hitler’s speaking skills and interest in politics led the Army to select him for this covert task. He took a liking to Drexler and many of his ideas, so he finally signed up and was issued a membership card with his name and membership number on it, a tradition that Hitler maintained in his NSDAP. While Hitler began his political career as the propagandist for the Workers’ party, he was quick to identify the party’s main problems: it appealed to too few and had no outreach venue other than speaking engagements, which were often drab. He therefore focused on developing his own talents, which surpassed Drexler’s, and forming his own designs for the Workers’ party; hence the birth of the NSDAP. Hitler was quick to capitalize on Drexler’s connections to wealthy Thule Society members. He did not join Thule, but requested their patronage. They alone significantly enhanced the potential for what was now his party to appeal to upper-class Germans, who, in turn, also helped fund the party. After he quit the Army, Hitler threw himself into the development of the NSDAP with unbounded determination.

While Drexler and his core focused entirely on winning over German workers, Hitler had eyes for larger audiences and outreach. His relationships with White Russian émigrés, wealthy Thule members, and especially Gottfried Feder (economist) and Dietrich Eckart (philosopher and writer) proved invaluable in his acquisition of the bankrupt Völkischer Beobachter (VB). Feder together with two other early NSDAP members owned 30,000 shares of the VB. Dietrich Eckart was able to obtain a loan for RM 60,000 from the sympathetic General Ritter von Epp to acquire the VB. The rest of the RM 120,000 price tag came from an industrialist named Dr. Gottfried Grandel, who was won over by Hitler’s personal appeal to him. Eckart likely helped out too, along with Dr. Gutberlet (who pledged RM 5,000).

According to the Pools, Hitler’s early supporters came from a wide range of classes, nationalities and ethnic backgrounds. Numerous wealthy White Russian émigrés, who had Thule contacts, formed an alliance with the NSDAP and allegedly raised “vast sums of money” for Hitler—i.e. according to an official 1923 file note. There was Henry Ford, who was anti-Jewish and wished to spread his message to receptive nations. Benito Mussolini’s personal agents were known to have established contact with NSDAP members in Germany, likely in order to arrange the transfer of financial support from the Duce. The Russian Grand Duchess Victoria, who was pro-monarchy and anti-Bolshevik, gave Hitler money. Sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell Corporation offered Hitler vast amounts of money in 1931, ‘32 and ‘33 in exchange for a guarantee that he would regain his expropriated oil interests from the Bolsheviks at some future point in time. The amount was likely between 30 and 55 million pounds sterling. Deterding was so pro-German that he ended up marrying a National Socialist woman and even moved to Germany. He, like so many other German elites, realized that only an assertive foreign policy could secure Germany’s economic survival in a world in which France and England had a monopoly over one-quarter of the globe and were determined to crush Germany’s global competitiveness.

The Germans had tried everything else, including complying with the Versailles reparations, which was de facto theft. This “treaty” was in fact designed with one goal in mind: the permanent crippling of German industrial competition. Ernst Röhm was a fervent German nationalist who channeled Army funds to the NSDAP via various front organizations. The Thule Society, which was pan-Germanic and nationalist, not only contributed members to the NSDAP but helped it raise a lot of money. The two German jewelers Josef Füss and Herr Gahr supported Hitler. A certain Mr. Pöschl, a small businessman, gave to Hitler early on. Quirin Diestl was another early supporter who gave small funds. Oscar Koerner, a toy shop owner, likewise gave money to the NSDAP. Dr. Friedrich Krohn, a dentist, gave as much as he could. Adolf Müller helped the NSDAP keep the VB going by endlessly extending credit to Hitler. Ms. Hoffmann, the widow of a headmaster, contributed regularly. Numerous friends of General Ludendorff, a Thule member, provided the NSDAP with funding. A significant number of prominent foreigners and German nationals living or working in Austria, Britain, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Italy, Holland, Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden and America gave Hitler money, much of it via Winifred Wagner, Kurt Lüdecke and Hungarian nationalists like Gömbös. The German Free Corps members gave Hitler money, and so did many Stahlhelm members. Several right-wing German business interests, such as Emil Kirdorf of the covert Ruhrlade group, gave Hitler money, along with many business interests that usually supported Alfred Hugenberg (a man who tried to use Hitler for his own ends). There was also General Ritter von Epp, who helped Dietrich Eckart and the NSDAP purchase the VB; Dr. Emil Gansser, who had connections to wealthy Protestants; Admiral Schröder, a former naval commander; Baron Sebottendorf, who had connections to J. F. Lehmann (a Thule member, financier and publisher for the German Navy) and sympathetic naval officers; Herr Schaffer, who acquired weapons for Hitler’s SA; Kurt Lüdecke, and through him two Jewish arms dealers who were either 1) not privy to who Lüdecke was or 2) had no reason to fear Hitler (this was the early 1920s after all); possibly the Duke of Anhalt and Count Fugger; Ernst Hanfstaengl, a wealthy Harvard graduate with numerous American connections and some wealth of his own; the wealthy Magda Quandt, who married Joseph Goebbels and who had elite connections; Fritz Thyssen, who later denied that he gave substantial sums to Hitler and Göring, in 1929 and off and on throughout the 1930s, both of whom he liked very much; and so forth.

No Warburgs. No Rothschilds. No Rockefellers. While the Rockefellers indirectly came into Hitler’s financial sphere by way of Standard Oil technical investments and the Warburgs via I. G. Farben and J. H. Stein later on, neither gave Hitler any financial support before 1933. And neither directly supported or paid Hitler at any point in time. The Sidney Warburg story is pure fabrication. Fritz Thyssen and some of Hugenberg’s heavy industrial connections, not James Warburg, gave Hitler substantial monetary gifts in 1929 (at least RM 1,250,000) and Deterding and several German coal companies took care of Hitler in the early 1930s. While Hitler spent a vast amount on campaigning, he was by no means rolling in untraceable money. All of his funding was carefully accounted for and most of it came from VB advertising; party dues, insurance, and speaking fees; Gregor Strasser’s left-wing faction, which received RM 10,000 per month in 1931; the good will of VB publisher Adolf Müller; and the financial frugality of party treasurer Franz Schwarz, whose meticulous party financial records were destroyed. The Americans interrogated him so brutally that he died in 1946 in British captivity. His records denoting even Hitler’s anonymous donors never turned up anywhere. The Pools suspect that the American occupiers destroyed them.

As for Goebbels’s remark on 17 January 1932 that the finances of the party “suddenly improved,” this was not exactly true. The truth is that the party’s credit line suddenly improved, and this was thanks to the maneuverings of Franz von Papen and Baron Kurt von Schröder with his syndicate of investors, including a number of prominent heavy industrialists, the Hamburg-America Steamship Line, the Stein Bank of Cologne, Commerz und Privat Bank, the Gelsenkirchen Mine Company, Deutsche Bank, Reichskredit-Gesellschaft Bank, Allianz Insurance, members of the potash industry, the Brabag Coal Company, Deutsches Erdöl, and a number of other brown-coal industrialists. While Hitler tolerated fifth-column banks like M. M. Warburg and the Temple Bank (a special account created for the Temple Society by the Reichsbank to fund Ha’avara emigration), he eventually restricted and regulated their business opportunities and forced them to assist with financing Jewish emigration. Hitler’s goal was to increasingly inhibit and thereby financially squeeze the foreign banks until they were unable to exist any longer and had to relocate outside Germany—the same policy he employed to encourage Jewish emigration and business closures. One such example was the Germanization (i.e. German takeover) of two Jewish ironworks plants in the Rhön region in 1937.

Moving on to the actual recruitment process, potential recruits were approached on the streets and at meetings and speaking engagements. They were given flyers or pamphlets. Sometimes Hitler or other core members of the party were invited to speak or converse privately with industrialists or nobles who were interested in a non-Communist, nationalist party. Contrary to myths like that concerning Sidney Warburg, Hitler and the right-wing faction of the NSDAP did not receive as much industrial or banker funding, before 1933, as the Strasser brothers, the Social Democrats (SPD) or even Hugenberg’s Nationalist Party. The reason why Hitler and the NSDAP never received the same level of financial or moral support early on was three-fold: (a) the industrialists and many Junkers did not trust Hitler given his socialist stance on many issues; (b) most industrialists and Junkers were not financially threatened enough to back a revolutionary party like Hitler’s (they were still satisfied with the status quo); and (c) they were leery of his anti-Jewish stance.

Back to recruitment: most potential recruits and financial supporters heard about Hitler and the NSDAP via word of mouth. Nothing else was as effective as this. When men like Scheubner-Richter, Schacht, Borsig, Kirdorf and Thyssen recommended the NSDAP and personally endorsed Hitler, wealthy and other upper- and middle-class Germans were willing to seriously consider Hitler and his party. Hitler was invited to speak to heavy industrialists in 1927 by word of mouth in fact. He even wrote a secret pamphlet intended only for this industrial-capitalist audience, which they then passed around to others. Besides active word-of-mouth campaigning, the NSDAP also placed posters everywhere they could, promoted speaking engagements and other party activities and viewpoints in their newspaper, sold various odds and ends to raise small funds (e.g. various items like soap with NSDAP packaging), and sent wealthier members abroad to raise funds from German expats and foreign sympathizers. Kurt Lüdecke excelled at this form of campaigning.

In the very beginning, Hitler and the NSDAP targeted veterans, farmers, workers, young men, noblemen and -women, small businessmen and -women and pensioners. These were the social classes who were initially the most receptive, due to the economy and prevailing anti-monarchism, but later on Hitler’s support base included wealthy elites, heavy industrialists, fascist and monarchist foreigners, landed Junkers, veterans’ organizations, the German Army and Navy and even Montagu Norman, a prominent English banker and personal friend of Hjalmar Schacht who, according to both his private secretary Ernest Skinner and Émile Moreau, despised Jews, the French and Roman Catholics. He unabashedly refused to assist France’s treasury with anything and proved willing and able to arrange financing for the NSDAP by way of his connections to Bruno von Schröder (Schroder Bank), Kurt von Schröder (Stein Bank) and the Bank of England (F. C. Tiarks and M. Norman himself). Norman had strong sympathy for the Germans which dated back to his days as a student in Dresden, and naturally offered to financially assist and thereby stabilize the new government that his friend Schacht had openly supported since 1931. Since Hitler was hostile to France (he saw the French as Foreign Enemy Number One), friendly to Britain (which he did not feel was a threat), and discriminatory towards Jews, the three things that Norman found favorable, he recommended that Kurt von Schröder extend credit to Hitler’s party, which now controlled the government. Schacht was Hitler’s de facto lifeline in this respect, a nationalist German banker who had his own designs for German recovery, but who was also personally impressed with Hitler’s speeches and mass appeal, which no other politician possessed.

As for Hitler’s initial support, many farmers were burdened by debt, and most, including landed Junkers, felt threatened by Communist expropriation and insufficient protective agricultural tariffs. The veterans were receptive because they felt betrayed by the ruling class, especially the liberal-democrats of the SPD, and because they had a difficult time finding work. Workers, who were mostly young men, were receptive because they felt they were being exploited by the business class, but primarily because they were the most negatively affected by the inflation and unemployment. Pensioners on fixed incomes were receptive to Hitler’s socialist stance. Noblemen and -women were interested in Hitler because he opposed Freemasonry and expropriation of their landed estates, and because he hinted at restoration of the monarchy. Additionally, all of these groups generally opposed Marxist-Communism. Most of the German masses were not interested in a revolutionary bloodbath or agricultural collectivism, but economic and social security as well as justice and prosperity for themselves; the German elites did not support expropriation and collectivization. Hitler’s main opposition in the formative years came from the Communists, who denounced him as a tool of capitalism and from the former nobility; the heavy industrialists, who distrusted his socialism and the SA (they feared the SA was nothing but a Communistic horde); and the left-wing faction within his own party, who questioned Hitler’s financial sources and pro-business stance.

When someone requested to join the NSDAP, one paid one’s initial annual dues and was then given a membership card and asked to perform some service or task for the party. This could be anything from putting up posters before speaking engagements to spreading the word by simply talking about the NSDAP or handing out flyers on street corners and at beer halls. After the Hitler-Strasser break, he or she was asked to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler. Vetting was likely performed by those members doing the actual talking and recruiting in the streets, as there was no known formal vetting procedure. As long as a person paid his annual dues and served the party loyally, he or she was trusted. Those who wished to break with the party were actually told to leave by Hitler himself at a rally that took place after the Strasser and Stennes affairs. We’ll revisit this topic later on.

Along these lines, Kurt Lüdecke, Otto Wagener and Ernst Röhm played leading roles in arming, training and drilling SA men. Their personal fundraising; their secret dealings with the German Army (Reichswehr), which had many prominent sympathizers of the NSDAP and SA; and Lüdecke’s connections to black-market Jewish arms dealers proved essential to building a credible paramilitary threat to the status quo. The government in Berlin tended to ignore SA violence against Communists because it opposed a Communist takeover. Also, Hitler’s party supported German national unity at all costs, so Hitler and his SA were worth tolerating to prevent Bavarian secession. Hitler’s real bargaining base was his SA and the masses. Without both, he could afford to be ignored by the elites, government and industry; however with both he was a true threat, like the Communists. Lüdecke, Wagener and Röhm all led, at one point or another, regular drilling and paramilitary basic training at a large hall funded by party members and various supporters. Marching in formation and drills also took place in the forests and countryside when possible, but mostly it occurred in the party’s own rented hall or on a wealthy sympathizer’s private estate. Fortunately for unemployed and poor members, the party paid for everyone’s uniforms.

When SA and SS ranks were introduced, the requirements were loyalty and leadership aptitude. The SS consisted of men handpicked by Hitler himself. Thus, he vetted them personally. As a matter of fact, Hitler usually personally appointed leaders to their positions even in the SA. He recalled Röhm from Bolivia, for instance, to reorganize and lead the SA. Hitler tended to choose people who he felt would resist falling prey to groupthink. Historians have tended to characterize this as Hitler’s “divide and rule” policy, but in-depth study of the party’s early development suggests instead that Hitler chose people who would (a) not challenge or question his leadership, and (b) not fall prey to the “yes man” temptation. This appointment procedure did two things: it prevented serious intraparty division by subordinating all to Hitler himself, while at the same time it encouraged intraparty rivalries, which prevented groupthink. Leaders could disagree and even challenge one another’s authority without destroying the party. Hitler based promotion solely on performance, not status. This tendency increased later on during the war especially after Hitler established the NSFO (National Socialist Commanding Officer Corps). This NS-high command was likely enacted to replace or take over the OKW (Armed Forces High Command). Hitler wanted select NSFO officers to undergo a 4- to 18-hour course in political-ideological instruction. He himself appointed the head of the NSFO, Hermann Reinecke, in December 1944.

The NSDAP expanded into cities and states outside of Munich (Bavaria), where it had its Brown House headquarters, by appointing certain members to run party operations and perform party services in their own states, cities, towns and villages. The most well-known example of an NSDAP member-cum-leader who acquired almost enough personal power, financial backing and mass following to challenge Hitler himself was Gregor Strasser. Hitler was able to prevent a crisis from developing with his gifts for clever maneuvering and personal appeal, but such risks are inherent in any organization that becomes as powerful as the NSDAP. And they are risks that must be taken if a party’s leadership wishes it to develop and grow. Talented, committed and qualified speakers and leaders were appointed to run operations in every location possible. But Berlin NSDAP members also traveled around giving speeches and lectures and soliciting financial support. All speaking engagements required admittance fees. Hitler himself was constantly traveling and meeting with workers and elites alike to recruit new members and bolster his finances.

At the end of 1920, the NSDAP had about 3,000 members. Membership then grew from 27,000 in 1925 to 108,000 in 1928. In August 1931 the NSDAP created its own intelligence and security sector. Heinrich Himmler established the SD (Sicherheitsdienst) and Reinhard Heydrich was appointed head of the organization, which was kept separate from the SS (Schutzstaffel). By the time of the Strasser crisis, the SA was some 400,000 members strong and the party itself had grown to 2 million by 1933. In 1932, it was large enough to achieve control of 37% of the Reichstag.

Here are the election results from 1920 to 1933:

Adapted from James E. and Suzanne Pool. Who
Financed Hitler:

The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power
1919 – 1933
, p. 494.

Political Parties in the
Reichstag

June
1920

May
1924

Dec.
1924

May
1928

Sep.
1930

July
1932

Nov.
1932

Mar.
1933

Communist Party (KPD)

4

62

45

54

77

89

100

81

Social Democratic Party (SPD)

102

100

131

153

143

133

121

120

Catholic Center Party (BVP)

65

81

88

78

87

97

90

93

Nationalist Party (DNVP)

71

95

103

73

41

37

52

52

National Socialist Party (NSDAP)

12

107

230

196

288

Other Parties

98

92

73

121

122

22

35

23

One can see that the NSDAP lost most of its former 230 seats as of July 1932 to the even more radical-revolutionary Communist Party (KPD) in November 1932, not to conservative Catholics or social-democrats. The conservative nationalists (DNVP) only gained 15 seats. These results, contrary to most historiography, do not imply the demise of the NSDAP, but the masses’ disaffection with any party that was not willing to promise sweeping social and economic change for the majority, even if change meant bloodshed. Hitler and the NSDAP were not viewed as extreme enough, so they lost seats to the KPD! This alarmed men like Hjalmar Schacht and Franz von Papen so much that they were finally willing to give Hitler the opportunity to become chancellor.

 

He actually should have received the chancellorship in July 1932 when his party had the most seats in the Reichstag, but the industrialists and noblemen surrounding General Schleicher, Franz von Papen and President Hindenburg opposed his appointment to the chancellorship. So much for James Warburg’s and the Rothschilds’ “magical funding.”

Hitler faced so much resistance at this stage that he, like others, resorted to blackmail. Hitler arranged a private meeting with President Hindenburg’s son Oskar, during which he is suspected to have threatened to expose his father’s role in the repeated taxpayer bailouts of the Junkers’ mismanaged, bankrupted estates. Since blackmail and intrigue had been used to cheat Hitler of his due appointment, he decided that he could also play such a game. Hindenburg appointed him chancellor shortly thereafter, which most historians claim was at the behest of von Papen. We see that von Papen’s desire to prevent a Communist majority by giving Hitler the chancellorship was only partly why Hindenburg appointed him. Hitler won, but not because he received covert funding. Franz von Papen continued to intrigue against Hitler and urged industrialists to withdraw their financial support of the NSDAP! The goal of this so-called “cabinet of barons” was to give Hitler just enough power to satisfy him personally without actually allowing him to attain a majority strong enough to overthrow the status quo, but just strong enough to prevent a Communist majority.

Given this context of stalemate, the speed of the NSDAP’s growth in just 6 years and its subsequent attainment of absolute power were only possible with an authoritarian leader in a crooked political situation in which blackmail, corruption and political sleight-of-hand were the order of the day. What had started as a democratic-style workers’ party with a simple executive committee to which Hitler was appointed in the early 1900s became an authoritarian-style organization with its own uniforms, offices, training facilities, insurance company, merchandise, newspaper, propaganda machine, army (the SA) and security apparatus (SS and SD). This was nothing short of impressive and most of the credit for its success goes to those leaders and members like Hitler, Hess, Gansser, Eckart, Funk, Schwarz, Feder, Keppler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels, the Strassers (before 1932), Scheubner-Richter, Hanfstaengl, Lüdecke, Göring and Röhm, all of whom literally devoted their lives to the party.

NSDAP events were staged as often as they could be afforded. The newspaper was of course always available—it was a daily—so the public and members always knew what was going on from day to day. Hitler gave speeches and met with important wealthy persons almost non-stop after his release from prison. He was keen enough to purchase motor vehicles, which were rare in those days. Speedy travel was vital to defeating rival parties like the Communists, who still had to walk to their various speaking engagements and meetings. The NSDAP’s doors, so to speak, were always open to receive new recruits. Interested persons either signed up at simple on-site recruitment centers or they mailed their applications to the party’s headquarters in Munich.

Inconvenient facts about Hitler and the NSDAP

The following is a list of important facts gleaned from the Pools’ Who Financed Hitler. This list clarifies and summarizes our introduction to the NSDAP’s development, support and financing. More importantly, this list exposes numerous myths associated with Hitler and the NSDAP, such as Hitler’s “militatarism,” NSDAP funding via Paul or Sidney (James) Warburg and the Rothschilds, and Hitler’s unpopularity amongst most Germans.

  • Gustav Stresemann was as militarily inclined as Adolf Hitler. Thus the idea that Hitler’s appointment to the chancellorship meant war in future is moot.
  • Upper-class hostages, including members of Thule, were literally lined up and murdered in 1918 by the Communists. A total of 12 hostages were shot in a schoolyard in Munich.
  • The Pools noted that since the German economy was not harmful to most industrialists’ profits overall, they as a group wished to uphold the status quo. And that was the problem with them from the perspective of revolutionary parties like Hitler’s, as well as the impoverished, unemployed millions.
  • Hitler and Hess, not Göring and Goebbels as claimed by “Sidney Warburg,” solicited money in 1929. German industrialist Emil Kirdorf likely gave the NSDAP money at this time.
  • Radek, Levine and Axelrod, all Communists, were Jewish. These three men and the terror they inflicted upon Fritz Thyssen and his father personally, including imprisonment and death threats, changed Thyssen’s life. From that point on he supported Hitler, and fervently so.
  • French martial law and Ruhr resource demands were too much for Fritz Thyssen. He was arrested and fined 300,000 gold marks for encouraging German workers to passively resist French military occupation. The French opened fire on these German workers killing and wounding hundreds.
  • Thyssen downplayed his support of the National Socialists. He gave 1,250,000 Reichsmarks between 1928 and 1929. This was the exact timing of Sidney Warburg’s alleged covert cash transfers to Hitler.
  • Kirdorf had Jewish friends and bank connections, including Dr. Arthur Salomonsohn. In spite of these big money connections, Kirdorf gave very little to Hitler and the NSDAP.
  • Thyssen and Kirdorf saw little hope for Germany. France and England had a monopoly over one quarter of the world and were determined to crush Germany’s global competitiveness.
  • The Versailles Dictate was Germany’s economic end—really, truly and totally.
  • The “Treaty” was actually an economic weapon designed to permanently cripple Germany as an industrial competitor. Germany’s total reparations payments amounted to $32 billion, which equates to $425 billion today, or $6.6 billion per year.
  • The NSDAP was not put into power by international Jewish interests as some researchers suggest. The NSDAP fought for its power. For example, in just a single street battle between the National Socialists and Communists, 300 men were killed. Hitler struggled for 14 years to achieve power and was nearly shot dead during his attempted putsch, facts which challenge this thesis.
  • The I. G. Farben conglomerate and high finance never factored into the Hitler-NSDAP equation before 1933.
  • According to the Pools, since nothing Germany did had worked to relieve the unemployment and trade imbalance, an imperialist policy was necessary for Germany’s economic survival. She had earnestly tried everything else.
  • Big business’s main motive for supporting Hitler and the NSDAP was to prevent Communism at all costs.
  • General von Seeckt operated under a façade of pro-democracy (like Hitler) until the day when all democratic chains could be broken. Indeed the intellectual demilitarization of Germany was, to von Seeckt, the greatest threat of all.
  • Russo-German military collaboration was championed by von Seeckt, not Hitler, and started in 1921. (Before the Treaty of Rapallo). Von Seeckt was instrumental in this collaboration. Lest we overlook it: Hitler, and no one else, had a reserve army—the SA. Thus the years 1921 to 1922 saw some degree of Russian funding of the NSDAP via the Reichswehr’s secret Russian collaboration efforts.
  • The Allies destroyed Krupp’s industry, which provided Krupp with a key motive for later supporting the NSDAP. Krupp, with the help of foreign subsidies, established anonymous companies to carry out arms construction and testing in neutral countries long before Hitler came to power.
  • Stresemann, like Hitler, wanted to see Germany reemerge as a world power. Neither von Seeckt nor Stresemann was a liberal-democrat (i.e. neither supported democracy, which was imposed upon Germany against her will.)
  • Holding companies were used to rebuild the German Navy in the early 1920s, long before Hitler’s ascension.
  • “Liberal-Democratic” Weimar Germany was providing covert assistance to German rearmament efforts in every way possible. Krupp was subsidized by the Weimar regime, not by Hitler.
  • Given the industrial context of that time period, Thyssen’s industry would die without total rearmament. This was a consequence of Germany’s overdependence on industrialization,. As suggested by Lawrence Dennis in The Dynamics of War and Revolution, a developed nation like Germany had the choice to contract severely in every way, including population-wise, or expand. Most German leaders opted for the latter.
  • German rearmament began earnestly “production-wise” in 1928—five full years before Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor.
  • The Social Democrats, SPD, supported rearmament.
  • Rearmament does not prove that Germany was planning aggressive warfare or that Germany was “militaristic.”
  • Both France’s and Poland’s militaries were threatening to encircle and occupy Germany in 1919.
  • All of the German power elite had the same goal, only different methods of achieving that goal—to reestablish Germany as a world power. However, only Adolf Hitler understood international power politics or “economy by the sword.” Hitler asked the industrialists in 1927: Does it benefit our nationality now or in the future, or will it be injurious to it? Expediency is the basis of all alliances.
  • France, not England, was Enemy Number One in Hitler’s view.
  • Political bribes were not illegal in the Weimar Republic.
  • The rule of special interest groups and the power of money (with which to buy Reichstag deputies) destroyed the Weimar Republic’s chances of survival. Both are, in fact, inherent features of all democracies, which intentionally give the masses the illusion of power and voice in government to prevent their discontent.
  • The SPD was the political instrument of the trade unions and the bureaucracy of organized labor. All of the rest, save the KPD, were big business’s interest groups incognito.
  • Walther Rathenau set the Weimar “big business” precedent, not Hitler or the NSDAP.
  • The Ruhrlade was a secret society of heavy industrialists, with 12 members, who met secretly to set joint economic and political policy.
  • Hugenberg and the Nationalist Party had far more big business and discreet financial backing and prestige than the NSDAP. But not even Hugenberg was an industrialist’s tool. He opposed the Anglo-Freemasonic Dawes Plan while several of his industrialist backers supported the plan.
  • The Anglo-Freemasonic Young Plan was enacted 11 years after the war, which demanded that Germans pay “reparations” for the next 59 years!
  • Hugenberg and Strasser both underestimated Hitler. He was no one’s “pawn.” This was already evident around the time of the passing of the Freedom Law in 1929, right around the time of Sidney Warburg’s alleged cash promise to Hitler. The Warburg myth was used to discredit Hitler by the Strasser-Stennes faction of the NSDAP. Stennes, with 80,000 SA men under his command, seized the NSDAP headquarters in Berlin and occupied it to destroy Hitler, but Hitler was able to largely circumvent recapturing the headquarters via violent means by establishing his right of ownership of the Berlin headquarters. He did this simply by presenting his ownership proof to the courts after the holidays ended. The police were therefore obliged to retake the headquarters for him and Captain Walther Stennes’ attempted anti-Hitler coup fell apart. Interestingly, Stennes was never even an NSDAP member.
  • Hitler used Karl Lüger’s methods: utilize the existing implements of power.
  • Thyssen admitted to funding the NSDAP. His continuous support and Hitler’s strategic alliance with Hugenberg and the Nationalist Party meant money for Hitler in 1929—none of which was from Sidney Warburg.
  • After 1930, the Völkischer Beobachter generated day-to-day revenue and paid off all of its outstanding debts.
  • There was no “secret” funding early on. Max Amann mortgaged all of the NSDAP’s property and forestalled all financial obligations until after the elections in 1930, which surprised everyone, including Hitler. Rallies and occasional donations by the wealthy supplemented funds after September 1930.
  • NSDAP memberships swelled due to the “bandwagon effect” after the party’s huge electoral success. The VB also started generating substantial advertising revenue. At one point Hitler actually let his prohibitionist idealism go too far with the brewers and they canceled all their VB Fellow party members had to coax them back.
  • Adolf Müller helped the Nazis with the VB, the only paper that did not drop in circulation after the Depression began.
  • The United States likely destroyed Party Treasurer Franz Schwarz’s records, which were meticulous: Hitler had even told him to denote names of anonymous donors! All of the records are gone. Americans brutally interrogated Schwarz and likely murdered him in 1946. The Anglo-Americans were determined to incriminate only German big business for funding the NSDAP at the IMT. Given that the United States did this, one suspects that there was more American-based funding than just Henry Ford and Teutonia behind the NSDAP, but what that was we will never know. The Anglos were likely trying to cover up American industrial involvement with NS-Germany after 1933, such as that of Standard Oil which we’ve already discussed.
  • Generals, namely Alfred Jodl, were won over by Hitler at his Leipzig trial.
  • Big business was reassured by Hitler’s total party control and non-Communist stance after he ordered his 107 deputies to vote against the Nazis’ own “left-wing” bill, introduced by Strasser et al.
  • The German economy was controlled by the government and a private bank cartel 2,500 banks strong before Hitler assumed power.
  • In the summer of 1931, the Ruhrlade made its first contribution to the NSDAP, and Göring was being paid by Thyssen at this time as well.
  • Frau Quandt joined the NSDAP in 1930 and brought lots of wealthy influence with her.
  • Hitler recalled Ernst Röhm in 1930 to lead the SA. He had been living in Bolivia.
  • Kaiser Wilhelm and his sons supported the NSDAP in an effort to try and convince Hitler to reestablish the monarchy.
  • Brüning was a de facto dictator but was failing, because the Depression was worsening.
  • The Credit-Anstalt, a Rothschild bank branch in Austria, experienced a devastating run in May 1931, which crashed all German banks and eventually even London’s banks. So much for the Rothschilds’ endless, untouchable wealth!
  • Freemasonic France and America exacerbated the German collapse by recalling short-term loans to Germany and Austria and with the passing of the Hawley-Smoot tariff.
  • The German People’s Party, which enjoyed more conservative support than Hitler, demanded constitutional revision terminating the parliamentary system and giving Hindenburg the power to appoint a government.
  • Other nationalist parties got a lot more money and support than Hitler, but they maintained the status quo and displeased the masses immensely. Thus only Hitler had the masses’ support and could therefore not be brushed aside or ignored, not even by the moneyed elite.
  • Big business, namely industrialists, was paying the NSDAP by 1931.
  • The Harzburg Front organized and rallied in 1931. Hjalmar Schacht gave a speech at this event and shockingly declared that the Weimar government was truly and utterly bankrupt. He, more than anyone else that day including Hitler, brought incalculable benefit to the NSDAP. He was after all the man who had saved the German economy before by introducing the Rentenmark.
  • Hitler had his man Keppler meet informally with businessmen to create the NSDAP’s economic policy. This was known as the “Circle of Friends for the Economy.” This is actually where Reinhardt comes into play, the man behind the Reinhardt Plan which Hitler enacted shortly after coming to power. Reinhardt, not Hitler or an NSDAP member, openly called for rearmament in 1932.
  • Walther Funk met with Kurt von Schröder, a partner in J. H. Stein of Cologne. A man with great skill for negotiation, Funk was able to “satisfy Schröder” of Hitler’s “good will” towards “international banking.”
  • Mussolini gave unofficial support to the NSDAP. France backed the Bavarian separatists while Italy supported the Bavarian nationalists. Hitler was the only nationalist who opposed France and was willing to let Italy keep control of the South Tyrol (with a population of 250,000 Germans).
  • Hitler received Italian fascist funding, which only came to light in 1932. Mussolini also sent the NSDAP weapons in the 1920s.
  • The U.S.-based Teutonia gave Hitler regular donations.
  • Montagu Norman was the governor of the Bank of England for 24 years. He was anti-France, disliked Jews immensely, was opposed to Versailles, and favored Germany due to his earlier studies there. Norman lent money to the Nazis after 1933 via his personal friend Schacht. He may have channeled funds via Baron Kurt von Schröder and J. H. Stein and Company in 1932, but this is not proven. Schröder was a German partner in J. H. Stein.
  • Viscount Rothermere of the Daily Mail gave Ernst Hanfstaengl money. He was a staunchly pro-German Anglo who despised Jews.
  • It is crucial to understand that Anglo-Saxon foreign policy was designed to prevent any single power—whether France, Germany or Russia—from attaining formidable power enough to rival that of Britain. This was the real reason why King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate; he was simply too pro-German. His sympathy as well as that of Montagu Norman, the Mosleys, the Mitfords and Viscount Rothermere made Hitler miscalculate on Britain. He thought he had more Anglo-Saxon support than he really did.
  • Deterding met Alfred Rosenberg in Britain and likely promised him funding. Deterding controlled oil interests in Romania, Russia, California, Trinidad, the Dutch Indies and Mexico. He also had pumps in Mesopotamia and Persia. The Soviets seized his oil fields in Baku, Grozny and Miakop and nationalized them, thereby becoming a serious competitor to Deterding with his own former oil lands.
  • Georg Bell was Deterding’s contact agent with the NSDAP. Deterding did not just back the NSDAP, but also White Russians and Ukrainian nationalists, as well as anti-Soviet Georgian rebels.
  • Deterding married a pro-National Socialist woman and moved to Germany. He was the one who gave the real ‘big money’ to the NSDAP in 1931, 1932, and 1933—£30 to £55 million. Dr. Kahr claimed that French money flowed to Hitler after going through nine exchanges, but this has not been proven. In fact, Bavarian parties like the BVP were backed by France only because they wished to break away from Berlin!
  • The Treaty of Trianon was even worse and more unjust than Versailles. Hungary lost population and territory and was completely impoverished. This treaty soured most Hungarians on democracy. In 1919, Bela Kuhn ruled ruthlessly for three months in Hungary: he confiscated and expropriated private land, slaughtered peasants indiscriminately and further destroyed the economy, which resulted in famine. Hungarians were overwhelmingly anti-Communist, anti-Freemason and anti-Jewish after that. Most of these Communists, including Bela Kuhn, were Jewish Freemasons. This experience is what led the Hungarian nationalist Gyula (Julius) Gömbös to finance the NSDAP.
  • Hitler aimed for “careers open to talent” according to Otto Dietrich, a policy opposed to hereditary power.
  • Here is the explanation for one of Goebbels’s economic improvement references in his diary: Hitler’s Düsseldorf Industry Club speech of January 27. This fundraising event explains Goebbels’s entry of February 8.
  • To give people some perspective on the German economy before Hitler: there were 17,500,000 unemployed Germans over the winter of 1931 to 1932. This was nearly one third of the entire population of Germany!
  • Stennes’s rebellion is very important, but all too often overlooked. Stennes was a paid agent of Strasser and Captain Ehrhardt, both of whom had big business (industrialists) and one (Otto Wolff) Jewish backers.
  • As a result of this rebellion and other street violence, the SA, SS and HJ were all banned by a Brüning decree signed by President Hindenburg. This was in 1932. So much for Rothschild and Warburg supporting Hitler! Why would they let their “pawn” get banned? This ban was an attempt to destroy the NSDAP and Hitler for good. Besides, if Hitler was really just a “tool” of a vast international entity as researchers like Jim Condit and Guido Preparata suggest, then why didn’t he win the presidency in 1932? What was this entity’s motive for forestalling his “power grab” if it was in fact behind him?
  • Paul Silverberg, Jewish, financed Gregor Strasser, not Hitler. Silverberg was head of the R.A.G., one of the largest coal companies in the entire world. He supported the chancellor ruling by presidential decree (Brüning in particular).
  • Brüning, not Hitler, asked the question: is democracy able to work in Germany?

Concluding thoughts

Paul Silverberg was extremely liberal, except for his own business enterprise. He naturally favored “equal rights” for Jews and big business, but not for anyone else; he likewise favored “individual rights over national rights” and was therefore completely opposed to the NSDAP. Silverberg was angry at Brüning’s ouster. He opposed von Papen, supported General Schleicher as chancellor, and gave both Schleicher and Hitler’s rival Gregor Strasser large sums of money.

Gregor Strasser received 10,000 marks per month, beginning in the spring of 1931, for the NSDAP from heavy industry. So much for Sidney Warburg! Walther Funk got 3,000 marks per month in 1931 and Hitler got 100,000 marks from various coal companies that same year, shortly before the Reichstag elections. As one can see his alleged 1931 “miracle financing” was no miracle at all. It came from German coal companies, not Sidney Warburg. In fact, most of the NSDAP’s money came from the party itself: insurance premiums, dues, speaking fees, etc. Brüning, not Hitler, was backed by I. G. Farben. Chancellor Schleicher, with Silverberg’s and other industrial bigwigs’ money, conspired with Ernst Röhm on a plan to incorporate the SA into the German Army and thereby betray Hitler.

Clearly, Franz von Papen was no puppet either, contrary to the thesis of Guido Preparata (Conjuring Hitler). He refused to lift the SA ban until June 15. He also banned political parades until after 30 June 1932 and made himself Reich Commissioner of Prussia. He enjoyed widespread support among industrialists, big business, Hindenburg and the Army officer corps. His intent was to block Hitler from ever attaining more than nominal power in government. Hitler was so financially strapped thanks to this intrigue against him that he ended up signing contracts amounting to giving away everything the party owned to finance his 1932 election: he won over 13 million votes and 230 seats in the Reichstag. This was nothing short of impressive. He should’ve been appointed chancellor right then and there.

The real question was whether Hitler could be bought. That was the question that Franz von Papen and Chancellor Schleicher were asking. Since it did not seem likely, both opposed his chancellorship as long as possible. Von Papen conceded in the end: he wanted power for himself and he did not want a Communist majority in the Reichstag. By agreeing to appoint Hitler chancellor in 1933, von Papen thought that he could satisfy Hitler’s personal power needs and keep the NSDAP in check, while at the same time use Hitler’s party as a means to prevent the Communists from ever achieving a majority. Only Hitler had the mass following to pull off such a plan. And only von Papen could secure for Hitler the appointment, funding and support of industrialists he needed to become chancellor with a stable government. Indeed Hitler deserved the chancellorship, and was fully entitled to it, since he had the masses’ support and the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. The rest, as they say, is history.


Sources:

  • Dennis, Lawrence. The Dynamics of War and Revolution. New York: Revisionist Press, 1975.
  • Gregor, Dr. A. J. National Socialism and Race. London: Steven Books, 2009.
  • Pool, James E. and Suzanne Pool. Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s     Rise to Power 1919 – 1933. New York: The Dial Press, 1978.
  • Pudor, Dr. Heinrich. “The High Financiers of France.” In Warwolves of the Iron Cross: The Hyenas of High Finance, edited by Veronica Kuzniar Clark and Luis Muñoz, 51-66. United States: Vera Icona Publishers, 2011.
  • Schinnerer, Erich. German Law and Legislation. Edited by Richard Mönnig. Berlin: Terramare Publications, 1938.
  • Schwarz, Dieter. Freemasonry: Ideology, Organization and Policy. 6th ed. Berlin: Central Publishing House of the NSDAP, 1944.
  • Schwarzwäller, Wulf. The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune. Translated by Aurelius von Kappau. Edited by Alan Bisbort. Bethesda, Md.: National Press Inc and Star Agency, 1989.
  • Warburg, Sidney. The Financial Sources of National Socialism: Hitler’s Secret Backers. Translated by J. G. Schoup. Palmdale, Cal.: Omni Publications, 1995.

Copyright © 2011. Veronica Kuzniar Clark. All Rights Reserved. None of this text may be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication, or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium without prior permission from the author. Please e-mail Inconvenient History for contact information. The full introductory text is featured in The Nazi SS Manual on Freemasonry (Martinson Edition) by Dieter Schwarz.