Watchman Willie Martin Archive

                                                                        Mixing Of The Races Is

                                                                An Abomination To Almighty God

The very title of this message will raise hackles and send “shock waves,” through the liberal and anti-Christ elements of America, both religious and political. It will elicit the epithet of “racist” even though the facts presented are as well documented as any fact in history.

With the able help of Dr. William Stough, 210 Hermitage Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37920, the late Pastor Sheldon Emry and Lt. Col. Gordon “Jack” Mohr, AUS Ret., from whom we have obtained much of this material, we hope to prove to you from scriptural and historical sources that “miscegenation,” (A Latin word that was first used in 1863, which means sexual relations between White and Black) is contrary to the expressed will of Almighty God, and has caused disaster down through the ages, in spite of what churchmen such as the Jew Billy Graham say to the contrary.

One of the most pressing problems facing America in these early days of the 21st century, is that of inter-racial marriage, especially between the Black and White races.

Our primary interest in this article is not what men say, but what does God’s Word say about this practice, which history proves is disastrous. (We say this, advisedly, because every single civilization which has practiced “miscegenation,” has ended as rotten hulks on the garbage heap of history). This is something which cannot be honestly denied!

With the tremendous influx of alien elements into the United States and Canada over the last fifty years (Both legal and illegal), especially from Asia, Africa and Hispanic nations, we have seen a dramatic change in the very essence which once made up the Christian Israel Nations of Canada and the United States.

Has the influx of an alien element into American life, had anything to do with the present liberal thinking of so-called Christians who accept the God prohibited act of Miscegenation (Race-Mixing)?” There is no doubt about this! Many of the Judeo-Christian leaders, especially of the so-called Judeo-Christian churches, have placed their seal of approval on an act which God has condemned in His Word, from the very beginning. Who are we to believe and follow: human leaders in their observed fallibility, or God’s Word which is eternally true?

Many who have encouraged this vast foreign invasion, have said that it strengthens our country and they rightfully point out that bot hour countries were settled by immigrants. This is of course true, as history proves. During one fifty year period during the Nineteenth Century, the greatest immigration of all history took place, as over 50-million immigrants came to America’s shores. (When we say “America,” we are referring to both Canada and the United States, for we are all, in reality Americans).

Closer observation will show that at least 90% of these people came from the White Christian Nations we call Christendom. They had been raised on the Christianphilosophy, and although they did not all speak the same language, their heart’s language was the same. They essentially believed in the One God Jehovah, Creator of Heaven and Earth, in the Kingship of His Son Jesus Christ their Savior, and in the necessity for mankind to obey God’s Law, if they were to live a happy, prosperous life. They came from countries where the One God was revered; and where a special day of worship had been set aside to honor Him; where the laws and Constitutions of their parent nations, had been built on the foundation of God’s Ten Commandments. These nations in whose blood was ingrained the Israelite desire for “freedom.” Where the family was honored; where women were placed on a special pedestal, where the work ethic was in effect.

Where men and women believed the Biblical admonition: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” (Sometimes called the “Word Ethic”); where children believed in honoring their parents; where a man’s word was his “bond.”

Most of these people were white, the seed of Abraham in the new wilderness spoken of by the prophet in 2 Samuel 7:10 and 1 Chronicles 17:9. They were the “true seed” of Israel who had gone into Assyrian captivity for their disobedience to their God; who had lost their identity (The Jews have never lost their identity, because they would not allow the world to lost sight of them); who were labeled as “Gentiles; but who in this new land were now known as “sons of the living God.” (Christians, Hosea 1:10)

They had been divorced by God, but now could be reconciled to Him through the death and resurrection of their husband, Jesus the Christ. Through this act, they could once again be legally remarried. (See Romans Chapter 2)

Now in America, the words of Hosea 1:10 have come to pass: “And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not My people (Remember the Judeo-Christian church world calls us Gentiles), there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God (Christians).”

So the heart’s language of this vast immigration throng was the same as that of the Israelites who had settled North America in the late 1600s and early 1700. These 19th century immigrants (Many of whom were slaves but) were easily assimilated into the framework of American society and became the people who contributed to making America great.

Beginning about the time of the Great Social Experiments of the Jewish President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in the 1930s, the floodgates were opened to alien immigrants from Asia, South and Central America, and Africa. A Jewess named Emma Lazarus, wrote the words, later engraved on the foundation of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me you poor, your tired, your huddled masses; yearning to breath free.” And they came, the refuse from all countries, lured not so much by freedom, as by a “free handout,” given tot hem by “brainwashed” White Israelite Christians, who did not realize, nor do they yet realize, they were destroying themselves in the process.

The enemies of God and His people, “True Israel,” were quick to recognize this as further goal in their avowed purpose to destroy White Civilization. A goal they have envisioned from the “dusty halls of Babylon.”

Under liberal Democratic Party leadership, which soon learned that the votes of the illiterate immigrants would keep them in power, government policy was put into effect, not for the welfare of Christian America and its people, but for the politicians in Washington, D.C. Since that time, as the floodgates have been opened by traitorous leaders in Washington, the United States has been inundated by the criminal and garbage element of the world They have turned this Christian Constitutional Republic into a Jewish Socialist Welfare State, called a Democracy, which is fast falling under the power of the One Worlders of the New World Order. Which is exposing that the world is being control by the Zionist murdering dogs.

The people in government who have encouraged this alien invasion, have done everything in their power to emasculate our immigration Services and the Border Patrol which is supposed to guard our borders. A constant lesson of history has always been: “When a nation can no longer control it’s borders, it is on the way out.”

Our danger from internal sources hostile to our civilization was the subject of a warning by General MacArthur in his speech before the Massachusetts Legislature on July 25, 1951: "This evil force, with neither spiritual base nor moral standard, rallies the abnormal and sub‑normal elements among our citizenry and applies internal pressure against all things we hold decent and all things that we hold right; the type of pressure which has caused many Christian nations abroad to fall and their own cherished freedoms to languish in the shackles of complete suppression.

As it has happened there it can happen here. Our need for patriotic fervor and religious devotion was never more impelling. There can be no compromise with atheistic communism; no half way in the preservation of freedom and religion. It must be all or nothing. We must unite in the high purpose that the liberties etched upon the design of our life by our forefathers be unimpaired and that we maintain the moral courage and spiritual leadership to preserve inviolate that bulwark of all freedom, our Christian faith." We must (iii) effect a genuine clean‑up of our government removing not only all those who can be proved to be traitors, but also all those whose policies have for stupidity or bad judgment been inimical to the interests of our country.

After reading this, there is no way, that any patriotic American can not see that every single Jew who has ever been elected into office has been a traitor. As you can see by the following they have used deceit, treachery and out right lies to further their own ends. And for the most part most of the non-Jews elected as Senators or Representatives have not opposed them, in fact, they have cow towed to them and are therefore guilty of treason also.

Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review, by Kevin MacDonald Department of Psychology California State University-Long Beach Long Beach, CA 90840-0901 Population and Environment, in press.


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.

Anti-Semitism: The word anti-Semitism was an invention; H.H. Beamish, in a New York address, October 30 ‑ November 1, 1937: "In 1848 the word anti‑Semitic was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word Jew. The right word for them is ‘Jew’"

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 antuazl 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 internationally-minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries (Cohen 1972, p. 342).

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).

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 self-conceptualizations 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 only with acceptance of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire point of view was a mistaken one, that America was incapable of rising above her origins, and the semblance of an ideal-nationalism was only a stage in the proper development of the universal gentile spirit...To-day, with race triumphant over ideal, anti-Semitism uncovers its fangs, and to the heartless refusal of the most elementary human right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly insult. We are not only excluded, but we are told, in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws, that we are an inferior people. Without the moral courage to stand up squarely to its evil instincts, the country prepared itself, through its journalists, by a long drought of vilification of the Jew, and, when sufficiently inspired by the popular and scientific potions, committed the act. (pp. 218-220)

A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political activist Earl Raab (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) who remarks very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.

Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that (a)n increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop (1995, p. 91).

Or more colorfully: The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, p. 23). (In Australia, Miriam Faine, an editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat stated that the strengthening of multi-cultural 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)).

Indeed, the primary objective of Jewish political activity after 1945 prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States (Svonkin 1997, 8). Charles Silberman (1985, 350) notes that American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief one firmly rooted in history that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse gay rights and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called social issues. (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 rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican contention a well-known author told me (pp. 347-348)).

Silberman’s comment that Jewish attitudes are firmly rooted in history is quite reasonable: There has indeed been a only with acceptance of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire point of view was a mistaken one, that America was incapable of rising above her origins, and the semblance of an ideal-nationalism was only a stage in the proper development of the universal gentile spirit...To-day, with race triumphant over ideal, anti-Semitism uncovers its fangs, and to the heartless refusal of the most elementary human right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly insult. We are not only excluded, but we are told, in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws, that we are an inferior people. Without the moral courage to stand up squarely to its evil instincts, the country prepared itself, through its journalists, by a long drought of vilification of the Jew, and, when sufficiently inspired by the popular and scientific potions, committed the act. (pp. 218-220)

A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political activist Earl Raab who remarks very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965. Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that (a)n  increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop (1995, p. 91). Or more colorfully: The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, p. 23). Indeed, the primary objective of Jewish political activity after 1945 prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Charles Silberman (1985, 350) notes that American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief one firmly rooted in history that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called social issues. Silberman’s comment that Jewish attitudes are firmly rooted in history is quite reasonable: There has indeed been a tendency for Jews to be persecuted by a culturally and/or ethnically homogeneous majority that come to view Jews as a negatively evaluated outcrop.

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, (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)) 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 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 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 Courts 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 ethno-religious 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 influence persisted until the 1960s 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).(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 non-Poles, and that only the Polish language be spoken even by federal officials. Grant also 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.))

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, (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.) 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 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 full-time 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).

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 at once scientific and political (Stocking 1968, p. 149) and was intensely concerned with anti-Semitism 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 1968, 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 head-measuring 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. 5915-5916), 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 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. (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, p. 391)

The statement went on to cite some of Boasí popular writings on the subject as well as the writings of Boas’ protégée 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’ protégé, 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 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.


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 Anti-Defamation 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 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 MULTI-CULTURAL 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 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 benefitting 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 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).


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 non-Jews from the West to influence President Taft to veto restrictionist legislation (Goldstein 1990, pp. 216, 227). Later, during the Wilson Administration, Louis 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.


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 non-Jewish 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 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 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; (Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 303) 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. (Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 341)

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 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 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 (whose emigrants 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 there from (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 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. (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 (p. 5849), 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 (p. 5651); Sabath (p. 5651, 5662), and Tague (p. 5873). Several representatives (e.g., Reps. Dickinson [p. 6267), 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))

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 under took 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. (Restriction of Immigration. Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 351) Several restrictionists explicitly denounced the theory of Nordic superiority, including Senators Bruce (p. 5955) and Jones (p. 6614) and Representatives Bacon (p. 5902), Byrnes (p. 5653), Johnson (p. 5648), McLoed (p. 5675-6), McReynolds (p. 5855), Michener (p. 5909), 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, p. 6614); Representative MacLafferty emphasized Japanese domination of certain agricultural markets (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, p. 6261) 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: 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 can not 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 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: 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. 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. 7ff). 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: 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. (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.) 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 EXTEND 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 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 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. (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)

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. (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)

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 the pressure of foreign nationalistic or racial groups, rather than in accordance with the needs and desires of the American people. (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)

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: 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 non-quota 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 cut-off 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, p. 298; 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 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 coreligionists 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 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 coreligionists 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 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. (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, p. 565) 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. 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], pp. 2-4). 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...(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)

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. (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)

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)

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. (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)

Moreover, in an explicit statement of Horace Kallen’s multi-cultural 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. (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)

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, 1952a, 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, 1952b, 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 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 McCarran-Walter 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, p. 166).

JEWS WERE DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED IN 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 earrings...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 Bennett, 1963, p. 185), and Richard Arens, a Congressional staff ember 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 anti-restrictionists 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, p. 173) 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: The proposed legislation is America’s Nuremberg trial. It is racist 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). (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) 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 bi-Weekly 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, 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 anti-Semites (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, p. 184). 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 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 benefitting 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 anti-restrictionist 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: 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; the 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 multi-racial and multi-cultural 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 multi-cultural 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 multi-cultural, 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 Konvitz. 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 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 multi-cultural 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 non-quota 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 non-quota  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 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 souse of a resident alien], and six years later, after being naturalized, his bothers 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.

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 non-quota 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 non-quota 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 non-quota 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, p. 24469) 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 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, multi-culturalism 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 North-Western 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 commented-upon 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.

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 nations 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 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 multi-culturalism. The shift to multi-culturalism 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 multi-cultural 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 ethno-states 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 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. (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 (Shapiro (1992, 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 one-quarter 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 neo-conservatives 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, p. 818ff))

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 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.

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 MULTI-CULTURALISM. 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 multi-cultural 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 multi-cultural 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.

Therefore, we can see the power behind the scenes which caused to be passed the Immigration Law, by an emasculated liberal Congress, which allows 714,000 immigrants to come into the United States, 1992-1994, excluding refugees, whose numbers increase alarmingly every year. In 1992, over 50,000 Jews from Russia have been granted immigration status, and you can be assured that the majority of these are communists.

At one time, before an immigrant was accepted, they had to prove a source of income, so that they would not become a public liability. Today, they begin immediately to receive welfare payments, and some even get Social Security, although they have not paid a cent into that fund. The Jews are given special compensation to get started. Both leal and illegal immigrants are granted welfare and food stamps within a month after they enter this country, and this is further driving us into bankruptcy.

What has been the effect of this almost unlimited immigration from Third World nations/ (Where the majority of immigrants used to come from the White Nations of Christendom, they now come from the most ignorant, and non-white nations)

First, crime rates shot sky high in every area where Third World immigrants have settled in any number. Many were criminals before they came to this country and were engaged in drugs and prostitution. Many came to America seeking asylum from prosecution for crimes they had committed.

Along with crime, we have seen disease rates shoot “sky high,” with new and apparently incurable Oriental and African diseases showing up, while ancient killers like cholera, tuberculosis, and diphtheria, which we thought had been eradicated, are now becoming epidemic.

But what has this to do with “miscegenation?” Very much! For this influx of non-white foreigners, plus the relaxing of moral standards by the same enemy which encouraged immigration, is now deliberately mixing White boys and girls, with those of other races, knowing that close association will cause inter-racial sexual activity.

These are the “intellectual traitors,” we are dealing with in our schools. They are encouraged by the National Education Association. These are the ones who push “sex education” in the schools, knowing full well that it does not protect the students, but causes them to be sexually active. They know that handing out condoms does not promote morality among our youth, but encourages immorality.

This is their goal, the weakening of the moral and spiritual status of our people, to where they can be amalgamated and controlled. They know that history proves that racial integration has been a major factor in the destruction of every great civilization which has practiced it, during the sixty some odd centauries of written history.

No nation which has experimented with miscegenation, has survived the social disaster it has caused, and since the plans of the conspirators call for the destruction of White Christian Civilization, they know they MUST destroy our youth, who are the foundation of our future strength. (Do you realize that government psychologists have now declared that anyone who believes in the “conspiratorial aspect” of history, is mentally unstable, and paranoid?) Maybe this is why they are killing themselves by suicide, four times faster than the rest of us “nuts.”

But above and beyond social conditions we MUST put God’s Word first if we are truly to be called Christian. We dare you to take an in-depth look at the racial issue, as presented in God’s Word. If you are honest in your studies, you will find that God forcefully condemns the practice of miscegenation in His People.

But if your “wolf pastors” can “hoodwink” you into refusing to accept your Israel heritage, these scriptures will have very little meaning to you, and will be completely overlooked in the preaching that come from your church.

The Israel People (Who have never been Jews) were chosen by God as His special ambassadors to carry His message of salvation, and Kingdom living to all men, through the Gospel of the Kingdom.

                                                            Segregation: A Divinely-Instituted Precept

One cannot study the Scriptures without realizing the extent to which both segregation and separation are stressed in God’s dealings with races, with nations and with individuals. Under the Laws of God fields are not to be sown with mingled seed; nor does He approve the wearing of garments of mixed materials. “Ye shall keep my statutes. THOU SHALT NOT LET THY CATTLE GENDER WITH A DIVERSE KIND: THOU SHALT NOT SOW THY FIELD WITH MINGLED SEED: NEITHER SHALL A GARMENT MINGLED OF LINEN AND WOOLLEN COME UPON THEE.” (Leviticus 19:19)

Most important of all, the intermingling of races is not sanctioned by God and, when His probation against interracial marriages is ignored, trouble invariably ensues. “Now therefore GIVE NOT YOUR DAUGHTERS UNTO THEIR SONS, NEITHER TAKE THEIR DAUGHTERS UNTO YOUR SONS, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. And AFTER ALL THAT IS COME UPON US FOR OUR EVIL DEEDS (Marrying other races), AND FOR OUR GREAT TRESPASS, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; SHOULD WE AGAIN BREAK THY COMMANDMENTS, AND JOIN IN AFFINITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF THESE ABOMINATIONS? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.” (Ezra 9:12-15)

In His Law Yahweh emphasizes His opposition to adulteration with respect to vegetation, clothing, animals and races.

                                                                        Forbidden Intermarriages

The Prophet Isaiah denounced the intermarriages that had taken place with heathen peoples (The other races), resulting in “strange” children being born in the land. (Isaiah 2:6) This gave rise to many evil practices, for alien wives, with their children, turned the hearts of the Israel people away from Yahweh and toward idolatry.

It was forbidden intermarriages during the antediluvian era that brought judgment by the destruction of the Deluge. Only Noah was declared to be perfect in his generations; that is, free form the hereditary taint of miscegenation, and he and his family were saved in the Ark.

Perfect: Strong’s Concordance: #8549  tamiym (taw‑meem'); from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: KJV‑‑ without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (‑ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (‑ly), whole.

Generations: Strong’s Concordance: #1755  dowr (dore); or (shortened) dor (dore); from 1752; properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling: KJV‑‑ age, X evermore, generation, [n‑] ever, posterity.

                                                                              Scattered Abroad

A little more than a century after Noah and his family disembarked from the Ark to repeople (replenish) the earth, we are informed that all peoples were speaking one language. The time came when a great movement was instituted by the people in order to organize themselves into an integrated society and bring unity into human activities and endeavors. The emphasis was placed on the propensities of the flesh rather than the desire to be guided by the spirit of Yahweh which would have led them to spread abroad to repeople the earth according to the Divine command. The first results of this rebellion against God’s purpose was the building of a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven,” to magnify their accomplishments and also as a testimony to human greatness; that is, that they might make a name for themselves. (Genesis 11:1-9)

Being in opposition to their plan, Yahweh brought about the confusion of tongues, causing those of different languages to band together, with the result that there were many separated groups and unity of purpose was halted. In commemoration of this event, the tower which they were attempting to build was named Babel; that is, confusion. “WHEN THE MOST HIGH DIVIDED TO THE NATIONS THEIR INHERITANCE, when he separated the sons of Adam, HE SET THE BOUNDS OF THE PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.” (Deuteronomy 32:8)

                                                                          Separation of Abraham

Perhaps the greatest act of segregation was the calling of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. In so doing the ultimate objective was that Abraham and his descendants were to be completely set apart from the nations around them. Abraham was even called upon TO SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM HIS OWN KINSMEN in order that Yahweh might set in motion His purpose to make of him and his seed a special people.

Later on Moses informed Israel that they were a “holy” people; that is, they were a people SET APART unto Yahweh. Yahweh had chosen them to be a “peculiar” people (i.e., a special treasure) above all the nations dwelling upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 14:2)

At this point many of the Judeo-Christians, their clergy, and teachers will say that God has no special race.

You have heard many sermons by the Judeo-Christian preachers, one in particular, which would have you believe that the Blacks, Jews, Mexicans and all the other races are God’s Chosen people;  who were crying out that there is no Chosen Race, or People. This is a damnable, and provable lie. There is a Chosen Race and People in the Scriptures. The following very clearly shows this, and there are many more that I could have listed, but these should suffice.

Chosen People:

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: THE LORD THY GOD HATH CHOSEN THEE TO BE A SPECIAL PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF, ABOVE ALL PEOPLE THAT ARE UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The LORD DID NOT SET HIS LOVE UPON YOU, NOR CHOOSE YOU, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: BUT BECAUSE THE LORD LOVED YOU, and BECAUSE HE WOULD KEEP THE OATH WHICH HE HAD SWORN UNTO YOUR FATHERS...” (Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 14:2; Isaiah 41:9; 43:1; 48:10; Haggai 2:23)

My People Israel:

“Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear a day before Saul came, saying, To morrow about this time I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain OVER MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, THAT HE MAY SAVE MY PEOPLE out of the hand of the Philistines: for I HAVE LOOKED UPON MY PEOPLE, because their cry is come unto me. And when Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said unto him, BEHOLD THE MAN WHOM I SPAKE TO THEE OF THIS SAME SHALL REIGN OVER MY PEOPLE.” (1 Samuel 9:15-17; 2 Samuel 3:18; 5:2; 7:7; 7:10-11; 1 Kings 6:13; 8:16; 14:7; 16:2; 1 Chronicles 11:2; 17:7; 17:9-10; 2 Chronicles 6:5-6; Jeremiah 7:12; 12:14; 23:13; 30:3; Ezekiel 14:9; 25:14; 36:12; 9:7; Daniel 9:20; Amos 7:8; 7:15; Matthew 2:6)

My Chosen:

“I HAVE MADE A COVENANT WITH MY CHOSEN, I have sworn unto David my servant.” (Psalm 89:3; Isaiah 43:20; 65:15)

I Have Chosen:

“BUT THOU, ISRAEL, ART MY SERVANT, JACOB WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN, THE SEED OF ABRAHAM MY FRIEND. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, THOU ART MY SERVANT I HAVE CHOSEN THEE, and not cast thee away. Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing; and they that strive with thee shall perish. Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contended with thee: they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought. For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. FEAR NOT, THOU WORM JACOB, AND YE MEN OF ISRAEL; I WILL HELP THEE, SAITH THE LORD, AND THY REDEEMER, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.” (Isaiah 41:8‑14; 43:10; 44:1-2; John 13:18)

Thou Art My Servant:

“Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, THOU ART MY SERVANT I HAVE CHOSEN THEE, and not cast thee away.” (Isaiah 41:9; 44:21; 49:3)

His Chosen Ones:

“O YE SEED OF ISRAEL HIS SERVANT, YE CHILDREN OF JACOB, HIS CHOSEN ONES.”.(1 Chronicles 16:13; Psalms 135:4; Isaiah 41:8; 44:1; Acts 9:15)

These verses and many others disproves the present-day propaganda line that all peoples are equal in every respect. Moses states otherwise, for Yahweh Himself selected one race; the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic peoples, to be preferred above all others; to be singled out for special training for a specific objective which is stated in the Scriptures. Favoritism was not the reason, as ill-informed Judeo-Christian, anti-Christ, and other critics like to contend, but selection for service to Yahweh and to mankind was the ultimate plan according to the Divine design. This too would call for the maintenance of purity of the race.

                                                                              A Wife For Isaac

The record clearly indicates that Abraham was fully aware of what God required to maintain the purity of the racial stock in order that his posterity would fulfill the Divine purpose and secure the promised blessings. Therefore, he instructed the eldest servant of his household that no wife should be taken from among the Canaanites for his son Isaac, who was the forefather of the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic peoples. He was to go into the country of Abraham’s kindred and obtain a wife for Isaac there.

The record of this Divinely-directed mission and the selection of a wife for Isaac in the choosing of Rebekah is given in detail in Genesis 24. Let those, today, who would break down all racial barriers ponder well the implications involved in this inspired account and its outcome. If, as present-day defamers of racial purity proclaim, there is no difference between peoples and races, why did Abraham take so much trouble under Divine direction in the selection of a wife for Isaac? If God’s people were forbidden to intermarry with the Canaanites, how much more imperative is it that THEY SHOULD NOT INTERMARRY WITH THE NEGRO RACE. Those who violate this prohibition are deliberately removing themselves and their posterity from any participation in the blessings under the terms of the Divine covenants, just as Esau did.

                                                                     Esau Despised The Birthright

When Jacob and Esau, sons of Isaac and Rebekah, became of age and were ready to take wives themselves, Esau, DESPISING HIS BIRTHRIGHT, married two Hittite women, who were “a grief of mind” to both Isaac and Rebekah. (Genesis 26:34-35)

“I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13)

The parents of both Jacob and Esau were fully aware of the necessity to adhere to the Divine requirement to remain separated from the peoples around them, for only in so doing could Yahweh fulfill through their seed the promises which had been given to Abraham, Isaac, and later to Jacob/Israel. Esau, by refusing to abide by the required segregation, removed himself from the birthright blessings as subsequent events clearly reveal.

                                                                     Jacob Receives The Birthright

Isaac summoned Jacob to him and confirmed the blessing that Jacob had previously secured by trickery (However, when one studies the scriptures closely, it would appear, that Esau did not lose his birthright because of trickery on Jacob’s part, he gave it up willingly), for his father recognized the hand of Yahweh in it all as the result of Esau’s failure to conform with Divine requirements. Isaac charged Jacob:”Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” He was then instructed to go to the house of his mother’s father and take as his wife a daughter of Laban, his mother’s brother. (Genesis 28:1-2)

Isaac then said to Jacob: “And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people and give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee.” (Genesis 28:3-4)

Let us note the reaction of all this upon Esau. When he heard the instructions his father had given to Jacob, warning him not to take a wife of the daughters of Canaan, he realized what his own conduct had cost him. “And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had (Two Hittite - Canaanite wives) Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.” (Genesis 28:8-9)

Nevertheless, Esau, still unable or unwilling to conform with the stipulations of the divine injunction, married a half-breed woman, for, while Ishmael was Abraham’s son, his mother was an Egyptians. Ishmael was born to Abraham and Hagar before the covenant was established in Isaac, the son of Sarah. Esau was till out of step with the Divine purpose in the selection of wives. Jacob, on the other hand, complied with the requirements, married two daughters of Laban, Leah and Rachel.

                                                               The Ethiopian Woman; Moses’s Wife

Later on, through Moses, God reiterated His instructions to His people to remain segregated from the peoples around them: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” (Deuteronomy 7:3)

Those who are, today, bent on ignoring these divine instruction cite the case of Moses wherein it is stated that he married an Ethiopian woman. Pointing to this as evidence that Moses crossed the color barrier, they assert that he married a Negro. Nothing is further from the truth. “A great deal of nonsense has been written and taught about this ‘Ethiopian’ wife of Moses. The use of the term ‘Ethiopian’ in referring to Moses’ wife has prevented many from understanding to whom reference was made. (Primogenesis, by Howard B. Rand, Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass.)

Miriam and Aaron described her in that way to voice their contempt for her. “The first and major question to be answered is: Where is the Ethiopia to which they were referring as the country from which Moses’ wife came? Rev. W.M.H. Milner has this to say about Cush and Ethiopia in his booklet, “The Russian Chapters of Ezekiel, Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass.) “‘In Bible geography there were TWO Cushite areas: one in Asia and one in Africa. Similarly, the Greek writers allow for an Eastern and Western Ethiopia.’ Arabia was apart of ancient Eastern Ethiopia and there the Midianites resided. With these facts in mind we realize it was in Arabia that Moses married Zapporah, his Midianite wife, the daughter of Jethro, the Priest of the Midianites. She was a Cushite from the Asiatic land of Cush and though actually a Midianite, she could be called an Ethiopian.” (The Russian Chapters of Ezekiel, p. 229)

Midian was a son of Abraham by Keturah, whom he married after the death of Sarah, the mother of Isaac. The Midianites were, therefore, descendants of Abraham through Keturah; thus, the Ethiopian whom Moses married was a woman of the Abrahamic line.

                                                               Segregation A Fundamental Principle

Segregation is a fundamental principle that God’s people were enjoined to observe. Even when a woman became a widow she was not to marry a stranger, but her dead husband’s brother was to take her as his wife. (Deuteronomy 25:5)

The Scriptures specify a strict separation of the sexes in their mode of behavior. The distinctions were to be observed in the deportment of each: there is the acceptable sphere of man before God and the acceptable sphere of woman. Each is to maintain his or her position in society accordingly. Even in wearing apparel there was not to be that lack of carefulness in respect to the style of clothing which identifies the man and the woman, which would contribute to the confusion of the sexes.

Yahweh stated through Moses: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination (disgusting) unto the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

Abomination: Brown-Diver-Briggs’ Definition: #8441  tow` ebah or to` ebah‑a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

a) in ritual sense (used of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)

b) in ethical sense (used of wickedness, etc.)

The violation of this injunction as to the manner of dress is altogether too prevalent today. It is, indeed, a contributing factor in the breakdown of respect for the opposite sex and contributes to moral laxity.

In the temple worship the segregation of men and women was the rule. The description of the Temple of Herod, which was in existence during the days of Yeashua’s ministry, shows how this was accomplished.

                                                                            A New Dispensation

The Divine intentions of the prohibitory injunction of Scriptures that enjoin the separation of the races and the sexes have never been abrogated. The New Testament has in no wise repudiated any of the Divine instructions, modern Judeo-Christian theologians to the contrary notwithstanding. Their application throughout the changed conditions of a new dispensation. All those who become Christians, however, are earnestly advised to accept these Scriptural teachings. They are also admonished to separate themselves from the world, its pleasures and its temptations.

As pointed out by Paul: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

The acceptance of Christ as personal Savior does not grant a license to break any of the prohibitory requirements set forth in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, following the call of Yahweh and the acceptance of Christ, the Christian will endeavor to keep those laws better than they were being observed by the scribes and Pharisees. Christ emphasized this when He said to His followers: “I say unto you, That except your righteousness (The keeping of the law) shall exceed the righteousness (The observance of the law) of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20)

His exhortation followed by Yeashua’s statement that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill prophecy. He then stated: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)

                                                                              Fruit of the Spirit

It may be said that he or she who is a Christian is a brother or sister in Christ. However, this spiritual relationship in Christ still does not grant a license to violate the prohibitory laws of Yehweh or repudiate His injunctions for the maintenance of racial purity. Furthermore, a true brother and sister in Christ will show forth in their consideration of the remainder of His household the attributes of the fruit of the Spirit which are: “Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

Those who are striving to bear the fruit of the Spirit would not under any circumstances willfully violate any Scriptural directive: nor would they seek to cross color lines in violation of Divine injunctions. The attitude of the overcoming Christian brings him into conformity with the requirements of the law. Therefore, Paul could say, “Against such there is no law.” Paul declared further that if our lives are governed by the Spirit, our conduct will conform as we “walk in the Spirit”: “Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” (Galatians 5:26)

                                                                             The Present Crisis

This brings us to the problems facing our nation today; the racial issue and segregation. If the attributes of the fruit of the Spirit were manifested by all persons involved, there would be no provoking of one another, no envying, nor any undertaking to break down barriers which have supported racial segregation.

As one listens to the ill-conceived pronouncements of those purporting to be leaders among us, we become more and more aware of a systematic process of brainwashing that has rendered their thinking sterile and drained their minds of common sense. To listen to their pronouncements, one would suppose the Constitution of the United States grants the right to all, regardless of race or color, to have access, not only to public paces but to private institutions as well. Actually the Constitution grants no sweeping privileges to anyone. There are certain public facilities which are completely out of bounds for large segments of our people and should always remain so. No man and no woman has any constitutional right whatever to enter places marked exclusively for the opposite sex. The breakdown of segregation in this respect would most certainly contribute to immorality.

There is actually no loss of constitutional rights in separate and equal facilities in the maintenance of racial segregation any more than there is such a loss in separate lounges for the sexes. TO CLAIM OTHERWISE IS BUT A SUBTERFUGE TO CONCEAL THE DESIRE TO BREAK DOWN DIVINELY-ESTABLISHED RACIAL BARRIERS. Will the next step be a move to compel access of all races to equality of living facilities, even to the sharing of homes? Already a public fully brainwashed to the extent that equality under the law insofar as justice and equity is concerned means the erasing of all barriers to promiscuous racial mingling may awaken later to find the privacy of their homes greatly impaired.

The Constitution of the United States cannot be construed (By reasonable and moral men/women) as lawfully granting to anyone the right to ignore the commandments of god or violate the prohibitory injunctions of the Scriptures. The Supreme Court decision to set aside segregation of the races is definitely contrary to the Divine purpose and its ultimate objective will destroy the purity of pedigree which Yahweh enjoined our forefathers to guard with all diligence.

The following excerpt reveals the extent to which intermarriage is already considered a foregone conclusion as the inevitable outcome of desegregation: “Scan the Negro press. Here, as an example, is a quotation from the Pittsburgh Courier, a leading Negro weekly, for August 15, 1959: “The Negro phoebes and crackerologists are ever shouting warnings that this or that lowering of racial barriers will lead inevitably to intermarriage and intermixture. Well, I say that’s just fine and exactly what this nation needs to maintain its world supremacy...We live in an unwholesome clandestine atmosphere in which we whisper of healthy love and erases across the color line but fear to speak out boldly...

‘Every community worth its salt should have a frankly interracial club or association where the boys and gals, colored and white, could associate, drink and dance...Of course we favor racial mixing, including marriage, and are working openly to kill all racially restrictive legislation and social segregation and discrimination.’

I have before me a copy of the Negro Magazine Ebony for February, 1960. On page 66 there is a picture of a Negro next to a picture of a White girl. Under the picture of the Negro is the following caption: ‘Hebrew Holy charm around Sammy’s neck is gift from Eddie Cantor. Planning to marry the Canadian blonde, Sammy says: ‘the Bible says, take unto yourself a wife.’ And it don’t say nothing about her color.’

May I also quote an interview with Congressman Adam Clayton Powell appearing in the United States News and World Report on September 5, 1952:

Q. ‘What is the attitude of the Negro in the United States on the subject of intermarriage? Is it discussed frequently in the press?’

A: ‘Yes, but on an objective basis. In fact, an increasingly large number of Negro leaders are marrying whites of extremely stable and respected families.’

Q. ‘Is there much more fraternizing in the Northern cities between Negroes and whites, especially in the large Negro centers like Harlem, than there used to be?’

A. ‘Yes, much more.’

Q. ‘Is there any tendency among the Negroes to reject that, or are they welcoming it?’

A. ‘they are very definitely welcoming it. An increasing number of fine leaders on both sides are marrying.’

Q. ‘What is the argument that is used by Negro leaders in answer to the point that is sometimes made that, if intermarriages continue in the next 25 to 30 years, then the races will be adulterated somewhat as they are in Cuba and Brazil?’

A. ‘I have heard that argument, but it doesn’t amount to any argument at all from my standpoint, because if we are fighting for integration, well then there it is. I mean, you can’t fight against segregation and want separation. We must be consistent.’

Q. ‘I’m not sure that that is clear.’

A. ‘The Negro leaders are fighting against segregation. Therefore, they can’t have a position on the one hand against segregation and on the other hand against interracial marriage.’” (Race and Reason, by Carleton Putnam, pp. 38-39)

Let those who contend that desegregation does not lead to intermarriage, with the outcome the ultimate adulteration of the White race, consider well these statements made by Negro leaders and appearing in their own publications. Although possibly unknown to some, but definitely the purpose of those who are Satanically-inspired, but one end is in view and that is the destruction of the Race of the Book with whom God made an everlasting covenant. They were an appointed people from the very beginning.

                                                                The First Jews; The Mixed Multitude

Today heathen peoples are in eruption; the colored races are in open rebellion. The Negroes are being aroused to aspire to usurp or else destroy the White man’s heritage; an inheritance to which, as a race, they have no right. It was when speaking of God’s people Israel that the Psalmist proclaimed: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.” (Psalm 33:12)

Dr. Ralph J. Bunche has stated that “white supremacy” is rapidly declining and he warned that the colored races are determined to end “racial prejudice” and “discrimination.” He went on to observe that the world today is overwhelmingly a non-white world, with new voices of yellow, brown and black men commanding attention in national and international councils.

Is the driving force behind the race agitation the mulatto? He has no firm place in society with either race; therefore, he would naturally desire that all racial barriers be broken down in order to make a place for himself in an “integrated” society. Yet his own unfortunate condition is itself a prime argument against the crossing of color lines which gave him birth.

Not all Negroes want desegregation. In Economic Council Letter No. 504, for June 1, 1961, the following information is given: “Take the so-called civil rights situation, for instance. A few weeks ago we talked with a young salesman in a certain city in Florida, and he told us that the great mass of Negroes in the South are not interested in integration. They are interested, he said, in advancing themselves and attaining the utmost possible benefit for themselves.

He cited the pastor of a large Negro church in that city, who was opposed to integration and preached against it. He added that the White Sheriff of the country had such confidence in this Negro preacher that when, occasionally young Negroes got into trouble, he would have them assigned to the custody of this minister.”

It was the mixed multitude (The first Jews) among ancient Israel, who accompanied them out of Egypt, (Exodus 12:38) who were a source of much trouble for the nation: “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept.”(Numbers 11:4)

The Rt. Rev. Richard S. Emrich, Episcopal bishop of Michigan, typifies the weeping in Israel today as he gave support tot he desires of the mixed multitude in our midst. Despising his own birthright, he even challenges God, who separated the races and selected a people to be set apart from all others: “For you are a people consecrated to the Lord your God, the Lord you God having chosen you out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth to be a people of his very own.: (Deuteronomy 7:6,Smith & Goodspeed Translation)

Yahweh Himself recognized that there is a marked distinction between individuals and among races as well, yet the Bishop had the effrontery to state that this “is a lie straight from the mouth of hell.” In view of what the Bible teaches about races, the declaration of the Bishop that to defend racial superiority is “to declare war on Christ and on western civilization” is, on his part, to preach confusion of the first water. How appropriately our Lord describes such men as “blind leaders leading the blind.”

                                                                                Superior Race

The term “superiority of race” need not raise the hackles of violent disagreement, for it simply means that superior talents were given to a race to enable them to bear a greater burden of responsibility in service to God and mankind. No man may question this, for it was God’s prerogative to do what He willed in this respect: “But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee. I have called thee by thy name: thou art mine...For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou has been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.” (Isaiah 45:1, 3-4)

Every race manifests certain identifying characteristics and no two races are alike. Racial talents may e in varying degrees of importance, but every race has something of value to contribute to mankind. In every race there are educated and refined individuals who seem to rise above the average of their fellows.

As editorially stated in the Manchester Union (New Hampshire): “There are educated Negroes in Africa and, of course, fine, educated Negroes in the South. But there are many primitive, almost half-savage Negroes in both Africa and the South. They can be easily aroused and stirred into wild, uncontrolled emotions. When this occurs, it naturally arouses equally strong emotions on the part of the southern white men and women who rise to defend their homes and their children.”

The following excerpt is quoted from the column y David Lawrence in The Boston Herald, for May 31, 1961, a portion of it under the heading, “The Face of A Stranger”: “What is the ’no-violence’ tactic that produces outbursts of violence? One elderly woman, who is a keen observer, writes from Atlanta, Georgia to this correspondent as follows: ‘I shant attempt to argue the merits or demerits of segregation. What has been upsetting me is what is happening to us. Take me, and I am only one of hundreds of thousands of Southerners; and we are all alike. I was brought up to feel quite deeply that courtesy to others was an obligation to myself, and the fact that some of these others might not be so fortunate as I only deepened the obligation.

The sort of thing which is heralded now as ‘racial prejudice’ simply never occurred to us. A black face was the face of a friend, and if the friend stood in need of hep; it was our responsibility o offer that help.

A black face today, however, is not what it was a few years ago. It is the face of a stranger; and behind it who knows what is going on? We have learned what furious, impotent rage is, and the miracle is that the South has exercised, and still is exercising the control that it has.

The best method of learning is the trolley. There you can quickly learn just how angry a human being an get; and although you are not yourself the sort of person who goes berserk, you can understand the one who does.

There are many other places, and times, but let me try to make you see what is a daily, hourly occurrence. You wait at the stop for the trolley. As it slows, Negroes; with only the barest difference between a ‘push’ and a ‘shove’ brush you aside in clumsy haste to show their equality by getting on ahead of you. When you get on, there is a Negro on each seat, all down both sides, and every Negro bursting with zeal, their eyes glimmering, a grin on each face as they wait for your move. You stand; after all, it’s a free country and the law which says they can sit by you hasn’t yet said that you have to sit by them. Then it starts. The snickers, the snide remarks across the aisle or to the opposite end of the car. And every one of them aimed at you. On and on and on. How much of it can you take?

Various provocative remarks are made; they are common enough, and also: ‘We showed them in Congolia. We’re gonna show them here. We’re gonna have a Congolia of our own right here. They’ll learn.’

I am horrified myself at the gradual change which has taken place in myself but it has been brought about by these ‘demonstrators’ and the continual nagging of the Northern press, radio and TV. I do not condone violence, but I have learned to understand it, and that is knowledge I would give anything not to have.’

These words emphasize the dilemma of the hour, irrespective of the Constitutional issues involved in the controversy.”

                                                                             Plain of Judgment

As pointed out in the article, “Their Wickedness is Great,” in the reprint titled The Full Cup, we are today in the third stage of the transitory period specifically marked by mob activities. Joel expressed this as “multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision.” Ferrar Fenton renders this “crowds upon crowds on the Plain of the Judgment.” (Joel 3:14) The prophet declares that at that time the Day of the Lord will have arrived on the plain where the Lord fixes the doom of those in rebellion against Him.

The “crowds upon crowds” denote mob action. We have been observing the increase of this type of disturbance in many countries, particularly in the savagery displayed in various African countries. Now, as a result of the stupidity of the white race in allowing themselves to be swayed by subversive propaganda into favoring so-called “racial equality,” violent mob action is coming to the fore within our own land over the issue of racial segregation. The inevitable results, as they were typified in the vision given to George Washington, the “father” of our country, at Valley Forge, bode ill for al concerned. In that vision Washington saw the dark clouds of conflict rising in Africa and finally settling down in murky blackness over the United States of America.

                                                                            Under Divine Duress

There is no comfort for the Negro in the ultimate outcome unless his attitude is changed, for he will not come into possession of that to which he now aspires. God has selected His people Israel; the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Celtic peoples who are the White Race, as those through whom justice and equity will be established in the world. They alone are commissioned to prepare the way for the blessings of righteous administration to be institut4d so that all peoples and races may benefit thereby. This is not a role for the Negro race to fill for, left to themselves, they would revert to type; what is now occurring in the land of Africa amply demonstrates the truth of this statement.

However, neither is there any comfort for the White Race in the trend of events at the present time, for, having despised their own birthright, they face a time of slaughter and destruction made inevitable by their obstinacy and waywardness. We are indeed living in a day of trumpet and alarm. It will only be when the people of God experience a genuine spiritual awakening, arise to an appreciation of the responsibility of their heritage and firmly seize the reigns of administration that equality in justice before the law will become the portion of all. In that day the stranger within, as well as all races regardless of color, will enjoy benefits never known before under the administration of the Law of God.

                                                                               Exalted By G0d

It is the Israel of God alone who is to have the preeminence about what the Prophet Isaiah wrote: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted...The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.” (Isaiah 60:1-3; 10-12; 14)

There are many reasons why inter-racial marriage is wrong, but in this message we will concentrate on the spiritual reasons as given in the Word of God. Many of us have observed the heartache and sadness which has come to the offspring of mixed marriages, as they are never completely accepted by either race. While the father and mother may enjoy their sexual experiment, their children invariably suffer from it.

God’s Word gives many reason why He condemns miscegenation and declares it to be an evil practice, an abomination.

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated {segregated} the sons of Adam {man}, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." (Deuteronomy 32:8) All the prophets and almost every book of the Old Testament discusses the subject of segregation. They spoke for God Who is a "segregationist."  Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways; A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her. Withhold thy foot from being unshod, and thy throat from thirst: but thou saidst, There is no hope: no; for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go. (Jeremiah 2:21-25)

The Old Testament is not the only Scripture where segregation is taught. It is emphasized in the New Testament, also. In fact, it is one of the major subjects of the Bible. Jesus asked, "...Have ye understood all these things?" His listeners said "Yes." Then He said to them, "...every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." (Matthew 13:51‑52) In other words, since the advent of Christ, if one is instructed by God, that person must use both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. Which is simply another name for the "old covenant" and the "new covenant." Luke wrote: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood (The phrase one blood, does not mean that all the races have the same blood characteristics. #129 Strong's Concordance states: 'alua baims, hah'ee-mah; of uncert. der.; blood, lit. (of men OR ANIMALS), fig. (the juice of grapes) or spec. (the atoning blood of Christ); by impl. bloodshed, also kindred: - blood. This when studied clearly shows that each RACE has its own blood characteristics, as well as the animals) all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." (Acts 17:24-26)

Thus it is clear for all to see. God created all mankind, all the different races, and set the boundaries of their habitation. History also shows that none of the races, except the White Man, has ever moved out of their assigned place on earth, except in times of war or natural disasters - such as flood, famine and etc. And even then, they would immediately return, unless hindered or kept from it by some external force. There are no scriptures which annul this statement, or that God ever intended for those boundaries to be set aside. No! God intended for every race to stay within their allotted boundaries, they were never to mix with the other races. God intended for the races to be segregated! "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord..." (2 Corinthians 6:17)

Paul wrote: "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4) Let us, therefore, reflect upon God's directives for our well being. On one occasion, Christ cried out and told His adversaries, the Jews: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye [Jews] receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye [say you] trust. [But you lie] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:43‑47)

Jesus implied that the Jews did not really believe Moses' words. Is this true? We will let a Jewish Rabbi speak for the Jewish rabbis say: "There never was a time when any Jew believed that Jehovah spoke to Moses or to the Prophets in any other sense than we believe today that God, that is, existence reveals himself through the minds of a Spinoza, a Hegel, a Marx, an Einstein and the like." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, a Jewish Rabbi, p. 185)

So Moses has accused, in his writings, of those who would refuse to accept and believe what he had written to direct us on the road of peace and salvation. "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." (Deuteronomy 18:15)

Then for a second witness let us turn to the Book of Acts, where Peter stated: "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall he hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." (Acts 3:22)

Stephen, in what was apparently his one and only sermon, stated: "This that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear." (Acts 7:37)

Segregation of the races is proven to be the everlasting Law of Almighty God. "And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation...Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee...Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land...And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters..." (Exodus 34:11‑16)

Here we see that God "Commanded" our forefathers not to mix with the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites. In other words God commanded our White Race to not mix with the other races! Now there are those who will falsely state that the Laws of God, as contained in the Old Testament, have been done away with.

But Jesus shows them to be liars and false teachers. For He said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the [words of the] prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17‑20)

Christ came to abide by the law; to carry it out; to make it active; to accomplish all of God's Holy plan and purpose with regard to man. Already, we can clearly see segregation was, and is, the Law of Almighty God! "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits. Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established. The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." (Proverbs 16:1‑6)

And God also said: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19) Thank God, along with me, that He sent Christ to this earth the future home of His Kingdom, in the flesh to die; be buried; raised again; and now sits at the right hand of Almighty God, and is our only Savior and Redeemer, who led our ancestors, the White Race, the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian, and kindred people of the earth, out of bondage.

For making His Word available to us for study and instruction. That: If, at any time, we can find knowledge and answers for our troubled minds, souls and country; we should always remember: It is God, who left His Words as directives. We should also be thankful that God will hear our cry, if we will repent and seek His face. His words are to segregate. With the warning: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God..." (Deuteronomy 4:2)

If they do, Christ has given a further warning: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18‑19)

The Bible is a testimony that it is God's law to be separate, to be segregated. If those who advocate or participate in integration when segregation was written into the blood covenant of the Law of God; if they would seek the Scriptures, they would read what a punishment they will receive if they do not repent. "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast [Negro] to like down thereto: it is confusion." (Leviticus 18:23); "And if a man lie with a beast [Negro woman], he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast [Negro], and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:15‑16)

The story of Phinehas, and how he slew an Israelite who went in to a black woman, and God giving him an everlasting honor is proof of the above. "And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Ba'al-pe'or. And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went into the tent, and thrust both of the through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly...And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel." (Numbers 25:5-13)

God Does Not Recognize Mixed Seeds

"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever." (Deuteronomy 23:2‑3)

Hebrew #4464: mam-zare'; a mongrel, i.e. born of an Israelite father and a heathen {non-Israelite} mother. The child of a mixed marriage, not a child conceived out of wedlock as the clergy of organized religion would have you believe.

Any person born from a mixed union, such as Ishmael was not recognized as a Hebrew, nor was he recognized by God as Abraham's lawful son, even though he was Abraham's first born. We read in Genesis about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac to Almighty God: " I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou has not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." (Genesis 22:12)

Isaac was seventeen years old when this happened, and Ishmael, Abraham's first born was living and was about thirty‑ four years old at that time. (See also Hebrew 11:18) This, clearly shows, that God does not and did not recognize mixed seeds [mixed breeds].

The reason Abraham was not put to death, when he made the union with the Egyptian woman, was because at that time in history the Egyptians were White people and not Negroes. We must remember, we the White Race are Israelites, if we are pure white. If one could not prove that they were an Israelite (pure white man/woman) they were cast out of the priesthood and not allowed to serve God at the altar. "And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments...shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed [mix his seed with other races] among his people..." (Leviticus 21:10‑15)

Here again is the distinction of our seed. We see references to various mixtures. Remember that the White Race is now called Caucasians, but were known before by nationality and even earlier as Israelites. But when Israel sinned against God and He divorced her, they were not allowed to be called Israelites [meaning ruling with God], so their name of Israel was lost to them and they became known by other names; i.e., Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Dutch, Americans, Canadians and etc.

This is clearly shown in the Apocrypha, where we read: "The nation of Israel, the princes, the priests and the Levites, have not put away from them the strange people of the land, nor the pollutions of the Gentiles, to wit, of the Canaanites, Hittites, Pheresites, Jebusites, and the Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites. For both they and their sons have married with their daughters, and the holy seed is mixed with the strange people of the land; and from the beginning of this matter the rulers and the great men have been partakers of this iniquity...For our sins are multiplied above our heads, and our ignorances have reached up unto heaven. For ever since the time of our fathers we have been and are in great sin, even unto this day. And for our sins and our fathers' we with our brethren and our kings and our priests were given up unto the kings of the earth, to the sword, and to captivity, and for a prey with shame, unto this day...Therefore now shall ye not join your daughters unto their sons, neither shall ye take their daughters unto your sons. Moreover ye shall never seek to have peace with them, that ye may be strong, and eat the good things of the land, and that ye may leave the inheritance of the land unto your children for evermore. And all that is befallen is done unto us for our wicked works and great sins: for thou, O Lord, didst make our sins light. And didst give unto us such a root: but we have turned back again to transgress thy law, and to mingle ourselves with the uncleanness of the nations of the land...Then Jechonias the son of Jeelus, one of the sons of Israel, called out, and said, O Esdras, we have sinned against the Lord God, we have married strange women of the nations of the land, and now is all Israel aloft. Let us make an oath to the Lord, that we will put away all our wives, which we have taken of the heathen, with their children...So Esdras arose up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed the law in marrying strange wives thereby to increase the sins of Israel. And now by confessing give glory unto the Lord God of our fathers. And do his will, and separate yourselves from the heathen of the land, and from the strange women.." (1 Esdras 8:69-70, 75-77, 84-87, 92-93; 9:7-11)

We are told: "Then the angel said unto him, dost thou not remember the precepts which thy father gave thee, that thou shouldest marry a wife of thine own kindred?" (Tobit 6:15)

God Forbids Mixing Of The Races

Many people have been led to think that the tree of knowledge was just some sort of fruit tree. It was not. Adam and Eve already had knowledge and were on verbal speaking terms with God. Therefore, by eating of the tree, they could only gain a knowledge of evil. It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and not just a tree of knowledge. It is a documented fact that when God created the earth He made all green herbs and trees with seed according to their own kind.

                                                     What Were The Trees In The Garden Of Eden?

Our people have been taught for over 100 years that Adam and Eve ate an apple or some sort of fruit from the tree of good and evil which was in the midst of the Garden of Eden. That Adam and Eve were the father and mother of all the various races, yet the Bible proves they are lying through their teeth.

Strange as it may seem: At least a portion of the Trees spoken of in The Garden of Eden were people!

It is very possible that many of them believe that story themselves, because that was what they were taught; however there are a very large number of Judeo‑Christian Preachers today who know that is false, but will not teach the truth because they are wolves in sheeps' clothing, teaching that Christ is Christ but are working secretly to destroy the Word of God; to destroy the knowledge of Christ, Christianity from the people and to destroy Christians at some future date, under laws which have been secretly passed which will allow The Execution of Christians in America! Laws such as Public Law 102‑14.

But the truth of the matter is that the trees spoken of in the Garden of Eden were People! not trees such as the Pear, Apple, Orange, Pecan and etc. They were people.

Right about now you are thinking; "All right smart aliec prove it." So we will attempt to do so. Although we do so with the full knowledge that no one can be convinced of anything if they do not wish to accept facts when they are given.

For example, there was a man in Dallas a few years ago who said he would give anyone $1‑million dollars if they could prove to him that the moon was not made out of green cheese. Well many tried, they took him books, papers, pictures and even some rocks that came from the surface of the moon; but no one could ever convince him that the moon was not made of green cheese because he would not accept anything they presented. So he never had to pay the $1‑million to anyone.

Please turn with us to the book of Ezekiel; to chapter 31 where we read: "And it came to pass...that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar (a tree) in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees (people) of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees (people) of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations (countries). Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches; for his foot was by great waters. (Now we change and go to the Garden of Eden) The cedars (people) in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees (people) were not like his boughs (See the comparison, thus we know that there were other people there to compare with him), and the chestnut trees (their children ‑ or people) were not like his branches (his children ‑ or people); nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty (See we know the trees in the Garden were people because they were not like the Assyrian in beauty ‑ because they were of a different color, they were not White. That is not racist it is simply a fact, even if you don't like it. For God has never cared what we like or don't like when He speaks, we either accept it or reject it to our hurt). I have made him fair (White) by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees (people) of Eden; that were in the garden of God, envied him (trees cannot envy each other, only people can do that). Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart (trees do not have hearts) lifted up in his height; I have therefore delivered him (Now God is speaking of Adam) into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen: he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out (Driven Adam out of the Garden of Eden, because of his disobedience to Almighty God) for his wickedness. And strangers (people of other races), the terrible of the nations, have cut him off and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches (See he is again comparing him with a tree) are fallen by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him (Here is were the departing of the various races left the Garden of God ‑ The Garden of Eden and were scattered all across the earth, away from Adam and his people. Thus God segregated the races from each other, so they could not mix; which is against God's Law of Kind after Kind). Upon his ruin shall all the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the beasts of the field shall be upon his branches (Here God is saying that Adam's children would always be attracted to the black race ‑ The Beast of the Earth); To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death (All mankind will die because of Adam's sin), to the nether parts of the earth (In other words all people everywhere, no matter what race would die in their time), in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit (grave). Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when he (Adam) went down to the grave (pit) I caused a mourning: I covered the deep for him, and I restrained the floods thereof, and the great waters were stayed: and I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees (people) of the field fainted (Here again trees do not faint, only people do that) for him. I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall (When Adam fell all the various races and nations on earth knew of his fall and shook with fear and sadness), when I cast him down to hell (the grave) with them that descend into the pit; and all the trees of Eden (people), the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted (Here again trees cannot be comforted) in the neither parts of the earth. They also went down into hell (the grave) with him unto them that be slain with the sword (In other words everyone will die and go to the grave); and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen (Here we are told that the trees of the Garden were people of other races, other than Adam who was a White Man, like it or not, love it or not). To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees (people) of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees (people) of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth; thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. (Now God goes back to Pharaoh whom He is comparing Adam and the Assyrians with) This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord God." (Ezekiel 31) We know that the Pharaoh did not go into the Garden of Eden, because there were no such thing as Pharaoh until about a thousand years later.

Other places in Scriptures where men are described as trees are as follows: Leviticus 26:4, 20; Deuteronomy 28:40, 42; Judges 9:8‑15; 1 Kings 4:33; 2 King 3:25; 1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalm 96:2; Isaiah 7:2; 10:18; 14:8; 55:12; 61:3; Ezekiel 17:24; 31; Hosea 2:12; Joel 1:12; Zechariah 1:8; 4:4‑12; Matthew 3:10; 8:24; Luke 3:9; 21:29; Jude 11:12; Revelation 7:3; 11:4. There are others but they are hard to dig out and takes much study to see that the trees, vines and etc., are indeed people.

As God says in Genesis 1:11‑12: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Therefore, it is well established that all things created by God were pure unmixed and good. If two unlike trees are grafted, the fruit produced is not according to either of the two good trees and is mixed, impure and therefore evil because God forbids it. God further clarifies this in His Law which never changes: "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled [mixed] seed(s)..." (Leviticus 19:19)

This clearly shows that God forbids the mixing of anything, even cattle. God never breaks His own Law, therefore Satan, not God, was the Creator of the Integrated Tree of Mixed Races and species of all kinds.

God said again: "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." (Genesis 2:9)

This may sound repetitious, but God said He brought forth all manner of trees to be eaten. If He, God, made the integrated tree, He would have broken His own Law. God does neither. Remember it took two good trees made by God, to be grafted by Satan to make it good and evil.

It was good because in its original creation it was made in purity by God. But when Satan grafted them, it became evil, because God forbids any mixing of seeds, be it tree, animal or man. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:18: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt [mixed] tree bring forth good fruit."

The fruit of the integrated tree was evil and likewise the tree itself was evil. It was not created by God because God created only pure trees, animals and men. This evil tree created by Satan was impure and mixed.

What happens when a tree (Man in integrated with an alien beast) is integrated, or mixed? You die. Jesus Christ came and suffered the most horrible, unmerciful type of death, known at the hand of the Jews, as He suffered as a result of the Sin of Adam and Eve.

The Ark of the Covenant and the Shekinah glory had long since disappeared from the Holiest of Holies. There was no supernatural cloud to guide them by day nor a pillar of fire to guide them by night. God's presence had left the temple and Jerusalem in Ezekiel's day. "Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord's house [The Temple in Jerusalem], which looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men...Then said he [God] unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city...Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the Lord: unto us is this land given in possession...Then did the Cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city. Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldee, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me. Then I spake unto them of the captivity [The ten tribes which had been taken captive by Assyria ‑‑ By this we know, God was not talking of the Children of Israel when he said 'these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city!' we know God was speaking of the Jew!!!] all the things that the Lord had shewed me." (Ezekiel 11:1‑25)

There were seven in succession in that Herodian dynasty. This false and spurious Herodian Kingdom also controlled the Temple and the High Priesthood which had been turned into a political office. As a result, there was a constant political battle for the high priesthood.

When Christ came into the world, he did not recognize that false kingdom and would have nothing to do with that spurious priesthood and so‑called "Jews' religion." He did not join the Pharisees, the Scribes, the Sadducees, nor any so‑ called Jewish sect or political party. He lived and taught entirely outside the establishment. Herod the Great was determined to kill Christ during the first two years of his life, and all of the kings who succeeded Herod wanted to kill Him also. With few exceptions, the high priests, the Sanhedrin and council also want to kill Him. One exception was Zacharias the priest who was the father of John the Baptist. He was a true priest and a descendant of Aaron and was murdered also by the Jews. (Matthew 23:35)

It would appear there were only a few thousand people in Jerusalem and all of Palestine in the days of Christ who were of the Tribe of Judah along with remnants of the other twelve tribes, but they were outside of the false kingdom and did not belong to the so‑called "Jews' religion." God never gave the true kingdom to the Jews. He kept His true kingly line in exile, or hidden from them as it were. If the true kingdom, had been, in Palestine at the time of Christ, Joseph the husband of Marry, Jesus' step‑father would have been the king on the throne. It is a pity that most protestant ministers, preachers, evangelists and catholic priests are under, "...strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." (2 Thessalonians 2:11) They believe, falsely, that the so‑called Jews are Hebrews, or Israelites and of the Bible Tribe of Judah, which is a lie and a terrible deception. Again, because of the false teachings of the past decades about the Jews: We must repeat and repeat that 90 ‑ 95 percent of the people known to the world today as Jews are descendants of the Khazars of Russia. They are "False Jews." They are like the false Jews that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ. Following is a brief outline of what the Bible and Christ said to and about them:

1). "Ye [Jews] are not my sheep." (John 10:26)

2). "Ye [Jews] are of your father the devil." (John 8:44)

3). "Ye [Jews are] serpents, ye [Jews are a] generation of vipers..." (Matthew 23:33)

4). "...the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus..." (1 Thessalonians 2:14‑15)

5). "...they please not God." (1 Thessalonians 2:15)

6). "...are contrary to all men." (1 Thessalonians 2:15)

7). "Are the Synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9; 3:9)

8). "Hypocrites." (Matthew 23:14)

9). "Blind guides." (Matthew 23:16)

10). "Full of extortion and excess." (Matthew 23:16)

11). "White washed sepulchers." (Matthew 23:23)

12). "Full of dead mens' bones." (Matthew 23:27)

13). "Degenerate plant of a strong vine." (Jeremiah 2:21)

14). "Evil figs." (Jeremiah 24:2‑8)

15). "Broken cisterns." (Jeremiah 2:13)

16). "Broken bottle." (Jeremiah 19:10)

17). "Spots in your feast of love." (Jude 12)

18). "Cannot blush." (Jeremiah 6:15; 8:12)

19. "An astonishment and hissing." (Jeremiah 25:9‑18; 51:37)

20). "The show of their countenance doth witness against them." (Isaiah 3:9)

21). "Pray not for this people [The Jews]." (Jeremiah 7:16; 11:14; 14:11)

22). The present day, so‑called and false Jewish State of Israel is a sister of Sodom and Gomorrah, and called Hittites, Amarites the descendants of Cain. (Ezekiel 16:1‑3; 16:53‑57)

Yet in spite of these and hundreds more Bible revelations America's evangelists, preachers, ministers, pastors and priests continue teaching the big lie; that the Jews are Israel. The attitude of Jesus Christ to this sect is definitely expressed in the New Testament. (Luke xi and John viii) Ask yourself the following questions regarding present day Jews Then you decide from the Word of God, who is true Israel.

1). Have the Jews been a blessing to all nations?

2). Have the Jews been "Circumcised In The Heart?"

3). Do the Jews glorify Jesus Christ?

4). Do the Jews declare that Jesus is God?

5). Do the Jews show forth the praises of Christ, God's Son?

6). Have the Jews carried the message of "personal" and "national" Salvation to the ends of the Earth?

7). Do the Jewish people have God's Spirit in their hearts?

8). Was the New Covenant (Testament) written to Jews or Israelites and what is the difference between the two?

9). Are the Jews the "lost sheep of the house of Israel?"

10). Are the Jews the "children of God, scattered abroad?"

11). Are the Jews the servants of God?

12). Are the Jews a Holy Nation and People?

13). Are there any Jews mentioned in the "faith chapter" of Hebrews 11?

14). Are the Jews a righteous nation?

15). Are the Jews bringing forth the fruits of God's Kingdom?

16). Are the Jews kind to strangers in their midst?

17). Are the Jews called the "children of the living God?"

18). Do the Jews admit that they are not God's People?

19). Do the Jews have all of God's Word?

20). Are the Jews a Great and Mighty Nation?

21). Do the Jews possess the "gates of their enemies?"

22). Are the Jews a "company of nations?"

23). Are the Jews above all people in moral excellence?

24). Are the Jews today called through Isaac?

25). Have the Jews ever lost their identity?

26). Have the Jews ever been called by a "new name?"

27). Are the major heathen nations aligned against the Jews alone?

28). Are the modern day Jews described as "a great lion?"

29). Did the Jews deliver Jerusalem from the power of the heathen?

30). Has the Jewish people ever had the name of "Great?"

31). Have the Jews been foremost in ending slavery?

32). Have the Jews been great colonizers?

33). Do the Jews recognize Jesus as Messiah?

34). Does your pastor teach that the "Jews are ALL of  Israel?"

35). Do you honestly know what the Bible teaches about the Jews and Israel?

36). What do you really know about the Jews and what they believe?

While our Government keeps right on giving that false Murderous Jewish‑Zionist State, billions of dollars a year. And of the 530 members of our Congress and Senate, few have the courage to oppose anything the Jews say and vote for anything the Jews want.

The Scriptures tell us: "And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him [Christ] to be condemned to death, and have crucified him." (Luke 24:20); "Therefore let all the house of Israel know, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye [Jews] have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36); "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye [Jews] crucified, whom God raised from the dead..." (Acts 4:9); "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said...The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye [Jews] slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5:30); "And we are witnesses of all things which he [Christ] did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they [Jews] slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 10:39); "For they [Jews] that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him [Christ] not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13:27); "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they [Jews] please not God, and are contrary to all men." (1 Thessalonians 2:14‑15)

Now, just so you will understand why we call the Scribes and Pharisees Jews, we will present the following in the Jews' own words. Michael Rodkinson, in The History of the Talmud, the Jews' Bible, in collaboration with Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, stated: "With the conclusion of the first volume of this work at the beginning of the twentieth century, we would invite the reader to take a glance over the past of the Talmud, in which he will see...that not only was the Talmud not destroyed, but was so saved that not a single letter of it is missing; and now it is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its past history...the Talmud is one of the wonders of the world. During the twenty centuries of its survived in its entirety, and not only has the power of its foes failed to destroy even a single line, but it has not been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time.

It still dominates the minds of a whole people [the Jews], who venerate its contents as divine truth...The colleges for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place... especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which, the chief study is the Talmud..."

Then on page 70 Michael Rodkinson stated: "Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been evolved [studied] by him during those thirty silent years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquires the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say the written form of that which. in the time of Jesus was called the traditions of the elders and to which he makes frequent allusions."


With careful study, it will be seen that the sin which brought about the destruction of the flood had nothing whatever to do with the worship of idols; for no idols are mentioned before the flood. It is common knowledge that many Biblical scholars today falsely assume God ordered the segregation of the races because of idol or pagan worship. "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." (Deuteronomy 32:8)

The Catholic Bible in the Book of Wisdom 12:3‑15 we find the following: "For those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, because they did works hateful to thee by their sorceries, and wicked sacrifices, and those merciless murderers of their own children, and eaters of men's bowels, and devourers of blood from the midst of thy consecration, and those parents sacrificing with their own hands helpless souls, it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents (Israelite ‑ Canaanite wars), that the land which of all is most dear to thee might receive a worthy colony of the children of God. Yet even those thou sparedst as men, and didst send wasps, fore‑runners of thy host, to destroy them by little and little. Not that thou wast unable to bring the wicked under the just by war, or by cruel beasts, or with one rough word to destroy them at once, but executing thy judgments by degrees thou gavest them place of repentance, not being ignorant that they were a wicked generation (mixed races), and their malice natural, and that the though could never be changed. For it was a cursed seed from the beginning: neither did thou for fear of any one give pardon to their sins."

The people of Noah's time were charged with only one sin, according to the Bible, and that was the sin of not keeping their race pure, for misusing the seed. The sons of God marrying the daughters of men, and breaking the rule "Each after his kind." And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them.

The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in the man forever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw the wickedness of man (the mixing of the races) was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:1‑5)

In Baruch 3:26‑27 we find: "There were the giants, those renown men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish."

Here Baruch is telling us that the giants of Genesis 6, after the flood, were of mixed seed of the sons of God and the daughters of the black race! The mixing of seed through marriage of Seth's children (White Race) with the Black Race was the sin that was responsible for the sentence of God which destroyed the earth by flood. The mingling of the Holy seed with the black (unholy) seed was catastrophic. God saw that the mixing of the races had filled the earth with iniquity. "All flesh had corrupted its ways on the earth." (Genesis 6:12)

So God was forced to destroy them with the flood. But He saved Noah. And why did God save Noah? It was because Noah was: "a just man and perfect in his generations..." (Genesis 6:9) In other words, Noah's fathers had not corrupted themselves, and mixed with the other races.

Fornication Is The Mixing

Of The Races Through Sexual Relations

Fornication may have more than one meaning, however Paul and Numbers 25:1 tell us that fornication is mixing the races through sexual relations. We must remember that Thamar (Matthew 1:3) was never accused of fornication. Neither was Bethsheba when David went into her. Marry Magdalen is never called a fornicator. So we read when the different races mix their seeds, that it is called fornication.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1‑11, Paul said this was written for our instruction and that they were idolaters; and they committed fornication with the non‑whites about whim he spoke in Exodus 32 and 33. Their names were scratched out of the Book of Life for that terrible sin. We are commanded by God to be separate from the other races. (See 1 Kings 8:53; Ezekiel 10:11; Matthew 25:32; 2 Co. 6:17) White Christians must come to realize just how serious intermarriage or the mixing of the seeds of different races is? To eat is not a sin, God gave us food to eat. To play is not a sin, because the Bible says there is a time for joy. To drink (without getting drunk) is not a sin, Jesus drank wine and blessed it. To dance is not a sin, because the men of God, such as David, danced before the ark of the covenant which was holy. (2 Kings 6:14)

When the sinful ones, however, sat down to eat, dance and play in an integrated society, this was a sin! In Numbers 11:4, a mixed multitude came out of Egypt with the Israelites. The mixed ones burned with desire and caused the Israelites to follow them and fornication occurred. They were integrated and were not worthy of God's covenant. In Numbers 25:1, it says: "And Israel at the time abode in Settim and the people committed fornication with the daughters of Moab."

In spite of the fact that idols are mentioned, the Israelites first committed fornication with the Moabites whom God forbade the Israelites to go into (marry or mix with). After Israel committed fornication they ate of the sacrifice and were there Initiated to Baal.

God created purity, Satan corrupts it. God created the White Race, Who are Israelites and called them His holy seed because they are from the image of Him. When Satan influences people to mix, he causes their seeds to be changed from God's creation to his idea of what creation should be. Remember, God did not recognize Ishmael, the half‑breed Egyptian, because He said, "Now I know that thou fearest God and has not spared thy only begotten son for my sake," this shows only Isaac was recognized by God, as Abraham's true seed. In the Catholic Book 2 Par. 21:23, Achab's house is accused of fornication. Did he not marry Jezebel? Wasn't she a Sidonian? A mixed breed.

Satan's government demands total centralization of all power, authority and responsibility. But that isn't all. It also demands wholesale miscegenation; mixing of the races. Satan's government always demands the destruction of that which God has created and separated and it is always based upon the egalitarian principles of internationalism; especially where the White Race is concerned. Satan loves confusion. Our Father loves order. Our Father says that miscegenation is confusion and an abomination. Miscegenation is confusion and is forbidden by God. "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast [dark races] to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you." (Leviticus 18:23‑24) For a second witness:  "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." (Deuteronomy 32:8‑9)

It is appalling to see the limits that Bible Ministers, Preachers, Priests, Teachers and etc., will go to in their efforts to make a place in Scripture for Interracial Marriage. Every Scripture in the Bible is carefully scrutinized to make room for race mixing. These False Apostles of Satan's kingdom will do anything to make it appear that the Word of God commends race mixing. When the opposite is true; that God abhors race mixing and condemns it to the point that those who mix with the other races cannot enter into the Kingdom of Christ!

If you believe what the modern seminaries teach and the clergy of organized religion preach, you will believe that Adam and Eve might have been black and white.

You would believe that Asenath, wife of Joseph, Zipporah, wife of Moses, Rachab, wife of Salmon, and other leading women of Scripture were black or some other color.

The American Judeo-Christian clergy appears to derive some special pleasure out of turning the Holy Bible into a racial polyglot of twisted and confusing bloodlines that end up merging all races into one fully integrated and mingled people.

These preachers of mix and mate, love and amalgamate go to any end to promote interracial dating, marriage and social relationships. In fact, if this were true, there would be no White Race, no Black Race and no Oriental Race!

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" and "Anti-Semitism" in greater horror than does the people in the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible, than rape or murder - certainly more so than the murder of "innocent" unborn babies.

The national media and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. However, "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism" are never shrugged off; for example, when a White Georgetown Law School Student reported in early 1995 that black students were not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism."

If the student had related some statement that the Jews would have considered "Anti-Semitic," and anything or anyone that disagrees with them is labeled as such, or if they made the same statement the blacks would have considered them as "racist" the White student would have been crucified and discharged from the school. Or if the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it; newspapers and politicians denounce it; churches preach against it; yet America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race.

When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal; despite clear evidence to the contrary. All races have been declared to be equally talented and hard-working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important; if blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way - what accounts for their poverty, criminality, moral degeneracy and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White Racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be raced with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic and any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White Wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.  Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them.

If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them unconsciously, if no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then social institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America there simply must be millions of White People we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White People.

The logical consequences of this are clear; since we are "required" to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White Society stands accused of yet another act of racism.

All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions:

First: Racism is a sin that is thought to be committed, almost, exclusively by White People. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White People can be racist. Likewise in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; but when members of the Black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent. Yet nothing is said by these media hypocrites when Blacks call White People Honkies.

College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites. At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for a black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias.

There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of...the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black Pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White Pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land; and anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist and Anti-Semitic.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action laws have set up student unions for White, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and etc., and have been roundly condemned as racists.

Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist or Anti-Semitic.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of White (and most of the time White men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose, California would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity.

Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate "homogeneity." And yet any all-White group, a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood, is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possibly. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly. To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to so, is no different from "deploring an excess of Whites."  In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White.

The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the people in the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated and most criminal elements across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?"

What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico, or any other non-White nation tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group.

Blacks and Jews can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of Whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-White."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations: All non-Whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly or group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, "Whites" must "also" champion the racial interests of non-Whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms,

White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-White enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish.

Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born Whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?

Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexican, Blacks, Jews and etc., complain?

No, it is the White enterprise in the united States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, they have allowed themselves to be convinced that it is natural for their sons and daughters to marry a black, Jew or any other race, other than their own, that it is racist to work for their own interests.

Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history.

Of all the races in America, only Whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only Whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All mentally healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors.

Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-Whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies. What Whites in America are being asked to do is, therefore, is utterly unnatural; they are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own kind. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition y Whites to official policies of racial preference for non-Whites. It is any preference by Whites for their own people and culture. It is resistance by Whites to the idea of becoming a minority people.

It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history; but only so long as the aspirations are those of Whites. These same anti-Christ's are at work in America, striving mightily to destroy the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for and we might add the freedom the blacks and Jews have enjoyed over the years also.

While many intellectuals sneer at the idea of a conspiracy going on now, they will admit there have been many conspiracies in history. But it won't happen here! The miscegenation mania in the pulpit, in the pew, and throughout America, and now appearing in the remnant pulpit is cause for grave concern. Blood pollution is forever; it's irreversible. We can rebuild the foundations of a collapsed economy.

The rotting political infrastructure of America can be restored amid fasting, prayer, and Bible reconstruction. A resolution for our social problems can, in time, be found. But if we pollute our blood amid the sin of miscegenation and reduce the purity of our White Race and every race to bland gray, America will be finished forever.

Every base nation on earth today results from the fusion of the primary builder race, the White Race, with the help of the other races not through race mixing. The browning of Egypt, Greece, North Africa, India, Peru, and other nations resulted from race mixing. Those who fail to live by the Biblical Law of racial purity will be judged in the eternal loss of the genetic foundations upon which nations are built. Never realizing that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Almighty God because of sodomy and race mixing. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh [having sex and marrying those of other races], are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Judges 1:7); "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son." (Deuteronomy 7:3); "...I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people." (Leviticus 20:24); "... so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." (Exodus 33:16)

Satan's form of government will not and cannot tolerate individual responsibility and liberty, nor will it tolerate their mandatory corollaries: purity, cleanliness and obedience to God. A citizen in Satan's government has no responsibility and no liberty; only the duties of a slave under compelled performance.

By way of contrast, our Father's form of government is founded upon the principle of total decentralization with complete individual responsibility and self‑government; that is, unfettered liberty with corresponding responsibilities and duties, but no compelled performance except by contract.

Our Father's government demands complete separation of the races. Satan's government demands mixing of the races. Satan's government also allows, encourages and finances the destruction of your children and would‑be grand children through abortion. Think about the contrasts in that. Satan is the destroyer and he persuades you to exercise your own free will and destroy yourself by going after "strange flesh" and "evil practices."  What is abortion if it isn't ritual murder and child sacrifice? The principles of the Father's word demand separation in all things as a prerequisite to achieving order and harmony.

Satan demands the mixing of all things as a prerequisite to achieving confusion and ultimately your destruction. One of Satan's ancient names is "the chaos monster." The name perfectly describes his nature and purpose. But the choice is always yours and it is always couched in terms of whether you will or will not obey the Father's Law.

In other words, your free will is still intact and the test of it is the willingness of your heart to adhere to and obey the Father's law as the focal point and guide for your life. For it is our own disobedience to the Father's Life Law that has allowed the Social­ists Communists to dismantle our Christian Republic.

In Malachi 2:11, Juda married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord cuts off the man (or woman) that does that. In Hosea 5:3‑7, Ephraim committed fornication and Israel was defiled. "I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hid from me: for now, O Ephraim, thou committest whoredom (fornication), and Israel is deviled...They have dealt treacherously against the Lord: for they have begotten strange (mixed) children..."

Certainly people who are of the pure White Race have children because God ordered that, but their children are not strangers. They are called God's holy people. However, when Tamar had Judah's twins, they were not called strange children. A mixed breed was called "strange."

Matthew tells us, "Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." (Matthew 15:21‑22)

Christ Answered Her Not A Word: Then His disciples came up and besought Him, saying, "...his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away, for she crieth after us." But He answered and said, "...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She came and worshiped Him, saying, "Lord help me!" He said in answer, "...It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." She said, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Jesus then answered and said: "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

Notice (1) that Christ did not heal her daughter, He simply told her that her faith was strong enough to heal the daughter; (2) Jesus first ignored and then walked away from the Negro Woman. However, this Negro woman knew Jesus was the Master, and Son of David, from whom she would accept "ANY" help He would bestow (give) her. She spoke to Jesus as the "Seed of David."

Which demonstrated that her faith in Jesus was strong because she said she would take even a crumb. She believed her daughter could be cured by Him. Strangely Jesus did not ask her to believe in Him, nor did He talk salvation to her, as He did to the Israelite woman who lived in Samaria.

Integration Is A Curse

Joshua warns us also what will happen if we integrate. "Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you." (Joshua 23:12)

Therefore, it is very clear we, the White Race, are not to mix with the other Races! And if we do God will curse us and destroy us from the face of the earth, leaving only those who are pure in their races, as was Noah. Make no mistake about it!

Moses First Wife Was A Negro Woman

But He Never Had Sexual Relations With Her

As you begin to study God's Word and He begins to open your eyes to His wonderful truths, deceivers will come in and try to tell you that integration is all right because Moses was married to a Negro Woman. Well he was. His first wife was a Negro, but he did not marry her of his own accord, she was appointed by the people of Cush to be his wife.

Moses never went into her, nor did he ever have Sexual Relations with her. He obeyed God and kept himself pure of the Sin of Miscegenation (Race Mixing). The entire story is related in the Book of Jasher. One of the books, purposely left out of the Bible because the Jews did not wish for Christians to learn many truths, which are contained therein. "And when Moses was eighteen years old, he desired to see his father and mother and he went to them to Goshen, and when Moses had come near Goshen, he came to the place where the Children of Israel were engaged in work, and he observed their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian smiting one of his Hebrew brethren. And when the man who was beaten saw Moses he ran to him for help, for the man Moses was greatly respected in the house of Pharaoh, and he said to him, My lord attend to me, this Egyptian came to my house in the night, bound me, and came to my wife in my presence, and now he seeks to take my life away. And when Moses heard this wicked thing, his anger was kindled against the Egyptian, and he turned this way and the other, and when he saw there was no man there he smote the Egyptian and hid him in the sand, and delivered the Hebrew from the hand of him that smote him. And the Hebrew went to his house, and Moses returned to his home, and went forth and came back to the king's house. And when the man had returned home, he thought of repudiating his wife, for it was not right in the house of Jacob, for any man to come to his wife after she had been defiled (had sex with another race). And the woman went and told her brothers, and the woman's brothers sought to slay him, and he fled to his house and escaped. And on the second day Moses went forth to his brethren, and saw, and behold two men were quarreling, and he said to the wicked one, Why dost thou smite thy neighbor? And he answered him and said to him. Who has set thee for a prince and judge over us? didst thou think to slay me as thou didst slay the Egyptian? and Moses was afraid and he said, Surely the thing is known? And Pharaoh heard of this affair, and he ordered Moses to be slain, so God sent his angel, and he appeared unto Pharaoh in the likeness of a captain of the guard. And angel of the Lord took the sword from the hand of the captain of the guard, ant took his head off with it, for the likeness of the captain of the guard was turned into the likeness of Moses. And the angel of the Lord took hold of the right hand of Moses, and brought him forth from Egypt, and placed him from without the borders of Egypt, a distance of forty days' journey." (Jasher 71:1‑11)

Our King James version of the Bible relates the story this way: "And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known. Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled form the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian and he sat down by a well." (Exodus 2:11‑15)

There was a lot happened between the time that Moses left Egypt and when he came to the well at Midian. Following is what transpired in the intervening forty nine years: "And Moses was eighteen years old when he fled from Egypt from the presence of Pharaoh, and he fled and escaped to the camp of Kikianus, which at that time was besieging Cush. And Moses was nine years in the camp of Kikianus king of Cush, all the time that they were besieging Cush, and Moses went out and came in with them. And the king and princes and all the fighting men loved Moses, for he was great and worthy, his stature was like a noble lion, his face was like the sun, and his strength was like that of a lion, and he was counsellor to the king. And at the end of nine years, Kikianus was seized with a mortal disease, and his illness prevailed over him, and he died on the seventh day. So his servants embalmed him and carried him and buried him opposite the city gate to the north of the land of Egypt...And they wished to choose on that day a man for king from the army of Kikianus, and they found no object of their choice like Moses to reign over them. And they hastened and stripped off each man his garments and cast them upon the ground, and they made a great heap and placed Moses thereon. And they rose up and blew with trumpets and called out before him, and said, May the king live, may the king live! And all the people and nobles swore unto him to give him for a wife Adoniah the Queen, the Cushite, wife of Kikianus, and they made Moses King over them on that day...Moses reigned over the children of Cush on that day, in the place of Kikianus king of Cush...Moses was twenty‑seven years old when he began to reign over Cush, and forty years did he reign...And they placed the royal crown upon his head, and they gave him for a wife Adoniah the Cushite queen, and wife of Kikianus. And Moses feared the Lord God of his fathers, so that he came not to her, nor did he turn his eyes to her. For Moses remembered how Abraham had made his servant Eliezer swear, saying unto him, Thou shalt not take a woman from the daughters of Canaan for my son Isaac. Also what Isaac did when Jacob had fled from his brother, when he commanded him, saying, thou shalt not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan, nor make alliance with any of the children of Ham. For the Lord our God gave Ham the son of Noah, and his children and all his seed, as slaves to the children of Shem and to the children of Japheth, and unto their seed after them for slaves, forever. Therefore Moses turned not his heart nor his eyes to the wife of Kikianus all the days that he reigned over Cush. And Moses feared the Lord his God all his life, and Moses walked before the Lord in truth (did not mix his seed with that of the Negro Woman), and with all his heart and soul, he turned not from the right way (did not mix with another race) all the days of his life; he declined not from the way either to the right or to the left, in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had walked...And in the fortieth year of the reign of Moses over Cush, Moses was sitting on the royal throne whilst Adoniah the queen was before him, and all the nobles were sitting around him. And Adoniah the queen said before the king and the princes. What is this thing which you, the children of Cush, have done for this long time? Surely you know that for forty years that this man has reigned over Cush he has not approached me, nor has he served the gods of the children of Cush. Now therefore hear, O ye children of Cush, and let this man no more reign over you as he is not of our flesh (Moses was a White Man). Behold Menacrus my son is grown up, let him reign over you, for it is better for you to sever the son of your lord, than to serve a stranger, a slave of the king of Egypt. And all the people and nobles of the children of Cush heard the words which Adoniah the queen had spoken in their ears. And all the people were preparing until the evening, and in the morning they rose up early and made Menacrus, son of Kikianus, king over them. And all the children of Cush were afraid to stretch forth their hand against Moses, for the Lord was with Moses, and the children of Cush remembered the oath which they swore unto Moses, therefore they did no harm to him. But the children of Cush gave many presents to Moses, and sent him from them with great honor. So Moses went forth from the land of Cush, and went home and ceased to reign over Cush, and Moses was sixty‑six years old when he went out of the land of Cush, for the thing was from the Lord, for the period had arrived which he had appointed in the day of old, to bring forth Israel from the affliction of the children of Ham. So Moses went to Midian..." (Jasher 72:23‑37; 73:2; 73:31‑37; 74:4‑13)

Thus, it is clear to see, fornication, as described in chapter twenty-five of Numbers, is interracial marriage. So, the one thing that Balak and Balaam were successful in doing was in getting Israel to sacrifice unto idols and to commit fornication. Integration, when looked at honestly, not through the slant of false teachings by the anti-Christs, is nothing less than the destruction of any society; it is also the destruction of the two different races which are combined.

Integration will destroy the White Race if God were to allow it to continue unabated. Which is the ultimate goal of the anti-Christs, because they believe that with the destruction of the White Race they will be able to once again claim the birthright their father, Esau, sold.

Yet, the mixing of the White Israelites and the Negroes, who are the "Beast of the Field," as spoken of in the scripture was prophesied by Jeremiah, as a sign of the last days of this age. "Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked. The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it. At the same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword (The Israel people which have been left from the murders of the Jews and Communists for the past 200 years) found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest (The American Israel people have, really, for the most part been at rest from wars such as they experienced in days gone by). The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee...For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the Lord our God...Behold, I will bring them from the north country (Gog and Magog, Russia and China), and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all (The American Israel people have not gone hungry, since the latter day Israel, The United States of America has been a nation). Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow. And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness (The American Israel people did have virgins rejoicing in their virginity and the men were glad for it; they were fed to the full of everything the earth had to offer and they were certainly satisfied with the goodness and the fatness of the land), saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not (Can there be any doubt that Rahel has been weeping for her children, for over 100-million of them have been murdered in the last century alone). Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord. Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities (In the last 50 years the people of the land have been moving more and more to the city because of government actions). How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man (In this day and time women, children and aliens do rule over the Israel men). Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness. And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks. For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul. Upon this I awaked, and beheld; and my sleep was sweet unto me. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast (The Negroes)." (Jeremiah 30:23-24; 31:1-27)

Yet because of the sins of our Israel people, the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples; the White Race, God told us that He would give our people to the black race. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. (The Beast of the Field, as spoken of in the Scriptures is the Black race. This is just one way among many that we can clearly see that the 'Beast' mentioned in the Bible is a race of people, the Black Race. Otherwise there would be no way to sow the seed - the children of Israel and Judah with the beast, because a man cannot breed to an animal)." (Jeremiah 31:27) If God had wanted the earth to be populated by "one big chocolate blob," as so many of our Judeo-Christian clergy, and political leaders seem to believe, why did He create different races? He must have had a good reason! When false preachers like Billy Graham defend race mixing through interracial marriage, they have put themselves firmly in the camp of the anti-Christ and proclaim to the world that they are smarter than God Almighty. While we know that God's love breaks down all barriers to worship, it does not change His eternal laws concerning "kind after kind."

In spite of what social planners have tried to tell us to the contrary, there are many differences between the races, and God has said: "Don't mix them up!" That's good enough for me and supersedes anything Billy Graham, or others like him, say to the contrary!

The mixing of the races is not Christ's Gospel, but the universal solvent of liberal mythology that ties to wash away all distinctions between the races and destroys them in the process, or as a well known Black leaders has said: "Race mixing is like adding cream to coffee. It destroys the essential qualities of both!"

I believe that Christian Israelites should respect people who are outside our ethnic group and try and live in peace with them. But this respect and peace can only come as people on both sides are willing to honestly acknowledge that they are different, and uphold and develop their own unique talents. It is only natural for "kind to seek kind" as it is for them to breath, and I have seen this in operation all over the country. It is unnatural for Black people to want to attend an all-White church, unless they are led to believe that this is the proper thing to do! They will not do it naturally. They will do it only with persuasion by someone who is seeking to destroy both black and white races and do so for race-mixing not for worship!

Jesus told the Judeans not to despise the Samaritans, but there is no hint that He said: "It's OK to marry up with them!" Most of us have seen the God Is Dead! signs which appear from time to time. But make no mistake about it, our God is very much alive and His Right and Truth will be Victorious, no matter how much the New World Order rages to the contrary. (Read Psalm 2:1-5) The question we must face today, is "How many of our people will perish, before they are willing to listen to God's Truth, obey, and be saved, both spiritually and physically?"

All the forces of evil will fail and the plans of the NWO will flounder, when White Christians in particular, learn that obedience to God must come before we can have victory! Our Formula for Survival is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14, if we are willing to give it more than lip service.

Reference Materials