Here is Horowitz’s initial statement endorsing the president’s plan.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=250

And here are readers’ e-mails criticizing Horowitz, along with his replies. Notice his repeated remark that there is nothing to worry about because the president said that illegals will not be rewarded with citizenship. In other words, Horowitz simply accepts at face value the transparent fig leafs in the president’s proposal, a proposal which contains no provisions for enforcement and which by its entire logic must lead to a massive increase of both legal and illegal immigration.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=251

I could email David Horowitz and rebut many of the things he has said, but that would be assuming that he does not already know and understand the points I would make. More likely, he has decided that Bush must be supported for other reasons (e.g. opposing the hard left), and his pretending to believe Bush’s statements (e.g. “it is not an amnesty”) is just the old Realpolitik that he has always understood quite well from his leftist days.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15335.htm

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15335.htm

Heather Mac Donald

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0401/16/d01-37384.htm

Horowitz and his website has generally supported immigration restriction in the past. His about-face is due to his fear that criticism of Bush will lead to his defeat and will thus lessen the war on terrorism, particularly the one being fought abroad. While a Democrat can be expected to be much less agressive in pursuing certain aspects of the fight against terrorism, Horowitz doesn’t seem to realize that the war on terrorism can be lost in many other ways, chiefly among them, letting in million of aliens into our country and not deporting others who are here illegally. He doesn’t not seem to fear the demographic revolution overtaking our society. Nor does he seem to understand that the war on terrorism is primarily a domestic, rather than international, fight. I have seen this will other “Republicans”. In their need to defend Bush, they are overlooking his tremendous weaknesses and the path to national suicide that he is proposing.

There may be one rational explanation, although hardly a justification, for Horowitz’s somersaults on the immigration issue: reportedly, frontpage.com depends on neocon financial support, and, while Horowitz has been allowed to wander well off the neocon reservation at times, his backers have put on the pressure about the Bush “plan.”

I also think that Dick Morris is doing an about flip on immigration as well.

Here he is from less than a year ago.

http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60093655.phtml

“Bush needs a hot-button domestic issue with which to dominate the debate of 2004. I think that a crackdown on immigration from terrorist nations and drug testing for students in schools may offer the best choices. But without an issue that controls the domestic agenda, President Bush may repeat his father’s history.”

Morris’s comment is not atypical of opinion-makers today. You have various neocons and neoliberals who are ready for restrictions on Moslem immigration, but who still love Hispanic immigration.

David Horowitz seems to be seriously conflicted about immigration. He posted today at his weblog an e-mail from an Aztlan type threatening the destruction of America. Here’s one passage:

“Your Politicians just don’t care what you whites want anymore, because they know you are all just too stupid to vote in your interest. Now, the ‘American’ politicians try only to appease us, because they know that WE VOTE!”

So, Horowitz recognizes this kind of serious threat coming from within the Mexican community, and that the Mexicans themselves believe that it’s made possible by white AMERICA’S FAILURE TO PROTECT ITS OWN COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AGAINST THE MEXICANS; yet at the same time Horowitz supports Bush’s suicidal amnesty/open-borders plan and publishes Dick Morris’s crack about our “nativist” immigration policy.

(Unless his publication of the Aztlan guy is a sign he’s having second thoughts about his support for Bush.)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp

The Aztlan email to Horowitz was labelled with some suspicion by Horowitz, as it looks like an over-the-top scare letter designed more to wake up the West than to encourage the invaders. It is very reminiscent of a letter that was laughed off at VDARE a while back:

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_092703.htm

Of course, it is impossible to distinguish parody from reality in today’s world, so who knows?

Horowitz himself said that even if that particular e-mail was a fraud or a satire, it accurately reflected the general views of the Aztlan community.

“Horowitz himself said that even if that particular e-mail was a fraud or a satire, it accurately reflected the general views of the Aztlan community.”

I don’t think so. I have never heard the Aztlan community or members of the left acknowledge that whites have interests. Current immigration policy is not thought as appeasing Hispanics. It’s considered harsh and unjust towards them.

Arguable point by Kim. However, even assuming Kim is correct, Horowitz made it clear that he thought the e-mail, whether or not it was genuine, expressed views typical of Aztlan websites. Otherwise he wouldn’t have posted it.

So how do you explain Horowitz’s flip-flop?

The fact is Guru Dick Morris, like everyone else, can’t predict the future. It is impossible for anyone to do so based on my experience and readings. At best he is going to be right 50% of the time, which is no better than rolling dice. So it is best to ignore his predictions and the predictions of other pundits. It is fun to speculate, but I hope no one here takes Morris’ predictions seriously. He is crafty and can position a candidate well, but he can’t predict a victory; but we also have some pretty crafty people on this website.

Anyone can have an extraordinary run of luck at the dice table, but no one can predict the result of their next dice roll. Recall the result of “the best laid plans of mice and men.” Also recall that no one on earth predicted Arnold’s emergence and victory in California, Ronald Reagan’s emergence and victory, the fall of the Soviet Union, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the 1994 takeover of the Congress by Republicans, etc. (If we ever get a political leader, we will be a much more formidable force.) Napoleon said, “do not take the counsel of your fears.” Couple this advice with the fact that we are not insatiable aggressors like Napoleon, and we have a great deal of hope.

The most likely reason for Horowitz’s flip-flop has been mentioned several times, and it’s been more and more apparent in him (and explicitly stated by him) at least since early 2003: that everything for him revolves around the war on terror, and therefore Bush must be supported in all things at all costs. No divisions can be allowed on the conservative side, such as expressing opposition to Bush over his approval of the Grutter decision and other issues, because that will weaken Bush and allow a Democrat to become president and then Al Qaeda wins. Similarly, conservatives must do nothing that displeases moderate liberals such as opposing homosexual marriage, as that will also divide the country in the midst of the war. “Practical politics” thus becomes a god for Horowitz, to the point where slavishness toward Bush and toward the left becomes an end in itself.

A passage from an article in the New York Times:

“Another possible reason for the increase in gang violence, said Abel
Valenzuela, a professor of Chicano studies and urban planning at the
University of California, Los Angeles, is the continued influx of young
Hispanic and Asian immigrants with their parents into areas like Los
Angeles.”

http://nytimes.com/2004/01/17/national/17GANG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&posi
tion=

Obviously the solution is - more immigration!

The Aztlan thing surely does show Horowitz to be conflicted. I cannot agree with Mr. Auster’s view that Horowitz is so obsessed by the war with terror that he feels he cannot take on moderate liberals on other issues. Note that he often publishes remarkably insulting articles about liberals by people like Ann Coulter and Lowell Ponte. It would also be very difficult for him not to notice that regaining control of immigration would be a great help, to put it mildly, in combatting terrorism.

Sure, Horowitz publishes _insulting_ articles about liberals. That’s not the same as publishing serious, principled challenges to liberalism in its most aggressive contemporary forms. And of course, there’s always a mixture, as to appeal to different constituencies. Horowitz will surely continue to publish articles critical of immigration, for example. But his endorsement of Bush’s super-radical open-borders proposal says it all.

The key idea is not that Horowitz is “so obsessed by the war with terror that he feels he cannot take on moderate liberals on other issues.” The key idea is that he feels he cannot take on moderate liberals in such a way that it would create a culture war and distract from the war on terror.

One possibility is that Horowitz and Morris are reverting to the traditional positions on immigration of American Jewish leaders as outlined by Kevin MacDonald.

That is, that it is in the interest of Jews to fragment the American culture so that the members of the culture cannot collectively act against Jewish interests. And also that immigration must continue to be open so that if Jews get into trouble that they can come here. And also, just to punish the traditional Americans because they did not open the doors wide to all Jews so that they could escape Hitler.

Of course, as MacDonald says, most Jews don’t consciously pursue these principles; but he exhaustively documents that the leaders have adopted these long-term strategies; they fought the 1924 national origins laws continuously until they won in 1965.

Naturally, Jewish leaders would feel that this position must be modified to bar clear-cut enemies of Jewish interests such as many Muslims; but otherwise immigration, according to this line of thought, should be encouraged.

One hates to make ad-hominem arguments; but I think that MacDonald should make most people suspicious of “open borders” arguments from Jewish folk, especially Jewish leaders. MacDonald documents how these arguments are usually consciously and unconsciously cast in noble, “compassionate” terms.

Mr. Browning writes:

“One hates to make ad-hominem arguments; but I think that MacDonald should make most people suspicious of ‘open borders’ arguments from Jewish folk, especially Jewish leaders.”

Unfortunately, one must say the same thing about MacDonald. As John Derbyshire has written, a man who writes a three-volume book on the Jews and finds NOTHING positive to say about them (other than that they’re smart, etc., which of course is the reason why he sees them as so dangerous) is ipso facto anti-Jewish, and one must therefore be most suspicious of any judgements of his relating to the Jews.

I think it’s possible to have useful critical discussions about the role of Jews in our society. I do not think it’s possible to have such discussions if they’re based on the work of a writer who is palpably anti-Jewish.

I guess one can hardly fault the Jews for being a little “off” on the immigration issue when one considers that millions were consigned to the death camps by the refusal of the U.S. government to accept more than a few European refugees (a government that a generation later gaily waved in millions of Mahometans, Haitians, etc. - go figure).

But that was then and this is now, and as the product of a grotesque Brooklyn Jewish/Kentucky hillbilly marriage, I have always been hair-pulling frustrated over the invincible ignorance of three-quarters of Jews on the subject. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can change the ingrained conviction of this lumpen three-fourths that the swarthy hordes are their natural friends and American Christians (in fact the only people in the world they can depend on) are their natural enemies.

Even such as Norman Podhoretz, who, like me, learned in the New York City public-school system just what our noble, earthy minorities really think about Jews, apparently just can’t come to terms with the implications of the scary reality he experienced.

However, seething with resentment at them damn Jews à la the Buchanans and Sobrans is not particularly helpful. Far better would be an attempt to engage them and try to get them to understand—many already do—that Christian America is their last bulwark and that if there are ever any pogroms in America—and something very close to one was carried out in Crown Heights in 1991 by African-Americans—they will be conducted by persons of color.

If another quarter of the Jewish population came over to the side of preserving Western Civilization against the invading hordes—which is where they properly belong—, it could have momentous results. But the seething of the Sobrans and MacDonalds is unlikely to help to achieve this.

From what I have seen of MacDonald’s work, he is in fact anti-Semitic, and is just another old New Leftist who has found another crazy obsession to replace his old ones.
While I agree with a lot of what Shrewsbury said, I think he somewhat exaggerates the incidence of Jewish paranoia toward native born white Christians and their positive identification with non-white immigrants as allies. At least that is true in the New York area; observation suggests that Jews in other parts of the US are worse. However, many Jews have especially been brainwashed by immigration advocates into imagining that they have no RIGHT to oppose immigration, even if they don’t really like it. The confluence with the effects group experience is obvious here. However, Shrewsbury is actually a bit too gentle with the beliefs associated with that, because he evidently shares some of them himself. It is not true that millions were consigned to the death camps by American immigration restrictions, or that the US Government refused to accept more than a “handful” of refugees. In fact, about a quarter to a third of the German Jewish population wound up in the US. There no doubt would have been somewhat more immigration
from Eastern Europe had the doors remained open after 1924, but there is little evidence that most Jews outside Germany and Austria wanted to leave their homes before 1939, and then it was too late. The strange myth that the Roosevelt Administration was hostile to Jewish refugees is, to be blunt, largely a product of Jewish ethnic whining and leftist influence. I hope the latter remark will not be taken out of context; I dislike ethnic group whining by anyone — Jewish, black or WASP.

I have not read Culture of Critique or any of McDonalds trilogy, but I have read a scholary article on Jews and immigration policy. I think he does make a convincing case that some Jews agressively argued for a less restrictive immigration policy due to the fact that they felt uncomfortable in a majority White Christian country. However, I still find it hard to understand how that was somehow in the interests of the Jewish community.

In fact in his article on “Understanding Jewish Influence’ in the occidental quarterly, McDonald argues that White Christian culture is much more open, tolerant etc. If that is the case, then why would Jews feel the need to dilute it, with Third World Populations that are much more hostile to Jews than the regular one. I am not disputing that Jewish organizations have had a role in promoting third World Immigration, but I fail to see how it is in Jews natural interest or how they have some sort of evolutionary imperative to do so.

Regarding Shrewsbury’s argument-it is completely absurd to say that American Immigration Policy was somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Please refer to Robert Locke’s article on VDARE and Joseph Fallon’s in the Occidental Quarterly to understand how absurd that myth is. http://www.vdare.com/locke/debunking.htm
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jf-steinlight.html

Finally, regarding Mr. Auster’s refusal to even debate the merits of McDonald, it seems that. Lets take Mr. Auster’s premises for granted that Dr. McDonald is both anti-Semitic and refuses to say anything positive about the Jews. While it should make one be cautious when reading McDonald’s arguments about Jewish influence, it in no way invalidates them. The question about his trilogy should be “are the arguments he makes valid or not?” Not, “why is he making those arguments?” or “Why isn’t he not making htose arguments?” One could easily say, Jews have had a negative influence on the political situation int he US, but that is made up by their contributions in the arts and sciences. (I believe McDonald has addressed these arguments, but that is beside the point.) But it is illogical to say “McDonald does not acknowledge the Jewish contribution to arts and sciences, therefore his arguments on their political influence are not even worth worth discussing.”

If one wants to engage in a critical discussion of Jewish political or cultural influence and has some hopes of being taken seriously, why in the world would one want to treat as one’s main authority a writer known to be an anti-Jewish bigot? MacDonald, in the manner of a classic anti-Semite, sees the Jews as the primary source of the ills of our civilization. He has written, in an e-mail to me, that the Jews of Europe were responsible for what Hitler did to them. He sided with bin Laden after 9/11, and thus is anti-American as well as anti-Jewish (mainly because he associates America with the Jews, like so many anti-Semites). He wrote a scholarly three-volume work on the Jews finding nothing positive to say about them. He is also a material reductionist and so lacks any moral framework in which to place in perspective his picture of evolutionary tribal warfare in which Jews are the eternal enemy of white gentiles. Furthermore, the people who have shown up at VFR appealing to MacDonald as an authority almost invariably reveal themselves to be anti-Semites. If I open up a discussion on MacDonald, the anti-Semites will be all over this site in a minute. VFR’s policy against welcoming anti-Semites at this site is well-known. What doesn’t Mr. Epstein understand here?

By the way, I didn’t start off with that policy. It evolved out of a good deal of experience with certain kinds of posters, which Mr. Epstein could look up.

Mr. Epstein - I don’t think I said that American immigration policy was responsibile for the Holocaust; if what I wrote seemed to imply that, it was a result of too-casual blog commenting. (We’re not writing essays for the ages here.) My understanding is however that it was exceedingly difficult for those Jews who wanted to get here to get here. Are you familiar with Varian Fry’s desperate efforts circa 1940 to get even people such as Hannah Arendt and Marc Chagall out of Europe and into the U.S.?

I’m not quite sure I get the point of the rest of your post. You say, yes, Jews have desired unrestricted immigration, but that it is in fact against their interests (with the implication that MacDonald is retailing a falsehood in arguing that they support immigration out of self-interest); but then you chide Mr. Auster for ruling MacDonald’s views our of court, implicitly defending MacDonald’s arguments. I dunno, it left me confused.

I think the vital points to consider here are: 1) yes, Jews have supported mass immigration; 2) no, it’s not in their interest; 3) why then do they do it?

MacDonald seems to offer little insight.

The motives must be cultural and historical and should be brought forth, identified, examined, evaluated - and, I would hope, discarded. It should be clear by now that Jews can have no existence outside Western (Christian) Civilization.

I too urge debate on the merits. Anti-semitism does not invalidate criticism of Jews. Of course I may hate blacks and simultaneously have one-thousand excellent points against them. My arguments are not lost because of my “feelings”.

What do groups like the SPLC and ADL hope to gain by championing toleration, immigration and “diversification”? Why are these Jews not inclined to resist the destruction of our Judeo-Christian heritage?

Lets again look at Mr. Auster’s arguments against the legitimacy of discussing Professor McDonald’s work. He is-
1) an anti-Semite
because he a- allegedly said jews deserved what they got in Nazi Germany and b- has not said anything positive about the jews in his book
2) anti-American because he allegedly said America deserved 9-11
3) a Material Reductionalist- and will only look at the Issue from an socio-biological perspective.
4) His followers (at least those who post on this site are) anti-Semites.

If I am misinterpreting your argument-let me know, but to address each point.

1) As I said, one’s motivations for an argument is a basical logical fallacy-a circumstancial ad hominem. If he is motivated by anti-Semitism, then you should be very cautious in examining his arguments, but it in no way invalidates him. If he did say that about the Jews and Nazi Germany, you can question his moral reasoning or character, but it still does not affect whether or not his arguments are valid. As for his refusing to say anything positive about the Jews- that is a valid criticism of his argument (see my earlier post), but it doesn’t make the rest of his points better. One could use this same argument against to call Mr. Auster a racist. (e.g. While he has written greatly about the differences in Blacks in terms of intelligence and law abidingness, he has never bothered to praise their sense of rhythm or or athletic ability)
2) This is an abusive ad hominem attack. While at least accusing Prof. McDonald of being an anti-Semite relates to his research on Jews, him being an alleged “anti-American” is pointless. I do not know if Mr. Auster consider Pat Buchanan to be anti-American, but assuming he is, would that invalidate his views on immigration? By Mr. Auster’s logic, it would.
3) I agree that McDonald only looks at Jews from the standpoint from sociobiology? What do you expect, he is an evolutionary psychologist. You have to take his arguments on his own ground. You can accept that he is right in a sociobiological sense, but still reject his policy conclusions on the basis of natural law or something like that. By this logic, one could easily dismiss the work of E.O. Wilson, Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn etc. because they only rely on evolutionary and psychological arguments rather than from any higher moral points.

4) Obviously McDonald’s followers do not necessarily impugn his work. Besides that it seems that the many of your posts seem to attract “anti-Semites” regardless.

I am not saying that Professor McDonald is right. As a Jew who abhors mass immigration and the various “intellectual movements” that Prof. McDonald attributes to Jews (feminism, Boasian anthropology, frankfrut school, freudianism etc.) I actually hope that he is wrong. That is why I would love nothing more for greater minds on the right than mind to actually engage McDonald in debate and address his arguments. To the best of my knowledge the only two conservatives who have actually critiqued McDonald are John Derbyshire and Paul Gottfried (In Many Ways, Gottfried’s Multiculturalism and the Politics fo Guilt provides an alternate explanation to our current predicament than McDonald’s-Wasp Guilt). The rest have either ignored it, or simply dismissed it as anti-Semitic without giving much more elaboration. I personally hope that conservatives and others, particularly those with a firm knowledge of immigration and/or sociobiology like Steve Sailer, Thomas Fleming, Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, Charles Murray etc. would actually discuss the merits and failings of Culture of Critique. If its arguments are all worthless, then let them fall on their own merit, but I will not be convinced by people who ignore it or simply dismiss it as anti-Semitic.

This discussion raises another interesting issue. Why has the U.S. government since 1924 been discouraging European immigration while tacitly or explicitly encouraging third-world immigration?

And it just gets worse and worse. Now they’re even discouraging European *visitors*. My neighborhood here in hideous Southern California is filled with obvious illegal aliens, while the widow of a good friend of mine—she is an Estonian scholar of linguistics—recently had the dickens of a time getting a two-week visa to visit a friend in New York. She suffered through months of visits to the American embassy in Stockholm (she lives in Sweden), endless paperwork, and suspicious, uncivil behavior. This is the same system that waved in hordes of zealous maniacs from Saudi Arabia and won’t do a thing to stop the invasion from Mexico Lindo.

Is there any reason or even unreason to any of this, or is it just the thrashing of some colossal, mindless beast, responding to random stimuli?

Replying to Shrewsbury’s post of 10:47 PM:

Shrewsbury, this is exactly the 64 quadrillion-dollar question many at VFR have been grappling with at least since I discovered this site a year-and-a-half ago. None of us knows the answer to why our ruling class decided suddenly to change the U.S. population from ninety percent white to a hundred percent non-white, and our ruling class, who does know, simply prefers to keep us in the dark about their reasons — they aren’t divulging them.

Mr. Epstein, that was an extremely well-reasoned and presuasive argument presented in your post of 9:12 PM. Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it. Even if the one stating a fact has a an agenda (anti-Semitism in this case), assertions stand or fall on the empirical evidence. Also, just as aside to any of our readers who may not have had the opportunity: Mr. Epstein’s article exposing the true nature of the leftist’s icon Martin Luther King (at Lew Rockwell’s site as I recall) is a must read for anyone wanting an antidote to the endless stream of hagiographies and outright idolatries that inevitably appear - even on supposedly conservative sites - at this time of year.

My own perception about the situation regarding immigration policy and Jews is that a large majority of Jews in the US support open borders for several reasons. 1) As descendants of relatively recent immigrants themselves, they are against restrictions because they see it as a slap in the face to their own parents or grandparents; 2) As leftists, they wish to see the tradtional America, the last remaing redoubt of Western Civilization, destroyed to prepare the way for Utopia; 3) There is a deep-seated animus towards Christianity, even among Jews who maintain their identity - although it may well be the case that this group regards leftism as the essential Jewish identity or has conflated the two in a destructive way. One cannot escape the sheer ferocity of the unending war being waged against Christmas and against any public expression of Christianity whatsoever. The brazen effort in NYC Schools to ban any reference to Christmas (supposedly it was not a historical event) while simultaneously allowing Hannukah and Ramadan references (because they are historical events, according to NYC School officials) is but one example of hundreds that could be cited nationwide. One is struck how the indviduals bringing complaints about being offended by any expression of Christianity, no matter how slight, are overwhelmingly Jewish. At the same time, there’s a deafening silence coming from Abe Foxman and his ilk about the treaching of Islam in California public schools. Even when it is clearly obvious that incompaitble mass immigration would actually end up being detrimental to Jewish survival, some Jews support it nevertheless out of their sheer fanatical hatred of Christianity.

Fortunately, there are a number of conservative, devout Jews who realize that the tradional America is a place worth preserving and have issued dire warnings to their fellow Jews about the consequences of their participation in the leftist campaign to destroy her.

Mr. Epstein and Carl just don’t get it. MacDonald said the Jews of Europe deserved what Hitler did to them. If you don’t understand the significance of his saying that, then I am not going to be able to explain it to you.

As I’ve said before, I will never support or countenance anyone who excuses, rationalizes, or supports those who seek the extermination of Jews.

Am I saying that MacDonald’s anti-Semitism means that his works are necessarily worthless in their totality and shouldn’t be read and discussed? Of course not. But a private conversation is one thing, a public weblog is another. In order to keep VFR a tolerable civilized place I set certain boundaries here. One of them is against Hitler supporters. Another is against treating as legitimate objects of discussion the works of Hitler supporters.

If MacDonald fans, as is evident from their periodic postings here, are so fired up to talk about MacDonald’s theories about the Jews, they can exchange phone numbers or e-mail addresses and talk about them all they like. But they can’t do it here.

“Am I saying that MacDonald’s anti-Semitism means that his works are necessarily worthless in their totality and shouldn’t be read and discussed? Of course not.” - Lawrence Auster, January 19, 2004, 2:07 AM

Fair enough, Mr. Auster. I guess I had mis-interpreted your previous remark on MacDonald (who I am really not familiar with) as meaning that his work should not be read or discussed. I wonder how Mr. MacDonald could possibly come to such an outrageous conclusion that the mass murder of six million individuals, for no other reason than having been born Jewish, was justifiable in any way?

Here is what MacDonald said on that subject, in correspondence with me in October 2001. After he wrote this, I wrote back to him that he was justifying Hitler, and I didn’t correspond with him again.

“To the extent that it can be taken seriously, the Jewish ideology that the Holocaust created the need for Israel does not play well with me, because in IMO the treatment of Jews in Europe is at least partly the result of Jewish behavior and characteristics. Such things have dogged Jews throughout their history.”

Now today Mr. Horowitz has the top featured article, “The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation’s Security After 9/11,” for which he writes the forward.

“There are few issues so important to the life of a nation as the integrity of its borders and the nature of its citizenship… . [T]he open borders campaign was already instrumental in damaging the nation’s ability to defend itself before 9/11. Yet not even this terrible event has caused its activists to have second thoughts,” he writes.

But one of the leaders in this movement happens to be President Bush!

Horowitz is becoming more and more incredible. He supports an open-borders plan, while insisting he is an opponent of open borders. He supports Bush’s endorsement of the Grutter decision, while calling himself an opponent of affirmative action. He attempts to silence conservative opponents of the homosexual rights movement, while proudly declaring himself to be an opponent of the “radical” homosexual movement. I wrote to him a while back saying that in his contradictions on these issues, he was starting to resemble John Kerry in his contradictions on the Iraq war.

I am a little surprised by how seriously some people are taking the views of Kevin MacDonald. Those interested in the problem of Jewish radicalism and liberalism might get a better picture from Rothman and Lichter’s “Roots of Radicalism.” That said, it seems to me that the whole issue is vastly overblown. To point out that this or that group is crazy on immigration, or another subject, does not advance us very far. Insanity on immigration a feature shared by Jews, the Catholic hierarchy, and the American elite (I think that I have been inexact in calling it a WASP elite in previous comments.) To seize on the insanity of any particular group when the real problem is a shared general madness seems to me to be a foolish waste of time.