The Catholic-Jewish-Episcopalian Open-Borders Complex

After the Senate passage of S.2611, VFR reader James R. did some smart research and figured out that the vote by Catholic and Jewish senators was 30-4 in favor of the worst bill in U.S. history, with Catholics voting 19-4 for the bill, and Jews voting 11-0. Now James, drawing on a comment at Majority Rights.com, has found that the Episcopalian senators are as bad as the Catholics. Out of ten Episcopalians (seven Republicans and three Democrats), eight voted Yes.

The Catholic-Jewish-Episcopalian vote for S.2611 was thus a crushing 38-6. Subtract that from the 62-36 vote of the entire Senate and the bill would have lost by 24-30. This somewhat modifies the picture of descendants of Catholic and Jewish immigrants pushing America toward open borders, since Episcopalians are, or at least were, the heart of America’s Anglo-Saxon majority culture; and even if the Episcopal Church USA now includes many people who converted from different denominations and even many non-Anglo-Saxons, it still consists largely of people of Protestant background. Here’s the breakdown:

Yes (8)

Bayh
Chafee
Hagel
Lincoln
McCain
Nelson
Stevens
Warner

No (2)

Chambliss
Hutchison

As with the Catholic-Jewish trade-off that was discussed earlier, there are different ways of seeing the meaning of the Episcopalian vote. Remember that it initially seemed that the Jews were worse than the Catholics, since they were unanimous for the bill, while the Catholics were 19-4 for the bill; but then, from another point of view, it seemed the Catholics were worse, since the Jews were virtually all Democrats who would be expected to be for open borders anyway, while seven Catholic Republicans, along with twelve Catholic Democrats, voted for the bill. Using the latter logic, the Episcopalians are even worse than the Catholics, since of the seven Republican Episcopalians, five voted for the bill. In other words, five out of the eight Episcopalians who supported the bill were Republicans. Thus being Episcopalian is a bigger factor than being Jewish or Catholic in pushing otherwise no-leaning Republicans toward open borders.

Paul C. suggests, however, that this analysis is flawed. He writes: “Isn’t ‘Episcopalian’ usually a default ‘religious affiliation’ for agnostic and atheist politicians who seek to hide and deflect their true beliefs? I can’t imagine the likes of Bayh, Chafee, Hagel, McCain, Nelson (Florida?), and Warner believe in anything other than getting re-elected. No matter how odious, most of the Catholics appear to be motivated, in part, at least, by real religious motives, which, by the way, makes the Roman Church much more dangerous to the American nation than is the Episcopalian political club.”

Also, since I’ve mentioned MajorityRights.com, I feel obliged to warn readers that while the site has some intelligent participants, including VFR readers Mark Richardson and Fred Scrooby, it also has a contingent of serious anti-Semites, who are, apart from their sheer unpleasantness, deadeningly boring and depressing to read because their minds are so one-track. From reading them, I can give you an illustration of the way their minds work. The fact that I just criticized anti-Semites in this article shows that I’m acting in the interests of the Jews.

Well, that’s too obvious. Here’s a better example. The fact that I originally publicized the unanimous Jewish vote in the Senate in favor of S.2611 is actually proof that I’m a double agent for my tribe, acting undercover as a “converso.” It’s all part of a plot to undo the anti-Semites by first persuading them that I’m on their side and so softening them up, and then, once I’ve got them in the palm of my hand, convincing them that the Jews are something less than the total source of evil in the universe. And, of course, my attempt to convince the anti-Semites that the Jews are something less than the total source of evil in the universe is the ultimate proof of how sinister I am. I’m telling you, these guys have really got it figured out.

—end of initial entry—

Mark Richardson, who posts at MR, writes:

I just wish Guessedworker, who runs the site, would be a bit more stringent censoring the more outlandish commentators, such as Matt O’Halloran.

The site does well for a period of time, and seems quite promising, but then lurches into the most extreme of discussion threads, which I can only imagine scares away the people we need to try to win over.

O’Halloran is definitely the worst offender. It’s bizarre, but he seems to think that you are the worst threat facing Western man. His last half dozen posts seem to be efforts to discredit you, through personal insults, mischaracterisation of your politics, or claims that you are wittingly or unwittingly fulfilling a Jewish strategy to rule over gentiles.

And all the while he presents himself as a disinterested conservative with a distaste for taking sides and a live and let live philosophy.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 01, 2006 08:32 AM | Send