East End of London Invaded by Jews around 1900
Short extract, with my emphasis, from Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique first published 1998:–
Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy
APPENDIX: JEWISH PRO-IMMIGRATION EFFORTS IN OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES
...
.jpg)
In England, as in the United States, there was an ethnic battle around 1900 in response to the influx of Eastern European Jews fleeing anti-Semitism. Jewish political activity was instrumental in defeating an immigration restriction bill introduced by the Conservative government in 1904. In this case, the Anglo-Jewish political establishment represented by the Deputies took a moderate stance, presumably because of fears that further immigration of Eastern European Jews would fan the flames of anti-Semitism. However, by this time the majority of the British Jewish community consisted of recent immigrants, and the Jewish Chronicle, the principal newspaper of the {298} British Jewish community, campaigned vigorously against the bill (Cesarani 1994, 98). The anti-restrictionist forces won when Nathan Laski, president of the Manchester Old Hebrew Congregation, got Winston Churchill to oppose the bill. “Later Churchill freely admitted that, in the Grand Committee of the House of Commons, he had 'wrecked the Bill.' Led by Churchill, the Liberals, Evans-Gordon [a restrictionist Conservative MP] asserted, 'choked it [the Bill] with words until the time-limit was reached.'... A jubilant Laski wrote to Churchill: 'I have had over 20 years experience in elections in Manchester—& without flattery I tell you candidly—there has not been a single man able to arouse the interest that you have already done—thus I am sure of your future success'" (Alderman 1983, 71). In the following month Churchill won election from West Manchester, a district with a large Jewish electorate.
Alderman (p. 72) shows that restrictionist legislation was popular except among the recent immigrants who had quickly become a numerical majority of the Jewish community, and, as indicated above, were already able to have a decisive influence on immigration legislation. ....
Note that MacDonald accepts the claim that the motive for emigration was 'anti-Semitism'.
The planning of migrations into England and the USA is barely mentioned anywhere, though Hilaire Belloc stated later that it was 'planned like a military operation'. There must have been plans to settle Jewish immigrants, presumably in Jewish-controlled housing, and probably there were plans for paying rent and for sweated labour (the word 'sweater' for cheap woollens dates I think from here). MacDonald's quotations make it clear the invaders were given votes. They must have had plans for displacing local Londoners. Exactly similar policies were followed later; for example, London's rail termini had assembly points for black immigrants after 1945, where they were shepherded away by anonymous handlers. The same sort of thing happened with Muslims, later. Other introductions included barbaric ritual slaughter and a legal system of a sort which often ran contrary to British laws. (Both these groups have an official system of deceit—illustrated by Kol Nidre and Taqiyya). The British establishment then, and now, seemed unable to understand the difference between a religion, and a clan or tribal belief system, which of course appears much more compelling to its adherents. Both, absurdly, claimed superiority and a special tribal god.
Another predictable new aspect was crime. This map shows roads with high Jewish immigrant numbers in about 1900. The red dots are 'Jack the Ripper' murders and disembowellings, showing the same pattern as recent black and Muslim crime. It also shows the same inaction by the authorities.
From the same period, here's an extract from H G Wells' Anticipations (1900), an interesting attempt to predict the future effects of technology on civilisation. (Wells lectured at the Royal Institution on this matter). The following passage has often been misquoted by people anxious to keep up the 'Holocaust' myth—for example, Richard Dawkins in The God Illusion has an enormously butchered misquotation.
...
And how will the New Republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world-state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult, and it will have cast aside any coddling laws to save adult men from themselves.[52] It will tolerate no[Pg 316] dark corners where the people of the Abyss may fester, no vast diffused slums of peasant proprietors, no stagnant plague-preserves. Whatever men may come into its efficient citizenship it will let come—white, black, red, or brown; the efficiency will be the test. And the Jew also it will treat as any other man. It is said that the Jew is incurably a parasite on the apparatus of credit. If there are parasites on the apparatus of credit, that is a reason for the legislative cleaning of the apparatus of credit, but it is no reason for the special treatment of the Jew. If the Jew has a certain incurable tendency to social parasitism, and we make social parasitism impossible, we shall abolish the Jew, and if he has not, there is no need to abolish the Jew. We are much more likely to find we have abolished the Caucasian solicitor. I really do not understand the exceptional attitude people take up against the Jews. There is something very ugly about many Jewish faces, but there are Gentile faces just as coarse and gross. The Jew asserts himself in relation to his nationality with a singular tactlessness, but it is hardly for the English to blame that. Many Jews are intensely vulgar in dress and bearing, materialistic in thought, and cunning and base in method, but no more so than many Gentiles. The Jew is mentally and physically precocious, and he ages and dies sooner than the average European, but in that and in a certain disingenuousness he is simply on all fours with the short, dark Welsh. He foregathers with those of his own nation, and favours them against the stranger, but so do the Scotch. I see nothing in his curious, dispersed nationality to dread or dislike. He is a remnant and legacy of mediævalism, a sentimentalist, perhaps, but no furtive plotter against the present progress of things. He was the mediæval Liberal; his persistent existence gave the lie to Catholic pretensions all through the days of their ascendency, and to-day he gives the lie to all our yapping "nationalisms," and sketches in his dispersed sympathies the coming of the world-state. He has never been known to burke a school. Much of the Jew's usury is no more than social scavenging. The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die.... And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?
Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear. ...