PART 1

Whether the Jews comprise a religion, a nation, an ethnic group, or a race (or a combination of these) has always been central to the Jewish Question. The recently published Jews & Race — Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–1940 (edited by Mitchell B. Hart) is an anthology of Jewish writing which offers a fascinating insight into Jewish racial thinking during a period when hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory was generally accepted throughout the West. Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, Western anthropologists posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlative set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Given the consistent results from over 90 years of IQ testing of different racial groups (as defined by external traits like skin color) and other race-based life history statistics, we know this methodology, long dismissed by those within the Judeo-Marxist intellectual establishment as “pseudoscience,” to be entirely valid.

The Jewish socialist writer Chaim Zhitlowsky expressed the orthodox view in 1939 when he noted that “it is understood that each Volk is endowed with certain characteristic traits, some bodily, some mental. Such traits are transmitted hereditarily from generation to generation, and determine how in fact a people receive the phenomena of the external world and how it reacts to these phenomena. On such traits depend the particular and specific national customs or manners, insofar as the blessed children of a people, the most gifted by nature, bring forth human cultural treasures.” The study of racial differences was held by Zhitlowsky to be necessary “in order to clarify the fundamental role of biology in human progress. Here the history of culture must be considered with racial descent in thinking about the creator of culture, and it is not a superfluous or meaningless thing to take [the biological] into account.”

Advertisement

---

As Kevin MacDonald points out in The Culture of Critique, this approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. Although Boas was influential at least by the 1920s in academic departments of anthropology, in his book The Sacred Chain, the Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted how “Since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.” This new ideology represented a radical shift in Jewish thinking given that race, racial purity, and the reality of ethnic interests lie at the heart of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Cantor acknowledged the racial basis of Judaism:

Racism is itself a central doctrine in traditional Judaism and Jewish cultural history. The Hebrew Bible is blatantly racist, with all the talk about the seed of Abraham, the chosen people, and Israel as a light to the other nations. Orthodox Jews in their morning prayers still thank God daily that he did not make Jews ‘like the other peoples of the earth.’ If this isn’t racism, what is? That highly regarded medieval book, Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, is blatantly racist. Halevi will not even allow that a convert to Judaism is the equal of a natural-born Jew. Martin Buber, the much-praised theologian and mystic, was still talking in the early 1920s about the distinctiveness of Jewish ‘blood’. Early Zionism was greatly affected by a positive view of racism. Herzl was inclined that way, and his close associate Max Nordau, for two decades a prominent Zionist leader in Europe, was the author of a classic of racist theory, Degeneration.

From about 1830 to 1900 Jews in Western Europe, especially in Britain, benefited rather than suffered from racist attitudes. Jews of Sephardi origin, if they were affluent, were regarded in aristocratic circles as esoteric creatures possessing superior bloodlines, and intermarriage with a converted Jew was entirely permissible in the best social and political circles. The behaviour of the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is an example of this attitude. Far from trying to play down his Jewish ethnicity, Disraeli, the shrewdest of politicians emphasized it by turning up in Parliament in a hairdo and clothes that fit the racial stereotype of a Mediterranean Jew.

According to Cantor, Darwinian race theory only lost Jewish support when Jews felt threatened by the emergence of a variant “of hierarchic Social Darwinism, which had wide acceptance as a legitimate sociology between 1880 and 1920. Darwin’s population biology was regarded in the late nineteenth century as scientifically verifiable. … It was popular in Britain as sustaining [what Cantor regards as] the myth of the white man’s burdensome privilege of ruling over the coloured races” The key rationale for the emergence of Boasian anthropology as a Jewish intellectual movement was the fact that: “In the 1890s Social Darwinists, including some in universities, began to turn out hierarchic tables in which Jews were placed near the bottom of the list of races, just above blacks.” Cantor notes that “If universalist multiculturalist equality rather than Social Darwinism had been fashionable,” then this “polemic against the Jews would not have been possible, of course.”

Norman Cantor

It is hardly surprising in this intellectual milieu that Jews would resort to embracing “a cultural pluralism that removed the claim for the superiority of one culture over another” and which protected Jews from anti-Jewish claims that Jews were an inferior race. Jewish support among for Boasian anthropology — an explicitly antiracist “science” — grew as the expanding and prosperous Jewish communities in the West “suffered a severe check in the 1920s and 1930s from anti-Semitic discrimination and the closing of opportunity, particularly with regard to open access to the learned professions.” With this and the rise of the National Socialists in Germany, it became clear that White ethnocentrism and group cohesion was bolstered by hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory, and that this was antithetic to Jewish ethnic interests. The overthrow of this theory (and the resultant diminution of white ethnocentrism and group cohesion) was, as Kevin MacDonald points out, an ethno-political campaign that had nothing to do with real science. The “shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences” resulted from “an ideological shift rather than the emergence of any new empirical data” (CofC, p. 21).

Franz Boas

The Boasian revolution in anthropology represented such a dramatic departure from preceding Jewish thinking about race, that an examination of Jewish racial writing from 1880 to 1940 forces us, notes Hart, “to reorient the way we think about the normative narrative of the Jewish past” according to which historians have “told the story of the relationship between Jews and race largely within the framework of victimhood,” whereby “racial science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was one of the chief weapons used against Jews.” The abandonment of Darwinian race theory by Jewish anthropologists from the 1920s and 1930s necessitated that they obscure the inherently racial nature of Judaism, in order to forestall charges of hypocrisy. Yet Hart admits that race is still “one of the building blocks of contemporary Jewish identity construction” and that “biological and genetic arguments possess a power for many Jews as they seek to explain to themselves and others just what it is that constitutes Jewishness.” He acknowledges that “even though such thinking may have been submerged or made invisible for fifty years, many Jews still “think with blood” about Jewish belonging. He cites Susan Glenn who noted how “Throughout all the de-racializing stages of twentieth century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.”

With the steady accumulation of population genetic studies demonstrating just how threadbare the Boasian assumptions really are (Boas was known for his antipathy to genetics), Hart is forced, despite his leftist politics, to concede that “race” is a meaningful concept after all:

The assertion that the Jews are not a race would appear at present to be fairly unproblematic, at least if we look at science as our guide to such matters. Since many biologists have told us that races in general do not exist in any “real” or natural way — that they are, rather, a cultural or social construct — then it seems patently absurd to consider the Jews a race. As Steven Kaplan has asked, if there are no races how can Jews be a race? Yet, it turns out that things are not that simple. Science, it seems, has not made up its mind on the issue of race. Some researchers in genetics now insist, as the philosopher Ian Hacking has written, “that stereotypical features of race are associated with ancestral geographic origin and, to some extent, with genetic markers.” In other words, “race” might not be just a social construct after all, though it certainly is that. Race no longer exists in the older version of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but modern genetic research may be in the process of redefining notions of identity that reanimate the “racial.”

Implicit here is an admission that the vast post-WWII literature spawned by the Boasians denying the reality of race — which has profoundly influenced Western politics and culture — is based on a series of false assumptions that are increasingly hard to sustain in the face of population genetic research confirming the reality of race and racial differences. Likewise, the idea that Judaism is not a group evolutionary strategy (implicit in claims Judaism is just a religion) cannot be credibly sustained in the light of studies like that of Atzmon et al. (2010) which confirm that Jews are a distinct genetic community. This study examined genetic markers spread across the entire genome, and showed that the Jewish groups (Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi) share large swaths of DNA, indicating close genetic relationships. Although each Jewish group in the study (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek and Ashkenazi) had its own genetic signature, each was more closely related to the other Jewish groups than to their non-Jewish countrymen. Atzmon and colleagues found that the SNP markers in genetic segments of 3 million DNA letters or longer were 10 times more likely to be identical among Jews than non-Jews, and that any two Ashkenazi Jewish participants in the study shared about as much DNA as fourth or fifth cousins.

Of course, Judaism could still be a group evolutionary strategy even if Jews were not a genetically separate group, providing that Jews believed that they were and behaved accordingly — which is exactly what they did believe and behave like for millennia before recent population genetic studies confirmed what they had always assumed. Hart includes an essay by the Zionist writer Robert Weltsch who neatly summed up this longstanding hyper-ethnocentric Jewish mentality when he noted in 1913 that: “When it comes to the unity of the Jews, there is one irrefutable proof: the consciousness of this unity, which is an inner experience that every individual Jew possesses.”

ETHNIC STRATEGIZING IN PRE-BOASIAN JEWISH WRITINGS

Hart, who is professor of Jewish History at the University of Florida, concedes that Jewish texts dealing with race have always been “unavoidably political,” and notes that “racial narratives written and disseminated by Jews about Jews [during the 1880–1940 period] were intended in part as a direct polemical response to anti-Semites. Jewish racial thinkers believed that they could use racial science as an intellectual weapon against their enemies.” This tendency is clearly evident in a review by writer and Zionist activist Moritz Goldstein’s of Ignaz Zollschan’s book The Racial Problem, with Particular Attention Paid to the Theoretical Foundations of the Jewish Racial Question (1909), where Goldstein was less concerned with the validity of Zollschan’s arguments than with their potential for providing a “scientific justification of all that we, as modern Jews, believe and must believe if we wish to retain our self-esteem in the face of those who despise us, and if we are supposed to have trust in the future of our Volk.” Goldstein admired how “This author [Zollschan] permits himself no emotional expressions, no mysticism, and no hypotheticals,” and yet he could “sense a passionate temperament and an enthusiastic partiality pulsating beneath that cool façade.” Goldstein aptly defined the Jewish culture of critique in his review, pointing out that: “What would be essential here [in utilizing Zollschan’s ideas] would be to reply to those value judgments that are so hostile to us with our own counter judgments.”

Indeed, in reading the essays and articles that make up this volume, one is struck by the continuity between the pre- and post-Boasian Jewish discourses on race in the way that Jewish ethnic politics is embedded into purportedly “academic” writing. We find early versions of arguments that have become ubiquitous in the post-WWII anti-White cultural and political context. For example, we find the proposition that the Western nation state is, of moral necessity, based solely on a set of abstract ideas (democracy, legal equality etc.) and not on racial or ethnic kinship. For instance, in his article entitled Reflections on the Jews (1891), the French-Jewish rabbi and scholar Isidore Loeb declared that “it is certain that race does not enter into the idea of a nation as an indispensable factor.” Instead, he insisted that “all scholars agree that the unity of a nation is not founded on the unity of race,” but rather on “a group of people united by the same allegiances, the same historical memories, the same aspirations for the future, attaching all these feelings to a common homeland, real if not ideal, and having a defined political existence.” Anticipating the neoconservatives, with their cynical invocation of the kind of moral universalistic arguments they know appeal to White people, Loeb maintained that

it is absolutely impossible to find any reason to justify exceptional laws for a group of people, in particular, for the Jews. The principle of human brotherhood, of equal rights for all men, is the foundation of every modern state. Outside this principle, there can only be arbitrariness and injustice, and a state that is not founded on justice cannot even be conceived of.

Presumably, the modern ethno-nationalist state of Israel would have been inconceivable to Loeb — though I strongly doubt it. Also prominent in pre-Boasian Jewish writing on race are attempts to depict the different European ethnic groups as being already so intermixed as to render the distinctive European ethnic identifications virtually meaningless. This argument was ostensibly deployed to suggest that efforts to exclude Jews as racial/ethnic outsiders, with incompatible group interests, are somehow senseless given that the various European nations have no cohesive racial/ethnic basis to begin with. Why, then, should the various European ethnic groups care if an alien people, like the Jews, live within their borders and add another ethnic element to the existing mix? In an early call for multiculturalism, Loeb in his Reflections on the Jews (1893) argued that European nation states, which “are formed of an amalgam of diverse races,” had a moral obligation to accept Jews and other non-assimilating groups:

Between a French or German Jew and a French or German Christian there is assuredly less of a difference, if there is one at all, than between a Frenchman and a German, a German and a Slav. But even if this difference were more obvious, there would be no reason to drive Jews out of a country and to refuse them civil and political rights. Every nation is composed of different races, and therein the Jewish race can find a legitimate place.

A classic example of the widespread pattern of Jews espousing patently insincere and ethno-politically motivated views for greater benefit of the Jews was the infamous testimony of the American Jewish Committee and Union of American Hebrew Congregations before the United States Immigration Committee in 1910. Here the judge and cofounder of the American Jewish Committee, Julian Mack, together with the lawyer and Jewish community leader, Simon Wolf, asserted under oath that there is no such thing as “Jewish race,” and that the practice of classifying Jews as a race on US immigration forms should therefore cease. The patent mendacity of this testimony embarrassed some Jews at the time, including the American Zionist newspaper The Maccabaean, which condemned Mack and Wolf in an editorial for having

attempted to have their interpretation of the facts of Jewish history fastened upon the entire Jewish citizenship of this country not for personal reasons, but in order to retard the growing anti-Jewish feeling which, they declare, will result in immigration restriction should the American people become aware of the number of Jews who come to this country. Though their motives are prompted by interest in the welfare of the Jewish people, we cannot permit them to utilize arguments, and to misinterpret facts, in a manner to bring the Jewish people of this country into contempt with the legislators who are now considering the immigration situation. Without entering into the merits of [the] argument, which was advanced by them not as matters of conviction, but primarily as matters of policy, we desire to dissociate ourselves from their point of view, from their logic, and from their policy. … We believe that if anything could stimulate prejudice against the Jews it would be the shifting, unmanly, and undignified pretense of representatives of a people who, against fact and history, and against their own private convictions, disown their racial and national birthright.  …

By asserting boldly a theory that there is no Jewish race, but only a conglomeration of people professing the Jewish religion, Judge Mack and Mr. Wolf, and the organizations they represented, uttered a statement, which, if true, would exclude from among our ranks many who are devoted to the ranks of the Jewish people but who are not religionists in the accepted meaning of the term. We believe we speak in the name of the entire Jewish people when we say the Jewish people, native born and naturalized in this country, are not ashamed to have themselves or their brethren classified as racial Jews.

It was this kind of shameless ethno-political expediency from Jews like Mack and Wolf which prompted Madison Grant to characterize Jewish immigrants to the United States as “ruthlessly self-interested whereas American Nordics were committing racial suicide and allowing themselves to be ‘elbowed out’ of their own land.”

PRE-BOASIAN JEWISH WRITING ON “THE JEWISH RACE”

The results of recent population genetic studies like that by Atzmon et al. mentioned above essentially confirm the views of the majority of Jewish writers represented in Jews and Race. Hart notes how “questions about Jewish racial purity and mixing constitute a crucial component of many — perhaps most — of the texts in this volume.” For instance, in a 1907 article entitled The Jewish Racial Question, the physician, writer and Zionist Elias Auerbach observed that:

The Jewish race is very homogeneous around the world. It is not uniform, as no civilized race (Kulturrasse) is, but its variations do not differ fundamentally from one country to another. A different fate, a distinct environment, did not result in the blurring of a common and wholly durable type, and indeed the Jews can demonstrate more clearly than any other race how overwhelming an influence heredity has, when compared to assimilation, in the matter of a race’s fate.

The Austrian-Jewish anthropologist and physician Ignaz Zollschan, was equally convinced that the Jews had mostly retained their racial homogeneity in the Diaspora:

The Jewish nation has propagated itself in an essentially pure manner from the time of Ezra until today, and for more than two thousand years represents an ethnically peculiar race, which was not diluted by foreign blood. It is self-evident that a few drops of foreign blood must have found their way among the Jews during the long time in the Diaspora. But these admixtures were too insignificant to have any essential influence upon the ethnic character of the nation. Thus the Cohanim, who were absolutely excluded from mixed marriages, are typically the same as the other Jews. The state of affairs can best be described in one sentence: a great deal of blood was exported from Jewry, but little indeed was imported from outside. And, consequently, we can assume with certainty, that the blood that flows today in the veins of the Jews is the same as that of two thousand years ago.

The onetime Director of the Bureau of Jewish Statistics in Berlin, Arthur Ruppin, agreed with this assessment, noting that “An English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese Jew is still a Jew based on features, regardless of the nuances he presents: that is to say that they have all the same characteristics of shape and proportion — in a word, that which essentially constitutes a type.” Highlighting the fundamental nature of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, he also made the obvious point that “Among all other Völker, religion and race have very little to do with one another; whereas, among the Jews, religion is a certain indicator of racial affiliation.”

Arthur Ruppin

Ruppin traced the Jews’ racial homogeneity back to Judaism’s historical roots when “In Palestine itself, Ezra placed particular importance on keeping the pure families clear from intermixture with foreign elements, and made sure that foreign Volk elements would be purged. Therefore at the time of the Second Temple’s destruction the Jews in Palestine were racially constituted more or less as they had been at the time of the destruction of the First Temple.” Elias Auerbach likewise made the point that “throughout all the historical books of the Bible and the numerous speeches of the prophets, there occurs a constant repetition of the warning against mixing with neighboring peoples.” Given this constant repetition, Auerbach is compelled to make

the point vigorously that in general, over the course of the entire racial history of the Jews, the most rigorous opposition to racial mixing does not stem from other peoples but from the Jews themselves… It is only by knowing and taking into consideration this tendency that we are able to make anthropological use of the historical facts, for it is this tendency alone that allowed the Jews to remain unscathed [unaffected] by their long wanderings in exile, the enormity and length of which would have long since brought other races to the point of dissolution. The active reserve displayed by the Jews is, notably, taken to such lengths that it is forbidden for them to proselytize, because religious equality [between Jews as a race and other races] would do away with the most powerful barrier against physical intermixing… With the sort of racial pride that the Jewish nation, on the basis of all our sources, evinces to a high degree, we should hardly wonder that measures against the influx of foreign types into the race were put in place.”

Alfred Nossig, a Polish-Jewish writer and social scientist active in Zionist politics, posited in an article entitled The Chosenness of the Jewish in the Light of Biology (1905) that the idea of divine “chosenness” was the single greatest intellectual innovation of the early Hebrews because, though this, they hit on the key to the long-term survival of the Jewish people. The natural corollary of ‘chosenness’ was ‘endogamy’ which became the lynchpin of Judaism as a highly effective group evolutionary strategy. For Nossig, that the ancient Hebrews could devise such a brilliant idea is testament to the genius of his ancient forebears, noting: “Just like the idea of God as the highest abstraction of being, this idea [of chosenness], too, is obviously nothing more than the product of Jewish intellectual and moral ability, a result of the mental efforts of the Jewish Volk – and this despite the fact that the Bible presents it as divine revelation.”

The result of this intellectual achievement was that Jewry became “…intoxicated by the idea of its own chosenness” and the first and most striking result of this idea was “the fact of the continuing survival of the Jews, and their exceptional vitality and reproductive power. The Mosaic concept of an ‘eternal people’ appears to have been realized. This alone already demonstrates that the chosenness of the Jews is something other and deeper than the ordinary racial pride that could not prevent the decline of other, far more powerful peoples. It brought about the eternal existence of the Jewish Volk through the biological effects of its intellectual ideals and its moral law.” The German anthropologist and ethnologist Curt Michaelis dismissed Nossig’s claims, arguing that the idea of “chosenness” stemmed exclusively “from the racial pride of the Jews,” and, assessing the problems this presented for non-Jews, observed that “Emboldened by this concept, the racial pride of the Jews becomes biogenetically fatal. It brought about isolationism, strict laws of endogamy, and contempt, cruelty, and hate for all other peoples.”

Go to PART 2. 

Essays cited in this review from Mitchell Hart’s (Ed.)  Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–-1940 (Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts, 2011).

Auerbach, E. (1907) ‘The Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 207-218.

Goldstein, M. (1913) ‘The Jewish Racial Problem,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 317-322.

Loeb, I. (1893) ‘Reflections on the Jews,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 49-59.

Nossig, A. (1905) ‘The Chosenness of the Jews in the Light of Biology,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 259-267.

Ruppin, A. (1908) ‘The Mixed Marriage,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 219-223.

Ruppin, A. (1930) ‘On the Origins and Race of the Jews,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 71-80.

Unsigned editorial from The Maccabaean (1910) ‘”There Is No Jewish Race!” The Testimony of the American Jewish Committee  and Union of American Hebrew Congregations before the United States Immigration Committee,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 285-296.

Weltsch, R. (1913) ‘Concerning Racial Theory,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 311-316.

Zhitlowsky, C. (1939) ‘Jews and Jewishness,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 323-330.

Zollschan, I. (1914) ‘The Significance of the Mixed Marriage,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 226-237.

PRE-BOASIAN JEWISH DISCOURSE ON INTERMARRIAGE

The Zionist Elias Auerbach viewed Jewish intermarriage as not necessarily a problem providing the endogamous Jewish racial core population remained unpolluted by the taint of non-Jewish blood. The offspring of mixed marriages (Mischlinges) are, he noted, overwhelmingly lost to the Jewish community — leaving the “sacred chain” of Jewish heredity within that community intact. As Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People that Shall Dwell Alone, this had the eugenic effect of selecting for high levels of ethnocentricity among the remnant Jewish community. Those with low levels of ethnocentricity (manifested in a propensity for intermarriage) were lost to the Jewish community — leaving a hyper-ethnocentric endogamous core behind. Accordingly, Auerbach writes that:

In Germany at present [1903], the rate of Jewish intermarriage is approximately one sixth of pure (rein) Jewish marriages. This number is so large that one would be forced to derive from it a total and imminent dissolution of German Jewry. A genuine intermixture, however, has only really taken place when the offspring of this intermarriage then introduce this foreign blood into the Jewish Volk. Now the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of these offspring of mixed marriages (Mischlinge) withdraw from Jewry both religiously and nationally, shutting themselves off thereby from any union through marriage with the Jewish nation (Stamme der Juden); thus, they remove themselves from the equation, for the most part, when it comes to [our analysis of] racial mixture. The Jewish human material (Menschenmaterial) that we are analyzing from an anthropological viewpoint and that is the foundation of the Jewish race in the progressive movement of history will consequently have altered very little and remains a homogeneous mass; they [the Jews] seldom lose elements to another people through dissolution. A careful and scrupulous authority on this issue, the statistician Arthur Ruppin, estimates the number of offspring of mixed marriages who remain within Jewry to be only 10 percent of all offspring produced by the mixture of Jews and non-Jews in Germany. As to actual mixing of blood, we would thus have to figure that at only 1/60 of the racial stock of German Jews. However, even this small, though nevertheless not infinitesimal, number is valid only for Germany and for a few other countries, in which altogether a very small percentage of the Jewish people (Stamm) live.

If one goes back just a few decades, the number of Jewish intermarriages declines precipitously in relation to the Jewish population overall. In Prussia the number of mixed marriage declines by half, if one goes back twenty years; for the Jewish population in general this occurs only when one goes back sixty years. Before this period, around the turn of the nineteenth century, the intermixing of the Jews [with other peoples] in Europe dwindles almost to the vanishing point. For the entirety of the Middle Ages — and for Jewish racial history, the term “Middle Ages” is valid up until the French Revolution — the number of intermarriages was so minute as to be negligible, the more so as barely any offspring of such marriages mingled their blood with that of Jews. The law of racial isolation of the Jews from the peoples around them in Europe held true for the entire Middle Ages. [Italics in the original] [i] 

Elias Auerbach

Advertisement

---

Fishberg was sympathetic to the view of the Zionists who believed that only in their own home, in Palestine, would Jews “be in a position to save the remnants of Israel.”[v] He notes that

to the Zionists, the Jews are a distinct non-European race which has preserved itself in its original purity in spite of the Jews’ wanderings all over the globe. They [the Zionists] hold that the Jews can never merge with the European races and are bound to remain distinct from their Christian and Mohammedan neighbors. The Jewish problem can therefore not be solved by emancipation, as is evident in Western Europe, where they still have troubles after one hundred years of freedom and political equality. Nor will emigration solve the problem of the Jews in countries where they suffer from political oppression. “Like the previous migration of Jews, it has produced fresh trouble,” says the Zionists in an “Official Statement to the Christian World [1907].” “These large numbers of poor Jews, are, at best, not welcome in the places to which they migrate. Their immigration is not that merely of an alien people who, whatever temporary inconvenience may be caused by their arrival, will soon merge in the general population of their new home. The immigration of Jews is different. They form or augment a body differentiated from the general population.” They object to assimilation. “With whom is the Jew of Eastern Europe to assimilate if he is to assimilate at all? Clearly not with the Russian muzhik or the Galician or Polish peasant. But this is a proposal that a superior race shall be absorbed by a greatly inferior, a stronger by a weaker, a sober by a particularly unsober one, and is altogether contrary to the course of race absorption. The Jew has no mean opinion of the status of his race in the world. Purer than most, it is one of the oldest; its preservation is part, a great part, of his religious belief. He does not readily yield to it even to advance civilization.[vi]

Nevertheless, Fishberg realized that the very existence of Zionism effectively confirmed the view of those who saw the Jews and an alien and hostile presence in Europe. This alien and hostile presence created a “Jewish problem” that directly gave rise to the “Jewish question” of how the Jewish problem should be solved. He writes:

On the one hand we have those Jews who take great pride in the purity of their breed, and, on the other, the people among whom they live who see a peculiar peril in the prospect of indefinitely harboring an alien race which is not likely to mix with the general population. This apprehension is confirmed by the Jewish nationalists, who look for repatriation to Palestine, or some other territory, thus corroborating the opinion that they are aliens in Europe, encamped for the time being, and waiting for an opportunity to retreat to their natural home in Asia.[vii]

PRE-BOASIAN JEWISH DISCOURSE ON RACE MIXING AND EUGENICS

Agreeing with most European anthropologists of the time, the Austrian-Jewish anthropologist and physician Ignaz Zollschan believed that race mixing was a bad idea which would inevitably lead to the degeneration of the superior racial party to the admixture. He cited historical examples to bolster his position, noting how 

the observations made in countries which have a population of half-breeds have pointed to the unfavorable effect of crossing. … We also know very well the wretched conditions of Central and South America, which are inhabited by half-breeds whose cultural stagnation stands in striking contrast to the rapid and ambitious development of the United States and Canada. It is certain that the conditions in Central and South America must, to some extent, be considered as a result of race crossing. It is true also in North America [that] the population arose from a blending of various nationalities. But here it was chiefly Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Dutchmen, and Germans; that is to say, nations that were closely related to one another, who were amalgamated; whereas in South America it was Spaniards, Indians, Negroes, and Mongolians who formed affinities. Colonization in newly discovered countries has always succeeded in those places where, like in North America, the conquering nations have avoided crossing [with the indigenous peoples]. In Brazil, on the other hand, there rules an indescribable mixed type whose bodily, intellectual, and moral energy is exceedingly enfeebled. The natives of South Africa have a proverb: ‘God created the white man, God created the black man, but the devil created the mulatto.’[viii]

Based on these and many other examples, Zollschan concludes that “all investigations thus point to the ennobling influences of racial purity, and the destructive effects of racial chaos.”[ix] He was also eager to point out that “We have proved by our investigations that the Jews have racial purity, and that an extraordinarily high racial value falls to their share.”[x] Accordingly, Jewish intermarriage, as well as being the negation of the essence of Judaism, is likely to diminish the high racial value that he ascribed to the Jews. Alfred Nossig shared this view and noted that

numerous generations of thinkers and communal leaders have bred [gezüchtet] a [Jewish] Volk characterized by pure blood, not poisoned by venereal disease or alcohol; a Volk that has a marked sense of family, a deeply rooted habituation to the virtuous life, an unusual intellectual dexterity, and an ideal spirituality. Therefore, it was self-evidently necessary to establish strict guidelines to protect these foremost ethical treasures from annihilation through intermixture with less carefully bred races. The prohibition on intermarriage ensured that the primary component in racial formation, heredity, could operate at the height of its potential and power; not only did the positive qualities referred to above get passed on undiminished from generation to generation, but — thanks to endogamy, or inbreeding — they were constantly increased. That is what it took for the Volk that Ibsen called “the nobility of mankind” to emerge.[xi]

On the other hand, Jewish race-mixing reverses, and ultimately extinguishes, the genetic fruits of centuries of eugenic practices that have forged the supposedly superior qualities of the Jewish people. In an article entitled Successes of the Jews in Capitalistic Enterprise, Arthur Ruppin (1913) maintained that the anti-Semitic environment of medieval Europe created selection pressures that honed the “formidable” intellectual resources of the Jews. He insisted that “the continual persecutions and restrictions acted as a sort of natural selection by which the less cunning and resourceful Jews were removed, and only the very cleverest – those who could extricate themselves from the greatest difficulties – were able to survive.”[xii] Ruppin compares the Diaspora Jew favorably with the typical German Christian:

In the struggle for life, besides intellectual gifts, the industry, versatility, and powers of adaptation of the Jew stand him in good stead. The Jew does not despair if one of his enterprises fails; he begins straight away with another. If he should be altogether unsuccessful in one calling, he is ready at once to take up another. In this he is totally unlike the German Christian, for example, who is slow to change his vocation, but similar to the North American, who also changes his profession without the slightest hesitation. The adaptability of the Jew is shown also in another direction; he changes his manner of living according to circumstances, without in the least being upset by the change. Thus he can exist on less than the European Christian, and yet not be satisfied with the best that money can buy. This is due to the fact that the Jew, unlike, let us say, the German peasant, has no fixed standard of life; he is always in a state of uncertain equilibrium, always pushing forward, never satisfied, whereas the Christian is usually content when he has arrived at the standard of his class.[xiii]

Alfred Nossig was another Jewish intellectual who underscored the positive eugenic effects that he thought Jewish survival in the European Diaspora inevitably entailed, whereby

the struggle for perpetual existence, which was a commandment for chosenness as well, engendered a selective breeding that is almost unequalled in human history. In the struggle for existence of the [Jewish] nation — convulsed as it has been to its core by fire and sword, by the severest economic and moral pressures, and by the constant allurement of desertion — only those individuals who were intellectually and spiritually the strongest and physically fittest survived and reproduced; those who, to the greatest degree, did not place the existence of the Jewish people in danger, but who possessed the art or skill of adaptation. And thus, up until today, the Jewish Volk is taken to be the most skilled at adaptation.[xiv]

An editorial in the Zionist newspaper Die Welt in 1912 entitled On the Jewish Racial Question likewise propagated the notion that advantageous Jewish racial traits were the fruits of the Jewish struggle for survival in the Diaspora, pointing out that “such [Jewish racial] traits are to be explained by the centuries-long difficult struggle for existence, together with the intimate cohesion of their original or primary living space. The Diaspora, in contrast, stimulated their mental agility and the other acknowledged Jewish traits.”[xv] Counterbalancing this allegedly superior intellect of the Jews, the neurologist Abraham Myerson noted their relatively higher susceptibility for neurosis and various other psychopathological conditions. For Myerson this tendency was likely the unfortunate, but unavoidable, flipside of “Jewish genius.” He writes:

It is idle, of course, to deny that the Jew has an innate character, different from that of other races, which perhaps predisposes him to psychoneuroses and other mental diseases. Unquestionably deeply emotional, clinging to belief and opinion with a capacity unparalleled in the history of the world, extremely active mentally, and in point of intellectual achievement to be compared only with the great races of the world, he is curiously passive in his resistance and curiously indomitable in his hold on life and success. Accused of materialism and yet furnishing proportionately more social reformers than any other race; accused of materialism and yet responsible for the two most ethical religions in the world; said to be dominated by love of gain, but the birthplace of the ethics that govern his accusers, the Western peoples; a race of contradictions, inconsistencies, strongly individualistic and extraordinary social, it may well be that such a soil would produce great failure as well as great success, psychoneurosis as well as genius.[xvi]

Abraham Myerson

For Myerson it was this Jewish intellectual superiority, rather than their ingroup-oriented morality and behavior, which was the primary cause of European anti-Semitism, insisting that “with the downfall of the Roman Empire the Jews and Arabs alone kept the torch of culture and science lit. In other words, the Jew was easily superior in these matters [science and culture] to his uncouth warrior-like hosts. This superiority brought about a jealousy, fear of the ability of the Jew; a fear that has never been stilled, though the culture of the Western races has reached a very high plane; a fear that yet actuates most of the hostile feelings of neighboring races.”[xvii] Ignaz Zollschan argued that Jewish endogamy benefited the whole world by preserving the superior Jewish racial traits he held to be an asset for all mankind:

Now let us … accept provisionally the hypothesis of Jewish racial superiority. From this fact, and from the additional consideration that, generally, it would have to be the common pursuit of all to reach the highest possible level of culture for the sake of the totality of human civilization, it would follow that it would be deemed that it would be deemed valuable to retain the integrity of the [Jewish] race.[xviii]

On the other hand, Zollschan, who was active in Zionist politics, readily acknowledged the existence of the “racial question” which, he believed, consisted of the way “the racial factor is significant for historical and cultural development.”[xix] He regarded “the Jewish racial problem, as that in which the Jewish Question culminates,” and as being inseparable from the “vast problem of race in general.”[xx] The Jewish Question was, for Zollschan, ultimately “a question of the principle of ‘inheritance,’ of ‘immutability’ of ‘specific racial traits.’”[xxi] He writes that

when it comes to the racial politics within Europe, we are dealing in essence with a struggle of Germans versus Romanen [that is French, Italians and Spanish] as well as the struggle of Germans against Slavs, and the struggle of all the above against Jews. This latter opposition, between Aryans and non-Aryans, manifests itself in the sphere of European foreign affairs as a political opposition against the “black” and “yellow” dangers outside [of the continent]. For Europe the classic representatives of the Aryan and non-Aryan indeed are the Teutons and the Jews.[xxii]

Zollschan posited that “insofar as one cannot escape from the general interest taken in the Jewish Question, the issue ought to be considered by posing the following questions:

1. Are the Jews economically and culturally harmful, insignificant, or useful to the countries in which they reside?
2. Is there a homogeneous Jewish race, and, if so, does it possess distinct traits that determine its historical trajectory for all eternity?”[xxiii]

A century on, these questions remain as pertinent as ever. One Jewish trait which the essays and articles in Jews and Race consistently evince is hyper-ethnocentrism, as reflected in the tendency for Jewish intellectual activity to become enmeshed with Jewish ethno-political activism. This trait continues to distort Jewish contributions to the social sciences. Another conspicuous trait is hypocrisy. One increasingly prominent example with this trait is how, with population genetic studies confirming that Jews comprise a distinct genetic community, Jewish intellectuals and activists have engaged in a double game where racialist thinking is tacitly permitted as a means of enhancing Jewish group cohesion, while White people who invoke the same racialist arguments continue to be pathologized. As Kevin MacDonald points out: “Jews will continue to attempt to have their cake and eat it too on the issue of concern for genetic continuity as they have on all the other issues related to multiculturalism and Israel: Support for massive non-White immigration and opposition to White identity and interests in America and other Western societies while supporting an ethnonationalist, apartheid state in Israel and taking steps to ensure Jewish genetic continuity in the Diaspora.”

In response to the de-racializing anti-White ideologies which currently hold White people in a racial death grip, we need to find new ways to invoke “blood logic” as a way of defining and maintaining White group identity. Recent population genetic and human biodiversity studies have good potential, properly used, to rekindle the racial feeling of our people and thereby foster White ethnocentrism and group cohesion. If White Nationalism is to ultimately succeed in any meaningful way, we must reclaim the elevated racial self-conception and pride that was normative for White people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Of course, breaking the Judeo-Marxist media monopoly will be an essential prerequisite to this achievement.

REFERENCES

Auerbach, E. (1907) ‘The Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 207-218.

Fishberg, M. (1911) ‘Assimilation versus Zionism: Except from Jews, Race and Environment,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 297-302.

Fishberg, M. (1911) ‘Preface from Jews, Race and Environment,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 60-64.

Fishberg, M. (1913) ‘Intermarriage between Jews and Christians,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 237-241.

Meyerson, A. (1920) ‘The “Nervousness” of the Jew,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 175-183.

Nossig, A. (1905) ‘The Chosenness of the Jews in the Light of Biology,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 259-267.

Ruppin, A. (1913) ‘Successes of the Jews in Capitalistic Enterprise,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. pp. 201-204.

Unsigned editorial from Die Welt (1912) ‘On the Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 306-310.

Unsigned editorial from Die Welt (1912) ‘The Racial Identity of the Jews,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 303-306.

Zollschan, I. (1909) ‘Foreword and Introduction from The Racial Problem, with Particular Attention Paid to the Theoretical Foundations of the Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 255-285.

Zollschan, I. (1914) ‘The Significance of the Mixed Marriage,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 226-237.

PART 1

In the 2010 feature-length documentary Wagner and Me the British celebrity Stephen Fry explored his love affair with the music of Richard Wagner. Fry, who is Jewish, homosexual, and bipolar, enjoys a multi-pronged “victim” status that has made his identity politics credentials the aesthetic equivalent of a nuclear warhead. The inevitable consequence of this (and his Leftist politics) is his constant presence in the British media. Indeed, Stephen Fry is possibly the most overrated and overexposed individual in the history of British entertainment, and has benefited enormously from the intellectual elite’s construction of Jewish genius to the point where he is routinely hailed in sections of this fawning media as a “genius” and a “national treasure.”

As well as providing another celebrity vehicle for the overrated Stephen Fry, Wagner and Me offered another platform for exploring the life, work and thinking of one of the world’s most famous “anti-Semites.” While acknowledging Wagner’s undoubted genius, Fry reminds us in portentous tones that “a shadow falls across the sublime music. It’s not only the fact that it was later appropriated by Hitler which makes some people think of Wagner’s art as tainted. It’s also because Wagner himself was outspokenly anti-Semitic.”

Advertisement

---

Wagner and Me is just one in a long line of books and documentaries that have explored Wagner’s putative role as the spiritual and intellectual godfather to Hitler. In the Jewish-dominated cultural milieu of the contemporary West this meme has taken on such a life that Wagner’s name is seldom mentioned today without the obligatory disclaimer that, while admittedly (and unfortunately) a musical genius, his reputation is forever sullied by his standing as a morally loathsome anti-Semite. A consequence of this, notes William Berger, is that for many people, Wagner “has become symbolic of everything evil in the world.”

Richard Wagner was a one-man artistic and intellectual movement whose shadow fell across all of his contemporaries and most of his successors. Other composers had influence; Wagner had a way of thinking named after him. Indeed, a significant biographical feature of most of the composers that followed Wagner was how they grappled with his legacy. Some imitated him, some rejected him, and some (like Hugo Wolf) were almost paralysed by the immensity of his achievement. Wagner was a deeply polarizing figure in his lifetime, and no other composer has provoked such extreme antipathy or adulation. Yet even the anti-Wagnerites had to acknowledge the enormity of his achievement, and his most fanatical detractors (a great many of them Jewish) have reluctantly agreed with Tchaikovsky, who wrote of the Ring: “Whatever one might think of Wagner’s titanic work, no one can deny the monumental nature of the task he set himself, and which he has fulfilled; nor the heroic inner strength needed to complete the task. It was truly one of the greatest artistic endeavors which the human mind has ever conceived.”

As we approach next year’s bicentenary of Wagner’s birth, and the 130th anniversary of his death, the composer retains a cultural prominence that surpasses any of his contemporaries. The excellence of his music has ensured that its popularity has never waned, and Wagner is still well represented on recordings, on radio, and in the theater. Wealthy Wagner devotees travel the world in pursuit of live performances of his fifteen-hour, four-night opera cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen. Every year thousands still make a pilgrimage to the small Bavarian town of Bayreuth where in 1876 he inaugurated a festival devoted to his own music. The appeal of Wagner’s music, libretti and stagecraft has ensured his music dramas remain useful to opera companies around the world as a reliable income source, even in straitened economic times.

It is, however, Wagner’s standing as “a notorious anti-Semite,” and the intellectual establishment’s obsession with him on this basis, that has increasingly shaped his image in the popular consciousness. Wagner’s reputation is now so thoroughly tainted that one almost never encounters a serious examination of his ideas. As Adrian Mourby notes: “The notion that artists don’t have to be as beautiful as the works they create is a commonplace now – except in the case of Wagner. Judaism in Music is what has made him the unforgivable exception.”

JUDAISM IN MUSIC

Kevin MacDonald observes in Separation and its Discontents that Richard Wagner is perhaps the best known intellectual who focused on the Jewish domination of culture. Wagner first expounded on what he saw as the pernicious Jewish influence on German art and culture in his 1850 tract Das Judenthum in der Musik (usually translated as Judaism in Music or Jewishness in Music), which was published under pseudonym in 1850. Wagner’s essay took up the theme of a previous article by Theodor Uhlig in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik that was critical of the “Hebraic art taste” that Uhlig thought was manifest in Giacomo Meyerbeer’s grand opera Le prophète.

Giacomo Meyerbeer

Wagner attempted in his essay to account for the “popular dislike of the Jewish nature,” and “the involuntary repellence possessed for us by the nature and personality of the Jews.” He concludes that Germans instinctively disliked Jews due to their alien appearance, speech and behavior, noting that “with all our speaking and writing in favor of the Jews’ emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” Wagner here simply stated an obvious fact: that Germans were ethnocentric like all other racial and ethnic groups, and this colored their interactions with a fiercely competitive, deeply ethnocentric, and hostile outgroup residing among them.

Wagner also argued that Jewish musicians were only capable of producing music that was shallow and artificial, because they had no connection to the genuine spirit of the German people. He asserts that: “So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it down to the epochs of Mozart and Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jewish composer. … Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of lodgment in it — yet merely to destroy it.” Jews had not fully assimilated into German culture, so they did not identify with and merge themselves into the deepest layers of that culture, including its religious and ethnic influences — the Volksgeist. According to Wagner, “our whole European art and civilization … remained to the Jew a foreign tongue.” The Jews “through an intercourse of two millennia with European nations” had never fully abandoned the posture of “a cold, nay more, a hostile looker-on.”

The same thesis was advanced by Zionist intellectuals like Ahad Ha’Am (the pseudonym of Asher Ginsburg). MacDonald notes that both Wagner and Ginsburg “developed the idea that Jews could not have their own artistic spirit because they failed to identify completely with the surrounding culture.” (p. 184) In Wagner’s view, higher culture springs ultimately from folk culture. In the absence of Jewish influence, German music would once again reflect the deeper layers of German folk culture. For Wagner “Judaic works of music often produce on us the impression as though a poem of Goethe’s, for instance, were being rendered in the Jewish jargon. … Just as words and constructions are hurled together in this jargon with wondrous inexpressiveness, so does the Jewish musician hurl together the diverse forms and styles of every age and every master. Packed side by side, we find the formal idiosyncrasies of all the schools, in motleyest chaos.”

This observation has been roundly condemned by Jewish commentators, and yet the Jewish music commentator David Rodwin, while labelling Wagner’s essay “a vile anti-Semitic screed”, admits there is substantial truth in the “aesthetic eclecticism” that Wagner identified as a unifying feature of Jewish composers. Jacob Katz likewise acknowledged that “Jewish qualities may quite naturally appear – for better or for worse – in artistic creations of Jews, even of those who have joined non-Jewish culture. It would therefore be preposterous to dismiss categorically all observations from the mouths of anti-Semites as prejudicial misconceptions.” (p. 98)

Drawing on the thesis of Heinrich Laube’s book Struensee, Wagner held Jews to be responsible for the introduction of hyper-

Richard Wagner

commercialized values into German art. In February of 1848, at the funeral of Wagner’s mother, Laube commiserated with his friend Wagner, equating the sadness of the hour with their mutual despair at the state of German art and culture, noting that “On the way to the station, we discussed the unbearable burden that seemed to us to lie like a dead weight on every noble effort made to resist the tendency of the time to sink into utter worthlessness.” As the preface to Struensee makes clear, this “worthlessness” consisted in the flowering of Jewish values. Wagner’s only remedy was to “plunge dully and coldly into the only thing that could cheer me and warm me, the working out of my Lohengrin and my studies of German antiquity.” (p. 360) Regarding the Jewish tendency to convert art into a form of commerce, Wagner writes:

[All] is turned to money by the Jew. Who thinks of noticing that the guileless looking scrap of paper is slimy with the blood of countless generations? What the heroes of the arts… have invented… from two millennia of misery, today the Jew converts into an art-bazaar … We have no need first to substantiate the Jewification [Verjudung] of modern art. It springs to the eye and thrusts upon the senses. … But if emancipation from the yoke of Judaism appears to us the greatest of necessities, we must hold it crucial above all to assemble our forces for this war of liberation. But we shall never gain these forces by merely defining the phenomenon [of Judaism] in an abstract way. This will be done only by accurately knowing the nature of that involuntary feeling of ours which utters itself as an instinctive repugnance against the Jew’s prime essence. … Then we can rout the demon from the field … where he has sheltered under a twilit darkness … which we good-natured humanists ourselves have conferred on him.    

For Wagner, Judaism was the embodiment of the bourgeois money-egoist spirit. As he later confessed to Liszt: “I felt a long-repressed hatred for this Jewish money-world, and this hatred is as necessary to my nature as gall is to blood. An opportunity arose when their damnable scribbling annoyed me most, and so I broke forth at last.” In Judaism in Music Wagner finds the plea for Jewish emancipation to be “more than commonly naïve, since we see ourselves rather in the position of fighting for emancipation from the Jews. The Jew is in fact, in the current state of the world, already more than emancipated. He rules.”

Interestingly, despite his stated views, Wagner twice refused to sign the “Anti-Semites Petition” of 1880 (presented to Bismarck) which complained about the very economic domination that so troubled him. The Petition itself stated:

Wherever Christian and Jew enter into social relations, we see the Jew as master, the indigenous Christian population in a subservient position. The Jew takes part only to a negligible extent in the heavy labor of the great mass of the nation. But the fruits of his [the German’s] labor are reaped mainly by the Jew. By far the largest part of the capital which national labor produces is in Jewish hands. … Not only do the proudest palaces of our large cities belong to Jewish masters whose fathers and grandfathers, huckstering and peddling, crossed the frontiers into our fatherland, but rural holdings too, that most significant preservative basis of our political structure fall more and more into the hands of the Jews. … What we strive for is solely the emancipation of the German Volk from a form of alien domination which it cannot endure for any length of time. (p. 52)    

For Roger Scruton, it is in Wagner’s determination to use his art to escape from this commercialized world — a world where everything is for sale, “where value is price and price is value,” and where entertainment is considered more important than art — that is central to his genius. Wagner escaped “to a garret, high above the market place” in conscious reaction against the sentimentality and disingenuousness of the art and music at his time.

The operas of Wagner attempt to dignify the human being in something like the way he might be dignified by an uncorrupted common culture. Acutely conscious of the death of God, Wagner proposed man as his own redeemer and art as a transfiguring rite of passage to a higher world. The suggestion is visionary, and its impact on modern culture so great that the shockwaves are still overtaking us. … In the mature operas of Wagner our civilization gave voice for the last time to its idea of the heroic, through music that strives to endorse that idea to the full extent of its power. And because Wagner was a composer of supreme genius, perhaps the only one to have taken forward the intense inner language forged by Beethoven and to have used it to conquer the psychic spaces that Beethoven shunned, everything he wrote in his mature idiom has the ring of truth, and every note is both absolutely right and profoundly surprising. (p. 69)      

Wagner fled from the commercialized world of art into the inner realm of the imagination. He believed that the idealism and heroism of a bygone age could be rekindled to dwell among us again. He strived to generate a new music public that would not just identify with the Germanic heroic ideal, but adopt it as part of an idealistic nationalism that eschewed the bourgeois worldly values of the mid-nineteenth century. In this endeavor, Wagner strived to connect at an emotional rather than a rational level with his audience. As he once wrote of his Ring cycle: “I shall within these four evenings succeed in artistically conveying my purpose to the emotional — not the critical — understanding of the spectators.” This was in keeping with his dictum that art should be “the presentation of religion in a lively form.”

T. W. Adorno

It was precisely this quality in Wagner’s works that most repelled the Frankfurt School music theorist T.W. Adorno, who likened Wagner’s famous system of leitmotifs to advertising jingles in the way they imprinted themselves on the memory. For Adorno, Wagner’s musical innovations led to feelings of disorientation and intoxication that seduced audiences and rendered them docile and vulnerable to political persuasion. Moreover, in every crowd applauding a Wagnerian work, Adorno insisted, lurked “the old virulent evil” of “demagogy”. Elizabeth Whitcombe notes how:

Adorno believed that Wagner’s work is “proselytizing” and “collective-narcissistic.” Adorno’s complaint about the “collective-narcissistic” quality of Wagner’s music is really a complaint that Wagner’s music appeals to deep emotions of group cohesion. Like the Germanic myths that his music was often based on, Wagner’s music evokes the deepest passions of ethnic collectivism and ethnic pride. In Adorno’s view, such emotions are nothing more that collective narcissism, at least partly because a strong sense of German ethnic pride tends to view Jews as outsiders — as “the other.” It is also not surprising that Adorno, as a self-consciously Jewish intellectual, would find such music abhorrent.

Adorno’s jaundiced assessment of Wagner was encapsulated in Woody Allen’s quip that “When I hear Wagner I have the irresistible urge to invade Poland.” Scruton points out that Wagner’s attempt to engage his audiences at the emotional level of religion (which so perturbed Adorno) was already doomed when Wagner first conceived it. The main problem being that:

[Wagner’s] sacerdotal presumptions have never ceased to alienate those who feel threatened by his message. Hence modern producers, embarrassed by dramas that make a mockery of their way of life, decide in their turn to make a mockery of the dramas [in so-called Regietheater/Eurotrash productions]. Of course, even today, musicians and singers, responding as they must to the urgency and sincerity of the music, do their best to produce the sounds that Wagner intended. But the action is invariably caricatured, wrapped in inverted commas, and reduced to the dimensions of the television sitcom. Sarcasm and satire run riot on the stage, not because they have anything to prove or say in the shadow of this unsurpassably noble music, but because nobility has become intolerable. The producer strives to distract the audience from Wagner’s message, and to mock every heroic gesture, lest the point of the drama should finally come home.

As Michael Tanner has argued, in his succinct and penetrating defense of the composer, modern productions attempt to “domesticate” Wagner, to bring his dramas down from the exalted sphere in which the music places them, to the world of human trivia, usually in order to make a “political statement” which, being both blatant and banal, succeeds only in cancelling the rich ambiguities of the drama. In contemporary Wagner productions we see exactly what the transition from modernism to the “post-modern” world involves, namely, the final rejection of high culture as a redemptive force and the ruination of the sacred in its last imagined form. (p. 69)       

In the conclusion to Judaism and Music, Wagner wrote of the Jews that “only one thing can redeem you from the burden of your curse: the redemption of Ahasuerus — going under!” Although this has been taken by some Jewish commentators to denote actual physical annihilation, in the context of the essay it refers to the eradication of Jewish separateness and traditions. Wagner advises Jews to follow the example of Ludwig Börne by abandoning Judaism. In this way Jews will take part in “this regenerative work of deliverance through self-annulment; then we are one and un-dissevered!” Wagner was calling for the assimilation of Jews into mainstream German culture and society. He thus offered to take Hermann Levi, the first conductor of his Parsifal, to be baptised a Christian. Under the influence of Darwinian thinking (promoted in Germany by Ernst Häckel), Wagner later came to favor expulsion over conversion, and thus paralleled the trajectory of German anti-Semitism over the course of the nineteenth century, which “shifted from demands for Jewish assimilation by intellectuals such as Kant and the young Hegelians in the early part of the century, to an increasing emphasis on the ethnic divide separating Germans and Jews.” (p. 165)

Wagner republished Judaism in Music under his own name in 1869, with an extended introduction, leading to several protests by Jews at the first performances of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Wagner repeated similar views in later articles, such as “What is German?” (1878, but based on a draft written in the 1860s), and Cosima Wagner’s diaries often recorded his comments about “Jews.” Toward the end of his life, in his “Religion and Art” (1881), Wagner declared: “I regard the Jewish race as the born enemies of humanity and everything that is noble in it; it is certain we Germans will go under before them, and perhaps I am the last German who knows how to stand up as an art-loving man against the Judaism that is already getting control of everything.” Wagner repeatedly observed (and lamented) the fact that the Jews had stormed the fortress of German high culture, especially its music, and had successfully “brought the public Art-taste of our time between the busy fingers of the Jew.” A host of Jewish middlemen had taken over the critical press, publishing, theaters, operas, art galleries and agencies. This Jewish cultural ascendancy in Germany was, of course, to reach its zenith in Weimar Republic Germany. As Walter Laqueur observed:

Without the Jews there would have been no “Weimar culture” – to this extent the claims of the anti-Semites who detested that culture, were justified. They were at the forefront of every new, daring, revolutionary movement [including Dadaism]. They were prominent among Expressionist poets, among the novelists of the 1920’s, among the theatrical producers and, for a while among the leading figures in the cinema. They owned the leading liberal newspapers… and many editors were Jews too. Many leading liberal and avant-garde publishing houses were in Jewish hands. … Many leading theater critics were Jews, and they dominated light entertainment. (p. 99)      

Wagner’s Racial Thinking

In addition to his concern about the baleful Jewish influence on German culture, Wagner, under the influence of Darwinism and the French racial theorist Arthur de Gobineau, became increasingly concerned about the fate of the White race. Wagner met Gobineau in Rome 1876, and then again in Venice in 1880 when he read the French author’s bestselling An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races which had been published 25 years earlier.

Wagner thought that Gobineau had demonstrated in this famous essay that “we should have no History of Man at all, had there been no movements, creations, and achievements of the White man,” and was taken with his pessimistic notion that Western society was doomed because miscegenation would inevitably lead to the degeneration of the white race. In his essay “Heroism and Christianity”, Wagner writes that:“We cannot withhold our acknowledgment that the human family consists of irremediably disparate races, whereof the noblest well might rule the more ignoble, yet never raise them to their level by commixture, but simply sink to theirs.” The Jews, however, offered a unique exception to this general rule:

The Jew, on the contrary, is the most astounding instance of racial congruence ever offered by world history. Without a fatherland, a mother tongue midst every people’s land and tongue he finds himself again, in virtue of the unfailing instinct of his absolute and indelible idiosyncrasy: even commixture of blood does not hurt him; let Jew or Jewess intermarry with the most distinct of races, a Jew will always come to birth.

While accepting many of Gobineau’s basic premises, Wagner, in his 1881 essay about the German people entitled “Know Thyself” rejects the idea of complete Aryan superiority and writes about the “enormous disadvantage at which the German race … appears to stand against the Jewish.” Furthermore, when Gobineau stayed with the Wagners at Wahnfried for five weeks in 1881, their conversations were punctuated with frequent arguments. Cosima Wagner’s diary recounts one exchange in which Wagner “positively exploded in favor of Christianity as compared to racial theory.” Wagner proposed that a “true Christianity” could provide for the moral harmonization of all races, which could, in turn, help prevent the physical unification of the races, and thereby the degeneration of the White race through miscegenation:

Incomparably fewer in individual numbers than the lower races, the ruin of the White races may be referred to their having been obliged to mix with them; whereby, as remarked already, they suffered more from the loss of their purity than the others could gain by the ennobling of their blood. … To us Equality is only thinkable as based upon a universal moral concord, such as we can but deem true Christianity elect to bring about.

Wagner had first developed the idea of a revolutionary new Christianity in the opera text Jesus of Nazareth (1849), which depicted Jesus as redeeming man from the materialism of the “Roman world … and still more, of that [Jewish] world subject to the Romans. … I saw the modern world of the present day as a prey to the worthlessness akin to that which surrounded Jesus.” Wagner here drew heavily on Kant’s critique of Judaism. Enslaved to the Law, the Jews had rejected Jesus’s message of love; Jewish egoism and lovelessness had led Judas to betray him. The Jews had preferred “power, domination … [and] the loveless forces of property and law, symbolized by Judaism.” Wagner’s hope for the emergence of a “new Christianity” to act as a bulwark against miscegenation and the degeneration of the white race has not transpired, although some Jewish commentators see it as having being realized in the ideology and practice of National Socialism.

For Larry Solomon, in Richard Wagner “all the racist historical models from Luther to Fichte, Feuerbach, Gobineau, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Chamberlain, come to full maturity.” Yet, despite the irate epithets directed at Wagner, most of his assertions are objectively true. The races are unequal intellectually and physically, and race mixing does lead (on average) to the cognitive decline of the more intelligent racial party to the admixture. Wagner’s racial views were mainstream opinions at the time he expressed them — not least among the leading Jewish intellectuals I cited in my review of Jews & Race — Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–1940.

Theodore Herzl

Wagner’s views on the Jewish Question strongly paralleled those of Theodor Herzl. Both Wagner and Herzl saw the Jews as a distinct and foreign group in Europe. Herzl saw anti-Semitism as “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects” brought about by the Jewish persecution of gentiles. Jews had, he claimed, been educated by Judaism to be “leeches” and possessed “frightful financial power.” (p. 57) For Herzl, the Jews were a money worshipping people incapable of understanding any other motives than money. MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Herzl argued that “a prime source of modern anti-Semitism was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic competition with the gentile middle classes. Anti-Semitism based on resource competition was rational.” Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let itself be subjugated’ by formally scorned outsiders that they had just released from the ghetto.” (p. 54) Daniel Barenboim notes that “Wagner’s conclusion about the Jewish problem was not only verbally similar to Herzl’s” but that “both Wagner and Herzl favored the emigration of the German Jews.” Despite their convergence of opinion on the Jewish Question, Herzl avoided the opprobrium that was posthumously heaped on Wagner; intellectual consistency being the first casualty of Jewish ethnic warfare through the construction of culture.

Go To Part 2.

Part 2: Jewish Responses to Wagner’s Ideas

Basically ignoring whether Wagner’s views on Jewish influence on German art and culture had any validity, a long line of Jewish music writers and intellectuals have furiously attacked the composer for having expressed them. In his essay “Know Thyself” Wagner writes of the fierce backlash that followed his drawing “notice to the Jews’ inaptitude for taking a productive share in our Art,” which was “met by the utmost indignation of Jews and Germans alike; it became quite dangerous to breathe the word ‘Jew’ with a doubtful accent.” Wagner’s critique of Jewish influence on German art and culture could not be dismissed as the ravings of an unintelligent and ignorant fool. Richard Wagner was, by common consent, one of the most brilliant human beings to have ever lived, and his views on the Jewish Question were cogent and rational. Accordingly, Jewish critics soon settled on the response of ascribing psychiatric disorders to Wagner, and this has been a stock approach ever since. As early as 1872 the German Jewish psychiatrist Theodor Puschmann, offered a psychological assessment of Wagner which was widely reported in the German press. He claimed that Wagner was suffering from “chronic megalomania, paranoia… and moral derangement.”

The long-time music critic for the New York Times, Harold Schonberg (who was a Jew), described Wagner in his Lives of the Great Composers (1997) as “amoral, hedonistic, selfish, virulently racist, arrogant, filled with gospels of the superman … and the superiority of the German race, he stands for all that is unpleasant in human character.” In 1968 the Jewish writer Robert Gutman published a biography of Wagner (Richard Wagner: the Man, his Mind and his Music) in which he portrayed his subject as a racist, psychopathic, proto-Nazi monster. Gutman’s scholarship was questioned at the time, but this did not prevent his book from becoming a best-seller, and as one source notes: “An entire generation of students has been encouraged to accept Gutman’s caricature of Richard Wagner. Even intelligent people, who have either never read Wagner’s writings or tried to penetrate them and failed … have read Gutman’s book and accepted his opinions as facts.”

Advertisement

---

Another prominent refrain from Jewish commentators like Jacob Katz, the author of The Darker Side of Genius: Richard Wagner’s Anti-Semitism, is that Wagner’s concern about the Jewish influence on German culture stemmed from his jealousy at the brilliant Jews around him like Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer and Heine. Taking up this theme, the music writer David Goldman insists that: “Wagner ripped off the scenario for his opera “The Flying Dutchman” from Heine and knocked off Mendelssohn’s “Fingal’s Cave” overture in the “Dutchman’s” evocation of the sea. Wagner tried to cover his guilty tracks by denouncing Jewish composers he emulated, including Giacomo Meyerbeer. Wagner was not just a Jew-hater, then, but a backstabbing self-promoter who defamed the Jewish artists he emulated and who (in Meyerbeer’s case) had advanced his career.” Boroson, writing in the Jewish Standard, likewise asserts that Wagner’s envy of Meyerbeer’s success “played a pivotal role in Wagner’s suddenly becoming a Jew-hater.”

Invoking Freud and the Frankfurt School, the Jewish music writer Marc A. Weiner in his Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination, claims that “Wagner’s vehement hatred of Jews was based on a model of projection involving a deep-seated fear of precisely those features within the Self (diminutive stature, nervous demeanour and avarice, as well as lascivious nature) that are projected upon and then recognized and stigmatized in the hated Other.” (p. 6) Weiner’s view echoes that of  Theodore Rubin who views anti-Semitism as a “symbol sickness” that involves “envy, low self-esteem and projection of one’s inner conflicts onto a stereotyped other.” All these various theories, where Wagner’s criticism of Jewish influence is made entirely a scapegoat for his own psychological frustrations, vastly overemphasize the irrational sources of prejudice and effectively serve, as Higham put it, to “clothe the Jews in defensive innocence.” (p. 58) According to these theories, anti-Jewish sentiment is never rational, but invariably the product of a warped mind, while Jewish critiques of Europeans and their culture always have a rational basis.

Another well-worn theory has it is that Wagner may have been part-Jewish, and that his “rabid anti-Semitism” was his way of dealing this unedifying prospect (a variation of the “self-hating Jew” hypothesis). It is claimed that Wagner’s biological father was not his presumed father, Friedrich Wagner, but his stepfather, the successful actor and painter Ludwig Geyer. However, there is no evidence that Geyer had any Jewish roots. In his biography of the composer, John Chancellor states categorically that he had none, and that: “He [Geyer] claimed the same sturdy descent as the Wagners. His pedigree also went back to the middle of the seventeenth century and his forefathers were also, for the most part, organists in small Thuringian towns and villages.” (p. 6)

Chancellor blames Friedrich Nietzsche for first raising the question of Geyer’s possible Jewishness to add extra sting to his charge of illegitimacy, after the philosopher famously fell out with Wagner. In his 1888 book Der Fall Wagner (The Case of Wagner) Nietzsche claimed that Wagner’s father was Geyer, and made the pun that “Ein Geyer ist beinahe schon ein Adler” (A vulture is almost an eagle) — Geyer also being the German word for a vulture and Adler being a common Jewish surname. Despite these conjectures on the part of Nietzsche and then legions of music historians and biographers, there is no evidence that Ludwig Geyer was Jewish.

Ludwig Geyer

The lack of evidence did not deter Gutman, however, who contended that Richard Wagner and his wife Cosima tried to outdo each other in their anti-Semitism because they both had Jewish roots to conceal. While offering no proof that Geyer was Jewish, Gutman maintained that Wagner in his later years discovered letters from Geyer to his mother which led him to suspect that Geyer was his biological father, and thought that Geyer might have been Jewish. Wagner’s anti-Semitism was, according to Gutman, his way of dealing with the fear that people would think he was Jewish. Strahan recycles this theme in a recent article, noting that:

Geyer’s affair with Wagner’s mother pre-dated the death of Wagner’s presumed father, Friedrich Wagner, a Police Registrar who was ill at the time young Richard was conceived, and who died six months after his birth. Soon after this, Wagner’s mother Johanna married Ludwig Geyer. Richard Wagner himself was known as Richard Geyer until, at the age of 14, he had his name legally changed to Wagner. Apparently he had taken some abuse at school because of his Jewish-sounding name. Could his later anti-Semitism have been motivated, at least in part, by sensitivity to this abuse, and by a kind of pre-emptive denial to prevent difficulties and suffering arising from prejudice?       

According to the only evidence we have on this point (Cosima’s diaries, 26 December 1868) Wagner “did not believe” that Ludwig Geyer was his real father. Cosima did, however, once note a resemblance between Wagner’s son Siegfried and a picture of Geyer (p. 1). Pursuing the theme that anyone who expresses antipathy toward Jews must be psychologically unhealthy, Larry Solomon draws a parallel between Wagner and Adolf Hitler in that “Both feared they had Jewish paternity, which led to fierce denial and destructive hatred.”

Wagner’s Music Dramas as Coded Anti-Semitism

T.W. Adorno and Robert Gutman began a modern Jewish intellectual tradition when they proposed that Wagner’s antipathy to Jews was not limited to articles like Judaism in Music, but that there are hidden anti-Semitic and racist messages in Wagner’s operas. Numerous Jewish writers have taken up this theme and encouraged audiences to retrospectively read into Wagner’s operas latent signs of anti-Semitism. The gold-loving Nibelung lord Alberich in Siegfried is, for instance, supposedly a symbol of Jewish materialism. Solomon writes that Alberich is clearly “the greedy merchant Jew, who becomes the power-crazed goblin-demon lusting after Aryan maidens, attempting to contaminate their blood, and who sacrifices his lust in order to acquire the gold.”

Viktor Chernomortsev, left, as Alberich and Vasliy Gorshkov as Mime in the Kirov Opera production of Wagner's "Siegfried" at the Orange County Performing Arts Center in 2006.

In The Mastersingers of Nuremburg, Beckmesser, who is incapable of original work and resorts to stealing the work of others, is said to symbolize the lack of Jewish originality that Wagner highlighted in Judaism in Music. According to Gutman, Beckmesser was modeled after Eduard Hanslick, the powerful half-Jewish music critic who constantly disparaged Wagner. The characters of Mime in the Ring and Klingsor in Parsifal are also identified as Jewish stereotypes, although none of these were actually identified as Jews by Wagner in the libretto. Mime is, for Solomon, depicted by Wagner “as a stinking ghetto Jew” while “Siegfried represents the conscience-free, fearless Teuton, he feels no remorse… He is glorified as the warrior hero of the Ring, the archetypal proto-Nazi.”

Solomon is unconcerned at the lack of any real evidence for his thesis, maintaining that virulent racism “permeates all aspects of his music dramas through metaphorical suggestion. Wagner is always just a step away from actually calling his evil characters ‘Jews’, even though it was obvious to his contemporaries.” He claims that Wagner was too clever to identify Jews in his music dramas, especially after he had received critical reactions to his essay Judaism in Music. “His intent was far more artful and covert, but nevertheless still political: to reach his audience on an emotional, subliminal level, bypassing their critical faculties.” In the final analysis, Wagner’s operas are for Solomon “tools of racist, proto-Nazi hate propaganda, written for the purpose of redeeming the German race from Jewish contamination, and for expelling the Jews from Germany.” Moreover, the malign influence of Wagner sadly continues insofar as “the subtext of racist metaphors has not diminished in Wagner’s operas, so they will continue to exert a subliminal influence.”

In his book Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination (1997) Marc A. Weiner similarly argued that Wagner deliberately used his characters to promote his sociological theories of a pure Germany purged of Jewish influence. According to Weiner:

Wagner’s anti-Semitism is integral to an understanding of his mature music dramas. … I have analyzed the corporeal images in his dramatic works against the background of 19th-century racist imagery. By examining such bodily images as the elevated, nasal voice, the “foetor judaicus” (Jewish stench), the hobbling gait, the ashen skin color, and deviant sexuality associated with Jews in the 19th century, it’s become clear to me that the images of Alberich, Mime, and Hagen [in the Ring cycle], Beckmesser [in Die Meistersinger], and Klingsor [in Parsifal], were drawn from stock anti-Semitic clichés of Wagner’s time.

For Weiner, Wagner’s anti-Semitic caricatures can be readily identified from their manner of speech, their singing, their roles, and their body language. “All of the stereotypical cardboard, cookie-cutter features of a Jew … show up all over the place in his musical dramas.” Under Weiner’s deconstruction of Wagner’s characters it emerges that his Teutonic heroes are “invariably clear-eyed, deep-voiced, straight-featured and sure-footed. The Jewish anti-heroes have dripping eyes, high voices, bent, crooked bodies and a hobbling, awkward step, with these embodied metaphors all serving to reinforce the ideology of racism.” In response to Weiner’s critique one is reminded of the aptness of historian Goldwin Smith’s remark that “critics of Judaism are accused of bigotry of race, as well as bigotry of religion. This accusation comes strangely from those who style themselves the Chosen People, make race a religion, and treat all races except their own as Gentile and unclean.” (p. 56)

Numerous Jewish commentators cite Wagner’s Parsifal, the last of his music dramas, as “possibly his most racist opera.” For the Jewish writer Paul Lawrence Rose, in his 1992 book Wagner, Race and Revolution, Wagner intended his Parsifal to be

a profound religious parable about how the whole essence of European humanity had been poisoned by alien, inhuman, Jewish values. It is an allegory of the Judaization of Christianity and of Germany — and of purifying redemption. In place of theological purity, the secularized religion of Parsifal preached the new doctrine of racial purity, which was reflected in the moral and indeed religious, purity of Parsifal himself. In Wagner’s mind, this redeeming purity was infringed by Jews, just as devils and witches infringed the purity of traditional Christianity. In this scheme, it is axiomatic that compassion and redemption have no application to the inexorably damned Judaized Klingsor and hence the Jews. (p. 166)

Jewish music critics and intellectuals, like those cited above, have enthusiastically seized upon Wagner’s great grandson Gottfried for having backed their various theories about the inherently anti-Semitic nature of Wagner’s operas, and Wagner’s firm standing as a moral

Gottfried Wagner

pariah. Gottfried Wagner has made a virtual career out of relentlessly attacking his ancestors — constantly denouncing his great-grandfather and other family members as evil anti-Semites. In his 1999 book, Twilight of the Wagners: The Unveiling of a Family’s Legacy, Gottfried Wagner, according to Solomon, “in an act of self-imposed moral obligation and great personal sacrifice, restored to his roots the conscience that Wagner and Hitler took away.” To the great satisfaction of Carol Jean Delmar (the Jewish leader of a campaign to have the LA Opera’s 2009 production of the Ring cancelled), the philo-Semitic Gottfried Wagner appeared at a symposium at the American Jewish University in 2010 where he continued “to set the record straight today. Always on the side of the Jews, he stopped off on Shabbos to mingle with congregants at a local temple.”

Despite all the claims made about the anti-Semitic nature of Wagner’s operas, Strahan points out that it is equally possible to point to cultural references in Wagner’s work that are sympathetic to the Jewish place in European culture. For Strahan, “the hero of the early opera The Flying Dutchman is synonymous with the ‘Wandering Jew,’ the Dutchman’s endless journeying analogous to that symbol of the Jewish Diaspora.” Wagner himself referred to his eminently non-Jewish personification of redemption through love, the Flying Dutchman, as an “Ahasverus of the Ocean.”

Wagner produced thousands of pages of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, his operas, and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); and yet the purportedly “Jewish” characterizations identified by Adorno, Gutman and countless others are never mentioned, nor are there any references to them in Cosima Wagner’s copious diaries. None of Wagner’s supposedly obvious characterizations were ever used in the propaganda of the Third Reich.To identify such characters as Beckmesser, Alberich, Mime, Klingsor and Kundry as Jews is thus entirely speculative. The Jewish pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim makes the point that: “Whoever wants to see a repulsive attack on Jews in Wagner’s operas can of course do so. But is it really justified? Beckmesser, for example, who might be suspected of being a Jewish parody, was a state scribe in the year 1500, a position that was unavailable to Jews.”

Wagner and National Socialist Germany

Wagner has long been reviled by Jews as the intellectual and spiritual precursor to Adolf Hitler, who according to William Shirer, once declared “Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner.” This line is spoken by the Hitler character in the 2008 Hollywood film Valkyrie. For Solomon, no other composer in history had a greater impact on world events than Richard Wagner; and that “his devastating political legacy is second only to Adolf Hitler.” In his book Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind: A Psychiatrist Explores the Psychodynamics of a Symbol Sickness, Theodore Isaac Rubin states categorically that a psychologically sick Adolf Hitler “borrowed from the almost equally sick anti-Semitic Wagner.”

This widely accepted notion of a direct intellectual line of descent from Wagner to Hitler has, however, been challenged by the historian Richard Evans (a key witness on behalf of Deborah Lipstadt in her defense against the libel suit brought by David Irving) who pointed out that there is no evidence that Hitler even read any of Wagner’s writings. In the early twentieth century these writings were rarely reprinted or discussed outside of academic circles. Hitler seldom mentioned Wagner in his own writings, and rarely in public, and when he did, it was never in relation to Jews, but rather to his standing as a German leader and visionary. Wagner’s influence on Hitler was at best secondhand through the influence of his son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who developed some of Wagner’s ideas in his bestselling 1899 book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, which did influence Hitler’s ideas on race and the Jewish Question. Despite the lack of a direct intellectual link between Wagner and Hitler, for the Jewish music writer David Goldman, Wagner’s name is eminently worthy of execration on the basis that he “mixed the compost heap in which the flowers of the 20th century’s greatest evil took root.” According to Goldman,

the Nazis embraced Wagner not by accident or opportunism but because they recognized in him the cultural trailblazer of the world they set out to rule. … Wagner may not have been the only anti-Semite among the composers of the 19th century, nor even the worst, but he did more than anyone else to mold the culture in which Nazism flourished. The Jewish people have had no enemy more dedicated and more dangerous, precisely because of his enormous talent. In a Jewish state, the public has a right to ask Jewish musicians to be Jews first and musicians second. With reluctance, and in cognizance of all the ambiguities, I think the Israelis are right to silence him. [Goldman here refers to the unofficial ban on performances of Wagner’s music in Israel]

For Goldman, Hitler’s intellectual debt to Wagner and the “proto-Nazi” nature of Wagner’s music dramas are unambiguous. Nevertheless, Evans dismisses the notion that Wagner’s works inherently support National Socialist notions of heroism, and notes that Wagner’s last opera Parsifal (frequently cited as Wagner’s most “racist” opera) was denounced by the regime in 1933 for being “ideologically unacceptable” and was not performed at Bayreuth during the war. Moreover, while Wagner’s music was often performed during the Third Reich, his popularity in Germany actually declined in favor of Italian composers like Verdi and Puccini. Evans notes that by the 1938–39 opera season, Wagner had only one opera in the top fifteen most popular operas of the season, with the list being headed by Leoncavallo’s Pagliacci. (p. 198–201)

It is well known that The Berlin Philharmonic’s last performance prior to their evacuation from Berlin in April 1945 was of Brünnhilde’s immolation scene at the end of Wagner’s Götterdämmerung to an audience that included Speer, Dönitz and Goebbels. This music has since been used in countless Third Reich documentaries — in the process consolidating the impression that Wagner’s music was uniquely bound up with the cultural politics of the National Socialist state. Although, as noted above, there is no evidence that Hitler’s attitudes on Jews derived from Wagner, it is clear that the National Socialist fascination with Wagner (to the extent it genuinely existed) was Hitler’s inspiration. In one of three brief references to Wagner in Mein Kampf, Hitler reflects on his early experiences attending Wagner’s operas: “I was captivated. My youthful enthusiasm for the master of Bayreuth knew no bounds. Again and again I was drawn to his works, and it still seems to me especially fortunate that the most modest provincial performance left me open to an intensified experience later on.” Hitler became a friend of Wagner’s children and grandchildren, and particularly of his English-born daughter-in-law Winifred. In 1933 he ordered that each Nuremberg Rally would open with a performance of the Meistersinger overture, though these performances were mostly unpopular with other Party functionaries who had be ordered to attend.

Guido Fackler claims that Wagner’s music was sometimes used at the Dachau concentration camp in 1933 and 1934 to “reeducate” political prisoners through the beneficial exposure to nationalistic music. There is, however, no documentary evidence supporting the widespread claims that Wagner’s music provided “a soundtrack to the Holocaust,” and was played at concentration camps during wartime.Larry David mocked this urban legend (and the unhealthy Jewish obsession with Wagner) in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where he is rebuked by a Jewish stranger for whistling a Wagner tune in the street (see here).

Hanns Eisler

The ethno-political motivation that underpins the construction of Wagner as moral pariah is highlighted by the contrasting way that Jewish commentators have reflected on the life and legacy of the Jewish composer Hanns Eisler who declared Wagner to be “a great composer, unfortunately.” A committed Marxist, Eisler began in 1930 a long-standing collaboration with the poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht. With Hitler’s ascent to power, Eisler left Germany and eventually settled in Hollywood, where he was nominated for Oscars for writing the music for Fritz Lang’s film Hangmen Also Die (1942) and None But the Lonely Heart (1944). In 1947 Eisler appeared before the Un-American Activities Committee, and despite the intercession of Albert Einstein, Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein, was deported to East Germany in 1948 where he remained for the rest of his life, writing music for the totalitarian state (including its national anthem, and the Comintern anthem). Eisler collaborated with Adorno in 1947 to produce the book Composing for the Films. Instead of reproaching Eisler for his ardent commitment to a regime and an ideology that destroyed millions of lives, Jewish commentators have invariably portrayed him as a victim of the anti-Semitism of the Third Reich, and then of the HUAC hearings and the Hollywood blacklist.

The Jewish-dominated intellectual and media elite will ensure that next year’s Wagner bicentenary is overshadowed by claims that, in celebrating Wagner, the world is cruelly denying the unique suffering of the Jewish people. The bicentenary will provide a platform for advancing the anti-White narrative by using Wagner’s life and legacy as a salutary lesson on the evils of anti-Semitism and European nationalism. The construction of Wagner as an anti-Semitic exemplar and moral pariah (a form of ethnic warfare through the construction of culture) benefits Jews in several ways. First, it ensures that a White genius like Wagner (whose achievement far surpasses that of any Jewish composer) can never become a locus of White racial pride and group cohesion. Secondly, it ensures that Wagner and his works can be always used as a springboard for intensive reflections on the Holocaust, the evils of White racial identity and the moral necessity of state-sponsored multiculturalism and non-White immigration to the West. Only these policies, after all, will ensure that Wagner’s “morally loathsome” intellectual legacy (which amounts to a proposal for a group strategy in opposition to Judaism) can never again find a receptive White audience, by progressively doing away with white people altogether.

Jesse J. Prinz is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina. His academic specialism is the philosophy of psychology, and he has produced books and articles on emotion, moral psychology, aesthetics and consciousness. His latest book, Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, was published earlier this year. Like much of his previous work, this new book is an attack on “psychological nativism.” Prinz (who is Jewish) claims that his latest book “concerns the cultural impact on human variation” and is part “of a critique of approaches that oversell the role of biology.”[i] The Jewish ethno-political agenda behind this critique soon becomes clear when the author acknowledges his “intellectual heroes who hover silently in the background. I mention here Franz Boas, whose pioneering work in anthropology has been an inspiration to many who try to establish universal human dignity through the study of diversity.”[ii]

In arguing for the primacy of nurture over nature, Prinz devotes a significant part of his book to attempting to explain why measured racial differences in IQ can be ascribed to environmental rather than genetic factors. He believes that “The IQ controversy is an extreme example of a more general tendency to explain human abilities by appeal to biology,” and regards it as “a particularly egregious case because it legitimates biases against many subjugated groups and mistakes social injustice for biological necessity.”[iii] For Prinz “one of the great tragedies of IQ testing is that researchers have used their results to argue fallaciously that certain groups of people differ in intelligence.”[iv] Introducing his case for an environmental explanation for racial differences in IQ, he notes that

everyone agrees that intelligence can be affected by the genes. The fact that humans are smarter than dogs is clearly a consequence of our biology. Everyone also agrees that differences in human intelligence can be genetic. Some people can be congenitally retarded, and extreme forms of genius are likely to be genetically based as well. But what about the vast majority of us who lie somewhere between Einstein and Tweedledumb [note the standard invocation of the Jewish Einstein as the quintessence of human genius]. Genius and retardation are rare conditions, which may result from genetic mutations. Are the differences between people who fall in the normal range distinguished by the genes? Is the run-of-the-mill dullard biologically different from a garden variety whiz-kid? And if so, are those biological differences fixed, or might they be altered by experience? These questions become even more heated when we turn from individual differences to differences between groups.

Do biological differences in brain power come pre-packaged with biological differences in pigmentation? These are touchy topics, and naturists have felt considerable heat for defending positions that are politically incorrect. I don’t think we should let politics arbitrate in this case, however. I think naturists simply get the science wrong. While some differences in intelligence may be linked to biology, most people have pretty comparable biological endowments. If we want to find an explanation for group-wide social inequity, then we would be better off studying the negative effects of poverty, and the positive effects of cultural practices that encourage learning.[v]

Advertisement

---

---

Totally ignoring the work of Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen and others, Prinz claims that the most recent example of this supposedly wrongheaded psychological ‘naturism’ is Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life from 1994. According to Prinz, Herrnstein and Murray make several “startling claims” in The Bell Curve. Among these are “that men are capable of greater extremes of intelligence than women, that White people are more intelligent on average than people of color, and that east Asians and Jews are on average more intelligent than Christians.”[vi] Prinz repeatedly promotes the lie that Judaism is merely a religion by comparing Jews to “Christians” rather than Europeans. He seems unconcerned that many millions of “east Asians” (and indeed some Jews) also happen to be “Christians”.

Prof. Jesse J. Prinz

For the author, these “highly provocative — even offensive” claims are “consistent with the widespread pre-theoretical assumptions that are usually dismissed as hateful bigotry: women aren’t as smart as men, Black people are dumb, and Jews and Asians are dangerously clever.” According to Prinz, “Herrnstein and Murray give these attitudes an air of scientific respectability by presenting a hundred pages of charts and tables documenting measurable differences in intelligence.”[vii] Dismissing the validity of this data, and the conclusions that Herrnstein and Murray draw from it, Prinz maintains that “the central claims in the book are based on faulty assumptions, bad inferences, and questionable methods.”[viii]

Prinz scornfully notes that the authors of The Bell Curve “reveal their politics” in recommending major policy changes like disbanding affirmative action programs. These policy recommendations being ultimately based on assumptions that “affirmative action programs cannot increase the intelligence of their beneficiaries, and people with lower IQ will perform less efficiently in the average job.”[ix] Herrnstein and Murray’s central thesis — that racial differences in intelligence go a long way to explaining differences in educational attainment, earnings, socioeconomic status, crime, longevity, fertility and other social phenomena in the United States – is, for Prinz, “based on a simple fallacy: one cannot study traits within groups of people and then draw conclusions about differences between groups of people.”[x] This rejection of reductionist scientific method, because it inevitably oversimplifies real processes, was pioneered by Harvard population biologist (and ethnocentric Jew) Richard Lewontin. Kevin MacDonald notes in Culture of Critique that the result of this rejection “is a hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology. In developmental psychology such a program would ultimately lead to rejection of all generalizations, including those relating to the average effects of environments. … By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings.”[xi]

To illustrate his point, the author uses an analogy first developed by Lewontin, whose philosophy of “developmental contextualism” has clearly influenced Prinz’s own ideas. Suppose, Lewontin proposes, we take a packet of seeds and plant half in nutrient soil and half in bad soil. Then we let them grow, providing equal water and sunlight to both groups. After a few months, we measure how tall they have grown. Height in plants (like height in people) is highly heritable, and the variation in height within each group of seeds will be entirely due to the genetic differences between the seeds. As all seeds had exactly the same light, water and soil, any within-group variation will be based on the intrinsic genetic potential of each seed. But suppose we compare the two groups. It is extremely likely that the seeds planted in bad soil will be much shorter than the seeds planted in nutrient-rich soil. Suppose the average height of the seeds that were planted in bad soil is fifteen centimeters lower than the average height of seeds grown in the good soil. Since height is heritable, and these groups are significantly different in height, we might conclude that the difference is genetic; we might say that the seeds of the short group are biologically inferior to the seeds of the tall group. But this, Lewontin tells us, would be a misconception. All the seeds came from the same packet. Both groups had exactly the same potential for growth. The difference between the groups is entirely attributable to an environmental difference. The plants in the short group would have been just as tall as the plants in the tall group, on average, if they had been planted in nutrient-rich soil.

According to Prinz,

the plant case exactly parallels the IQ case. If the average IQ for White Americans is 15 points higher than the IQ for Black Americans, that difference does not show that Whites are biologically smarter than Blacks. The difference might be completely explained by environmental differences. Black Americans might be nurtured in the sociological equivalent of bad soil [which, however, apparently does not affect their athletic performance]. The data are ambiguous between a genetic explanation and an environmental explanation. How, then, should we explain which explanation is right? The answer is simple. We should favor the biological explanation if Blacks and Whites are reared in the same environment, and we should favor the environmental explanation if there are significant biological differences between Blacks and Whites. When things are presented this way, it should be absolutely obvious that the best explanation for the IQ discrepancy between Whites and Blacks is environmental.[xii]

The problem with this analysis is that Prinz simply ignores evidence that undercuts (if not totally demolishes) his position, such as transracial adoption studies which show that, even when reared in very similar White middle class environments, the mean IQ of non-White adoptees remains the same as their racial group of origin. The largest and most carefully scrutinized study was the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. In this study the average age of adoption was less than two years, and the adoptees included White, Black, and mixed-race children. The adoptive parents were upper middle class Whites who were working in professional and managerial positions, were well educated, and whose mean IQ was about 120. The children in each racial category scored higher than usual for seven-year-old children for each racial group. However, when the children were tested again at 17, the improvement in IQ scores had vanished. Michael H. Hart notes that “for the adoptees in the study, the gap between the mean IQ scores of 17 year-old Whites and Blacks was over 16 points – every bit as large a difference as found in the general population. Note also that despite the similarity of the environments in which they were raised, the mixed-race adoptees scored much higher than the Black adoptees, which is just what would be predicted on hereditarian grounds.”[xiii] The premise underlying Lewontin’s plant analogy, that differently-evolved human racial groups are analogous to “seeds from the same packet” that only need to be raised in “nutrient-rich soil” to realize their equivalent biological potential is, therefore, not applicable.

Prof. Richard Lewontin

Furthermore, Prinz fails to mention that the Black-White IQ gap is not a phenomenon unique to the United States. Low Black scores on IQ tests are not observed in just one school, one city, one state, or one country, but are a global phenomenon. This phenomenon therefore requires an explanation that holds in all countries, not one that depends on the socioeconomic characteristics of American Blacks, and can therefore only explain the low IQs of Blacks in the US. The international consistency of the racial differences in IQ (and socioeconomic status) throughout the world is a powerful indication that these differences must have a strong genetic basis.

Richard Lynn notes that if racial differences in IQs in the United States and Britain were solely environmentally determined, “we should expect to find different racial hierarchies in other continents. Historical accident would have seen that, in some of these places, other races had secured the most privilege and wealth, the best nutrition and education for their children, and the highest IQs accruing from these economic advantages.”[xiv] Instead we find that lighter skinned peoples (i.e. Europeans and East Asians) invariably outperform darker-skinned peoples. Lynn makes the point that “only the race differences in intelligence theory can provide a coherent explanation for the consistent worldwide racial inequalities.”[xv] Rushton similarly reminds us that: “Only a theory that looks at both genes and environment in terms of Darwin’s theory of evolution can explain why races differ so consistently throughout the world and over the course of time.”[xvi]

In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray showed that IQ differences between Blacks and Whites remain even when controlling for socioeconomic status. Prinz admits this finding would strongly support the case for a biological explanation for the IQ gap, were it not for the fact that there are “other enormous environmental differences” separating Blacks and Whites.

The fact that Black people are generally much poorer and, hence generally much more likely to be less educated and engage in criminal behavior, has an enormous impact on how Black people are perceived. We all involuntarily form stereotypes on the basis of the most salient members of a class, and we then use those stereotypes to judge all members of the class. Affluent Black people are regarded as less intelligent and trustworthy than affluent White people, because the Black stereotype is formed by exposure to Black people who are poor. White Americans see people of color working in low-paying service positions, or being carried off in handcuffs by police on the nightly news. These experiences have a measurable and unconscious effect on White attitudes. … Prejudice inevitably exerts a negative influence on its victims. Black Americans are stopped by police on highways more frequently than White Americans; they are regarded with fear by White pedestrians; and they are regarded as less intelligent than Whites by their educators. Racial prejudice influences Black Americans’ self-assessment and behavior …. The evidence for racial bias is overwhelming. Black Americans are raised in bad soil. They are subjected to an environment that promotes inequality by chronically and pervasively conveying the message that Black people have less potential than Whites. The result is an erosion of confidence, a dearth of opportunities and a drop in aptitude.[xvii]

The notion that a lack of racial self-esteem among American Blacks (resulting from negative stereotyping by Whites) is responsible for their low scores on IQ tests ignores the critical fact: the low IQ of Blacks is a worldwide phenomenon. Very low Black IQs have been uniformly recorded in the racially homogeneous Black nations of sub-Saharan Africa, where the racial bias of higher status Whites is presumably irrelevant. Psychological tests show that, on average, Black teenagers have higher self-esteem than Whites, rather than lower. Lynn notes that mulattos, despite being a small minority in the Caribbean where Blacks have political power, record higher IQs and do better than Blacks.[xviii] Likewise, despite being historically discriminated against in Western nations, the Japanese and Chinese have nevertheless recorded IQs as high as, or better than, Europeans. Likewise, the widespread antipathy toward Jews has not prevented them from obtaining high scores on IQ tests. Ignoring these obvious and problematic counter-examples, Prinz maintains that

in sum, we have solid evidence that black Americans grow up in an environment that significantly reduces their chances of success. This can explain the differences in black and white IQ scores. There is no reason to think these differences are biologically based. Similar morals can by drawn for the reported differences between men and women, between Jews and Christians and between Westerners and Easterners. Each of these groups has very different life-experiences, on average. Those differences may account for differences in IQ. Until all cultural influences are ruled out, we should assume that IQ discrepancies are environmental, rather than genetic. This should be our default assumption, because cultural differences are known to exist, and cultural differences have an impact on psychological traits.[xix]

Note Prinz’s claim that environmental differences ‘can explain’ Black IQ; he has no data that any particular environmental influence is the actual explanation for low Black IQ. His proposal is therefore nothing more than a politically correct hypothetical.

Indeed, there is no reason to think that the measured racial differences in IQ are not biologically based (or at least substantially so). Because important biological differences between the races are known to exist, and these differences have been tied to specific psychological and behavioral tendencies, it is rational to assume that IQ discrepancies are mostly genetic. Lynn observes that the sociological theories offered by Prinz and others “are no more than ad hoc and unquantifiable surmises and have so many exceptions that they are unable to provide a coherent explanation of the worldwide existence and consistency of racial hierarchies. To achieve credibility, a theory must explain the totality of the phenomena. Only intelligence theory can do this.”[xx] Accordingly, this should be our default assumption, because genetic differences between the races are known to exist, and genetic differences have an impact on psychological traits.

Prof. Richard Lynn

Perhaps conscious of the inherent weakness of his theory, Prinz hedges his position of biological racial equality by simultaneously arguing that “race” itself is not a biological reality, insisting that

there are no human breeds or races. The categories by which we divide people into “racial groups” have little or no meaning biologically. For one thing, there is vastly more biological variation within racial groups than between them, whereas biologically defined categories tend to have greater internal uniformity. The features we use to classify people are often superficial, and do not correlate with deeper biological similarities. For example, dark skin pigmentation is shared by sub-Saharan Africans and by some indigenous peoples of New Guinea, who are genetically closer to East Asians.[xxi] [Prinz neglects to mention that both of these groups share very low mean IQs. In any case, the racial classifications used by Lynn are biological descent groups, with Blacks linked to populations currently living in sub-Saharan Africa.]

Given his stated position, Prinz would ostensibly have no problem with mass non-Jewish immigration to Israel, since the distinction between Jew and Palestinian (and sub-Saharan African) has, according to him, little or no meaning biologically. His own behavior in his personal life indicates otherwise, with the author (who is a prominent atheist) thanking his very Jewish girlfriend (Rachel Bernstein) in the acknowledgements section of Beyond Human Nature.

Ignoring the many human population genetic studies which confirm the existence of human genetic clusters (or races), Prinz’s argument — that there is more biological variation within races than between them — is an argument frequently leveled against race realists, and yet it is invalid. In his On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter has shown that the when world populations are sampled, genetic variance between groups is on average about 0.125—equivalent to the kinship between grandparent and grandchild. This is a far from trivial amount, and the result is that humans have an enormous genetic interest in their ethnic groups (or their race) compared to other groups.

Another error comes from assuming that small differences in the input to a system must yield small differences in the system’s output. On the contrary, it is often the case that small differences in the input result in large differences in the final outcome. For instance, it has often been pointed out that human beings and chimpanzees differ in less than 2 percent of their DNA; nevertheless, the difference in intelligence between the species is enormous. Likewise, a large part of the difference between males and females is due to a single chromosome, indeed to a single gene (the SRY gene). Many genetic diseases are caused by a single gene, and some of these are deadly. Despite this obvious reality, Prinz persists with this specious argument, maintaining that:

From the gene’s eye point of view, members of different “ethnic” groups — such as Blacks and Whites, Asians and Westerners, Jews and Gentiles — are very similar. Indeed, within-group genetic differences are much greater than between-group genetic differences. Two randomly chosen Black people may be less genetically similar than a randomly chosen Black person and a randomly chosen White person. Many researchers believe that the term “race” has no biological meaning when it comes to our species. The racial groups we talk about have insufficient genetic uniformity to be classified together. Ethnic categories are created by us on the basis of superficial features. Differences in skin color are genetic, or course, but so are differences in eye color, and differences in ear lobes. There is little reason to think that any of these superficial traits correlate with genetic differences in psychology.[xxii]

On the contrary, given the known mechanisms of human evolution, there is little reason to think that the physical traits of human racial groups do not correlate with genetic differences in psychology. Different environments cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations in brain size, just as they do in skin coloring and external morphology. Since genes have caused so many physical differences between the races, it is implausible that they have not caused any mental differences. The process of human evolution did not stop with the emergence of Homo sapiens. Lynn and Rushton contend that groups that resided for many millennia in regions with cold winters gradually — through the process of natural selection — evolved higher intelligence than groups living in milder climates. Rushton notes how “colonizing temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters.” He points out that “cognitive demands of manufacturing sophisticated tools and making fires, clothing, and shelters (as well as regulating the storage of food) would have selected for higher average intelligence levels than in the less cognitively demanding environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Those individuals who could not solve these problems of survival would have died out, leaving those with alleles for higher intelligence as the survivors.”[xxiii]

Mean IQ of Indigenous Peoples

This selection pressure for intelligence was the key driver for the increase in brain size among Europeans and East Asians. The groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed a larger brain, but the process of building a bigger brain, Rushton observes, takes more time and energy during a person’s development. So increased brain size was counterbalanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity. “This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.”[xxiv] Rushton has also pointed out that the overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44 – suggesting brain size significantly underlies intelligence. Prinz is dismissive of such findings, making the following outrageous argument:

The idea that IQ results from big brains rests on a hopelessly simplistic theory of brain function. It used to be believed that the entire brain contributes equally to every cognitive task. If that were true, big brains might be brilliant. But everyone in neuroscience now recognizes that different brain areas do different things. So the idea that brain volume is directly responsible for higher IQ doesn’t make much sense. Having a big olfactory bulb, for example, may help you smell better, but it won’t make you Einstein.[xxv]

But of course, a larger brain would also be expected to have larger volume of areas that are important for IQ and academic success, such as areas supporting working memory. While not contesting the fact Blacks have smaller brains on average than Whites, Prinz dismisses this as a possible causal factor in the IQ gap between the races. This is despite Black people’s brains being about six percent smaller on average than the brains of White people, and the high correlation between brain size and IQ. It is logical to expect this to lead to a substantial difference in average intelligence between the groups, and this is confirmed by the empirical data. Hart makes the important point that, “as a substantial part of the brain is involved in activities other than reasoning (such as regulating temperature and heartbeat, receiving signals from sensory receptors, and coordinating muscle activity), and as the number of brain cells required for those activities is the same in Blacks and Whites, a difference of 6% in overall brain size would result in a somewhat larger difference in the number of neurons available for reasoning. Indeed, this factor might by itself explain a large part of the differences in the average intelligence of the two groups.”[xxvi]

Nearly a century of psychometric testing has established that differential selection pressures for general intelligence did exist and resulted, after 40,000 years, in significant differences in mean IQ (and associated behavioral tendencies) among the races – and that this has had, and continues to have, profound consequences in determining the civilization-building capacities of different racial groups. It is also a key reason why Third-World immigration to the West is so dysfunctional. Aside from the massive and ever-growing welfare burden on White taxpayers, Blacks commit at least five times more violent crime than Whites, and are fifty times more likely to commit a crime of violence (assault, robbery, rape) against Whites, than Whites against Blacks. Indeed, based on international samples, Rushton has shown that Blacks are as disproportionately more likely to commit an act of criminal violence than Whites as men are more likely than women.  “Data from around the world and over the course of history show that males commit more crimes, especially violent crimes, than do females. And just about all scientists agree this difference has some biological basis.”[xxvii]

Homicide Offending by Race in the United States 1976-2005, from the Bureau of Justice

Prinz traces the “egregious” practice of ascribing racial differences in IQ back to Francis Galton and the eugenics movement of the nineteenth century. According to the author:

Eugenics was, from its inception, an instrument for promoting the in-group at the expense of all others. … This frenzy over eugenics was driven by the intuitive plausibility of the idea that good traits can be biologically inherited. Those who know anything about breeding farm animals or show dogs know that one can exercise some control over an offspring’s characteristics by carefully selecting the parents. The problem is that this intuitive idea collapses into dangerous pseudo-science in the case of human beings.[xxviii]

Prinz does not say exactly how eugenics as applied to humans is pseudo-science. Moreover, it would surely be more accurate to say that Judaism has been, from its inception, an instrument for promoting the Jewish in-group at the expense of all others. Instead of being “pseudo-science,” eugenics is likely responsible for the relatively high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews like Prinz himself. Rather than accepting this, Prinz holds that high Jewish IQ is solely a product of environmental influences. This amounts to saying that Judaism is only a cultural construct, and is not centrally preoccupied with the preservation and flourishing of a coherent ethnic community. While few would question the significance of cultural traits in promoting Jewish educational attainment, such traits have been formed by, and are mediated through, the unique genetic inheritance of the Jews – which is the outgrowth of centuries of eugenic practices particularly among the Ashkenazim. Kevin MacDonald pinpoints why Jews like Prinz seek to ignore the immense importance of Jewish eugenics, noting that “in the case of eugenics and Jews, the reason for this historical obfuscation is clear: In recent decades, eugenics has been reconstructed as an anti-Jewish ideology — indeed, as the ideology of the Holocaust. Therefore, all Jewish involvement in eugenics must be expunged from the historical record. … In the end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.”

Accordingly, for Prinz, “cultural difference is sufficient to explain the [Jewish] pattern of academic achievement” and “there is no solid evidence for thinking that the Ashkenazi advantage in IQ tests is genetically, as opposed to culturally, caused.”[xxx] The Cochran, Hardy and Harpending study of Ashkenazi IQ, which concluded that Jewish eugenic practices (and natural selection pressures) played a role in bringing about their relatively high verbal and mathematical intelligence, yet low visual-spatial intelligence, is flatly rejected by the author. The paucity of great Jewish visual artists is, he insists, solely a legacy of culture and environment.

Jews don’t have an enduring tradition of representational art, because Jewish law prohibits representations of people, and European art production was controlled by wealthy Christian patrons for centuries. Once we move into modern times, Jews are not under-represented in art. Jewish artists include Camille Pissarro, Marc Chagall, Max Beckmann, Amedeo Modigliani, Man Ray, Frida Kahlo, Mark Rothko, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg and Diane Arbus.[xxxi]

Unfortunately for Prinz, three of the figures he cites to prove his case (Beckmann, Kahlo and Rauschenberg) had no Jewish ancestry at all. Pissarro was half-Jewish, while Ray and Arbus were photographers rather than painters. Regarding the artistic merits of Mark Rothko, I refer readers to my series of articles on Rothko posted on TOO last year (see here).

While Prinz vainly attempts to debunk the evidence that racial differences in intelligence are largely due to genetic factors, he fails to offer any direct evidence of the alleged equality of Black and White native intelligence. If his thesis — that all racial groups have the same genetic potential for intelligence — is correct, he should have been able to assemble large amounts of evidence directly supporting it. Noting the general absence of this direct evidence in the critiques of race realism, Hart proposes that: “it is reasonable to infer that such evidence does not exist, and the reason it does not exist is that their assertion is incorrect.”[xxxii] This is especially the case given that there is no a priori reason to assume measured racial differences in IQ are mostly environmental in origin.

Given the vast array of “scholarship” that is predicated on the assumed biological equality of the races – it still comes as something of a shock to see the totally fraudulent and unscientific basis upon which the cultural-Marxist dogma of multiculturalism rests. Rushton makes the point that these attempts to deny race differences amount to a new form of creationism. He notes that “The scientific data fit the Darwinian-Galtonian viewpoint, not the egalitarian one”;  the Darwinian-Galtonian model has been abandoned for political reasons, not because scientific research proved it wrong. Rushton certainly had books like Prinz’s Beyond Human Nature in mind when he observed that the result of this political contamination of the humanities is to leave “the social sciences closer to medieval theology or Renaissance humanitarianism than to modern science.”[xxxiii]

In the final analysis, Prinz’s book is just another effort by the Jewish intellectual Left to shore up the weak conceptual foundations of multiculturalism with its anti-White “diversity” fetish, performed with a sense of intellectual superiority and supreme self-confidence. In attempting to sure up these foundations, books like Beyond Human Nature seek to ensure that the ongoing White dispossession and displacement, which are at the core of this ideology, continue apace and unchallenged. It is the kind of casuistic arguments in Beyond Human Nature that sustain a racially desegregated social model in the West that guarantees that White people currently are, and will increasingly become, the victims of non-White aggression and violence. It is therefore incumbent on us to do what we can to expose the fraudulent basis of a set of beliefs which have been deliberately deployed to harm the economic, physical, and genetic welfare of our people.

REFERENCES

Hart, M.H. (2007) Understanding Human History: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

Lynn, R. (2008) The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

MacDonald, K.B. (2011) ‘Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”’, The Occidental Observer at: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/review-of-john-glads-jewish-eugenics/ 

Prinz, J.J. (2012) Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, Allen Lane, New York.

Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, Charles Darwin Research Institute, Port Huron.

Results from the 2011 Australian Census reveal that, for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”

In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration. The driving force behind this totally undemocratic shift in policy was the Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism that Kevin MacDonald documented in The Culture of Critique. For those aware of the pivotal role of Jews in driving the demographic and cultural transformation of the United States, the story of the Jewish role in radically reengineering Australian society will have a depressingly familiar ring to it.

Advertisement

---

Australia was the last habitable continent settled by Europeans. In 1901 the British colonies of Australia federated to form an independent nation. The first Act passed by the new federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which, through imposing a dictation test in any European language (usually English), effectively barred non-White immigration to Australia. Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, Australia remained an unashamedly White Christian nation with a strong Anglo-Celtic ethnic base. Indeed the long-running (now defunct) news magazine The Bulletin maintained the slogan “Australia for the White Man” on its masthead until 1961. By 1947 the non-European population, other than Aborigines, was measured at 0.25 per cent of the total. As a result of the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia had become, by this time, one of the Whitest countries in the world. Ian Cook makes the point that “The ‘White Australia’ policy was a fairly self-conscious and explicit attempt to protect a particular genetic inheritance from being diluted by other genetic lines.”[i] The policy was extraordinarily successful in this endeavor, and the historian Eric Richards observes that, in retrospect, it is extraordinary that so remote a settlement could maintain such a homogeneous population composition.[ii]

Australia and New Zealand were also the two most “British” societies outside the United Kingdom, and Australia was, proportionately, the most Irish society outside Ireland. The imperial loyalties of the Australian colonists were often explained by reference to the “crimson thread of kinship” that existed between Britain and Australia. Australian identity was founded upon three distinct yet interrelated components: racial Whiteness, “Britishness,” and “Australianness.”[iii] The attempted Japanese invasion of northern Australia in WWII proved that the longstanding fear of an Asian invasion (the “Yellow Peril”) was far from the neurotic, xenophobic anxiety disparaged by today’s politically correct historians. In the 1960s there was no popular movement for ending the White Australia policy, a policy that had retained the bipartisan support of Australia’s political class since its inception in 1901. Indeed, Richards notes that “Australia’s adherence to ‘Whiteness’ was its defining characteristic,” and that “None of the other great immigrant countries was able to sustain such a degree of homogeneity.”[iv] Hawkins makes the point that

the primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin. … Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work to build the foundations of urban and rural life. … The idea that other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts, might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts, was anathema.[v]     

Tied in with these natural and legitimate expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity, were concerns hordes of non-White immigrants would drive down the wages and living standards of White Australians. This was a key part of the original rationale for the White Australia policy as articulated by Alfred Deakin, Australia’s first Attorney-General, who argued that

a white Australia does not by any means just mean the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the multiplying of homes, so that we may be able to defend every part of our continent; it means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means equal laws and opportunities for all; it means protection against underpaid labour of other lands, it means the payment of fair wages. A white Australia means a civilisation whose foundations are built on healthy lives, lived in honest toil, under circumstances which imply no degradation; a white Australia means protection.”[vi]  

An analogous view had been expressed as early as 1841 by James Stephen, the powerful head of the British colonial office in London, who declared that Australia should be a land “where the English race shall be spread from sea to sea unmixed with any lower caste.” He maintained that the introduction of Indian “coolies” into New South Wales would “debase by their intermixture the noble European race… bring with them the idolatry and debasing habits of their country… beat down the wages of poor laboring Europeans… [and] cut off the resource for many of our own distressed people.”[vii] Charles Pearson, a British scholar who migrated to the colonies in the late nineteenth century, published a book entitled National Life and Character in 1893. In it, he described Australia as “an unexampled instance of a great continent that has been left for the first civilized people that found it to take and occupy. He warned, nevertheless, that it was still questionable whether the white races would be able to hold on to it in the face of the Asiatic threat:

We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman and Australian alone, but the whole civilized world, that will be the losers.[viii]

Such concerns echoed through the decades of the White Australia policy, where the country explicitly defined its nationhood in terms of Whiteness and a policy of economic protectionism designed to benefit the entire group by preventing, say, Australian capitalists from importing cheap labor that would undercut the standard of living of other White Australians. The policy reflected the desire of Australians to build a strong and prosperous society founded upon the principles of racial and cultural homogeneity and fairness within the racial group. Gwenda Tavan notes that the White Australia policy was a “morally imbued affirmation of the type of society Australians wanted to build: white and British-Australian as well as cohesive, conformist, liberal-democratic and egalitarian.”[ix] One commentator reflected this view when noting in 1939 that “The Australian prides himself on his high standard of living; he wishes to do nothing that will endanger it. Neither does he wish to bring into being a colour problem such as he sees in South Africa.”[x]

Early twentieth century Australian poster

Rather than being driven by any shift in public opinion, the impetus for the progressive dismantling of the White Australia policy, and the move from assimilation to multiculturalism between 1966 and 1975 came “from a small group of reformers that began appearing in some Australian universities in the 1960s” who, like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, soon comprised a hostile intellectual, academic and media elite who “developed a sense of being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against Australian parochial non-intellectuals as an outgroup.”[xi] In the changing ideological climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the moral foundations of Australia’s British history were subjected to radical criticism, and once foundational patriotic works like Keith Hancock’s Australia (with its maxim that “among the Australians pride of race counted for more than love of country”) were no longer compulsory reading for students. [xii]

Boasian anthropology and the fall of White Australia

The Boasian ideology of racial egalitarianism (discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as a Jewish intellectual movement) was a critical weapon in opening Australian immigration up to non-White groups. Jewish academic Jon Stratton notes that the dismantling of the White Australia policy and the ultimate adoption of multiculturalism was a direct result of “internal and external pressures related to a general turning away from biological racialism.”[xiii] The Australian Jewish academic Andrew Markus articulates the standard critique of “white racism” that became prominent in the 1960s when he asserts that it was based on the notion that

(i) as a result of some (undefined) “natural” process, national groups (or ‘races’ or ‘cultures’) have inborn (‘essential’) qualities which will never alter; and (ii) there are inherent characteristics in such groups which interpose barriers against harmonious co-existence, not least against interbreeding of populations. Such ideas give rise to closed forms of nationalism which restrict membership to those qualified by birth or descent, in contrast to open forms which grant citizenship to individuals on the basis of residence and adherence to the governing principles of the nation. They justified European colonial rule; the denial of basic human rights and citizenship; segregation in the workplace, housing and education; and policies of genocide culminating in the “factories of death” established in the period of Nazi domination of continental Europe. Rarely challenged in western societies prior to 1940, the idea of biological racial difference lost much of its legitimacy in the aftermath of the Holocaust.[xiv]

It is obvious from this statement just how closely acceptance of the myth of racial equality from the 1960s onwards was bound up with Jewish post-Holocaust ethno-political activism. Note also the outright lies and hypocrisy in the above paragraph. The “(undefined) ‘natural’ process” that Markus claims is the wholly irrational basis for “racism” is the very well-defined process of human evolution itself. The differential evolution of human groups in response to selection pressures imposed by diverse environments, resulted, after thousands of years, in differences in external morphology and psychological traits—including intelligence as measured by IQ tests. The average intelligence of a group will profoundly influence the society that will be created by that group. There is nothing undefined, irrational, or pseudo-scientific about this whatsoever.

Professor Andrew Markus: Propagating “noble lies”

 In his description of “closed” forms of nationalism which restrict “membership to those qualified by birth or descent” Markus could be describing traditional Judaism, with its strict endogamy and built-in assumptions of Jewish racial, intellectual and moral superiority. As always, however, Judaism is outside the critical frame of reference of such reflexively anti-White Jewish intellectuals. Jewish ethno-nationalism (exemplified in Israel’s racially restrictive immigration laws) is tacitly held to be legitimate and uncontroversial (indeed a moral imperative), while White nationalism is inherently illegitimate and morally corrupt.

The rampant hypocrisy of this is particularly striking given that Australian Jews have “been at the forefront of support for the right of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, to determine its own security agenda, and to do what is needed to ensure its own survival.”[xv]  Indeed, the academic and Australian Jewish activist Danny Ben Moshe points out that Australian Jewry is fiercely Zionist and “outdoes all other Diasporas in their commitment to Israel.” A 1993 survey of Melbourne Jewry found that 63 per cent had visited Israel with over 40 per cent having done so two or more times. This is compared with 36 per cent of American Jews. Australia also has the highest rate of aliyah in the world.[xvi] While strongly in favor of non-White immigration and racial-mixing among the non-Jews in Australia, a publication like the Australian Jewish News can openly express the view that for Jews, “Intermarriage has always been and will always be an individual, spiritual and communal tragedy. No amount of petty rationalising will ever change that.”[xvii]

Noting the incredible hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning white racialism while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel (and traditional Jewish prohibitions against intermarriage), Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that:

Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. …  A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.[xviii]  

Since the academic world is international and hierarchical, it was inevitable that intellectual movements originating in elite American universities spread throughout the West (see “Liberal Bias in Academia: The role of Jewish academics in the creation and maintenance of academic liberalism“) As a consequence of the growing influence of the Jewish intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique, and direct Jewish activism in Australia, “Such views [i.e. the assumption racial equality] became standard within schools and universities and provided the intellectual basis for campaigns against racial discrimination in the late 1950s and 1960s.”[xix] Tavan notes that: “As a result of these shifts, universities in particular became ‘hotbeds of resistance’ to White Australia during the late 1950s and early 1960s. … The emergence of a body of Marxist-inspired social theory in Europe and the United States at that time also reinvigorated radical left-wing political theory in Australia.” For Tavan, the new critical theory of the Frankfurt School “played a crucial role in exposing the racist underpinnings of many of Australia’s key institutions and values.”[xx] The Frankfurt School abandoned the White working class because they were insufficiently radical and had succumbed to fascism in Germany and Italy. This caused them to reject the orthodox Marxist emphasis on class struggle, replacing it by advocating non-White immigration and multiculturalism, as well as recruiting Whites who had complaints against the traditional culture, particularly feminists and sexual minorities, into a new coalition of the left.

With the adoption in 1963 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, member governments were urged to eliminate racial discrimination from their society altogether. Internal intellectual currents were thus augmented by mounting external political opposition to the White Australia policy, especially during the years of European decolonization in Africa and Asia. Eric Richards notes how

Prime Minister Menzies [1949-1966] was increasingly vexed by the intrusion of racial and immigration issues at meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Menzies (and even more vehemently, one of his successors, John Gorton) loathed the way in which he was lectured on the “principle of racial equality” by newcomer members of the Commonwealth. Menzies and Gorton [1968-1971] believed that Australia’s immigration policy was perfectly defensible and, in any case, none of their business. But the die was already cast. Australia in the 1960s felt pressure from within and from beyond, and its immigration policy was a growing embarrassment.[xxi]    

Senior Australian public servants serving on a committee formed to respond to the changed situation agreed in 1964 that “there was an urgent need to remove, as far as practicable, instances of racial discrimination in Australia in order to ensure Australia’s international reputation and influence are not to be seriously endangered.”[xxii] In response to these internal and external pressures, the administrative apparatus of the White Australia policy was gradually dismantled from the mid-1960s, until, in 1974, the then Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam (1972-1975), declared in a speech that: “On Immigration, we have removed the last remaining pieces of legislation which could be described as discriminatory on racial grounds.”[xxiii]

According to the Australian academic and multicultural activist Bronwyn Hinz, this policy change merely formalized shifts in policy approach that had begun in the 1960s in response to reforms to the United States migration policy.[xxiv] Richards observes that this “hesitating shift towards a non-discriminatory Australia” triggered “a social and demographic revolution” in Australia[xxv] In both America and Australia, Jewish intellectual movements and political activism were pivotal in driving this revolution. The national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges this, noting that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The exact nature of this crusade will be explored in subsequent parts of this essay. 

Go to Part 2. 

REFERENCES

Ben-Moshe, D. (2006) ‘The End of Unconditional Love: The Future of Zionism in Australian Jewish LIfe,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 108-125.

Cook, I. (1999) Liberalism in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Curthoys, A. (2008) ‘Indigenous Subjects,’ In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 78-102.

Fagenblat, M., Landau, M. & Wolski, N. (2006) ‘Will the Centre Hold?,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 3-16.

Hancock, W.K. (1930) Australia, London.

Hinz, B. (2010) ‘Ethnic associations, networks and the construction of Australian multiculturalism,’ Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Corcordia University, Montreal, 1‐3 June.

http://www.bronwynhinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Hinz-2010-Australian-multiculturalism-paper-for-CPSA-v4.pdf 

Jupp, J. (2002) From White Australia to Woomera – The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

Markus, A. (2001) Race: John Howard and the remaking of Australia, Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Pearson, C. (1893) National Life and Character: A Forecast, MacMillan & Co., London.

Richards, E. (2008) ‘Migrations: The Career of British White Australia,’ In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 163-185.

Stratton, J. (2000) Coming Out Jewish – Constructing Ambivalent Identities, Routledge, London.

Szego, J. (2006) ‘Marry Identities,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 39-45.

Tavan, G. (2

The History of Judaism in Australia

Jews have been present in Australia since the beginning of European settlement. Around a dozen Jewish convicts came with the First Fleet in 1788. When the transportation of convicts to eastern Australia ended in 1853, around 800 of the 151,000 convicts to have arrived were of Jewish origin. The first free Jewish settlers arrived from Britain in 1809, and there were three subsequent waves of Jewish immigration to Australia between 1850 and 1930 – mainly German Jews arriving during the gold rushes, refugees from Tsarist Russia from 1880 to 1914, and Polish Jews after 1918. The numbers arriving with each of these waves were, however, comparatively small and Australian Jewry remained a tiny isolated outpost of world Jewry until the 1930s.[i]

Unlike in Britain where Jews were gradually emancipated through Parliamentary Acts in 1854, 1858 and 1866, in the Australian colonies they enjoyed full civil and political rights from the beginning: they acquired British nationality, voted at elections, held commissions in the local militia, were elected to municipal offices and were appointed justices of the peace.[ii] Jews were well integrated into the political and administrative structure of the colonies. Sir John Monash (1865-1931) became a general in the Australian army and was, according to Goldberg, “the only Jew in the modern era outside Israel (with the exception of Trotsky) to lead an army.”[iii]  Sir Isaac Isaacs (1855-1948) became Australia’s first native-born Governor-General.  In Australia under the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 these highly assimilated Anglo-Jews were regarded as “White,” whereas Jews of middle-eastern origin were regarded as Asian and therefore barred from entry.

Sir Isaac Isaacs

Jewish academic Jon Stratton points out that the high level of assimilation of Anglo-Australian Jewry was reflected in the relatively high levels of intermarriage through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. In 1911, some 27 per cent of Jewish husbands in Australia had non-Jewish wives and 13 per cent of Jewish wives had non-Jewish husbands. In 1921 these figures had increased to 29 per cent and 16 per cent respectively. However, by the 1991 census there had been a decline to an overall rate of 10-15 per cent.[iv] Stratton notes that “the acceptance of intermarriage signifies a lack of racial difference. Jews were thus caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they were accepted as marriage partners by gentiles this was a crucial step in the process of national assimilation but, in marrying gentiles, they destroyed the endogamous basis of Jewish particularity.”[v] This is an acknowledgment of the essentially incompatibility of Judaism and Western culture in the tendency of individualistic Western cultures to break down Jewish cohesiveness.

The Ashkenazi Jews who migrated from central and eastern Europe between 1930 and 1950 created an identity crisis within the established Anglo-Jewish community. In their political radicalism, avowed Zionism and intense ethnocentrism, they differed greatly from the Anglo-Australian Jews. The new migrants had the effect of making the Anglo-Jews more visible as a group through their association with the new European Jews. They also provoked hostility from significant sections of the Australian community, who correctly sensed that the psychologically intense and politically radical newcomers posed a fundamental threat to their nation.

Advertisement

---

In 1933 there were still only 23,000 Jews in Australia. Between 1938 and 1961 this number almost trebled to 61,000. The 2011 census indicated a Jewish population of 97,335 out of an overall population of 23 million.[vi] Currently ranking ninth in worldwide Jewish communities, the Jewish historian Suzanne Rutland laments that today Jews only “constitute only 0.5 per cent of the overall population” and ascribes this to “the hostility that was expressed towards Jewish immigration” in the 1930s and 1940s. From Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933 Jewish representatives in London and Australia lobbied the Australian government to allow more Jews to settle, but until 1936 such requests were met with a negative response. In that year the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior, T.H. Garrett, opined that “Jews as a class are not desirable immigrants for the reason that they do not assimilate; generally speaking, they preserve their identity as Jews.”[vii]

Following the German Anschluss with Austria in 1938 the Jewish refugee problem worsened as a further 180,000 Jews came under National Socialist rule. President Roosevelt convened an international conference to discuss the refugee crisis. Held in Evian, France in June 1938, thirty-eight countries, including Australia, were represented. The position of the Australian government, which announced that it would not liberalize its immigration policy from an annual quota of 5,000 was mirrored by the other participating nations. Only the Dominican Republic altered its immigration laws to increase the flow of Jewish immigrants. Australia’s delegate, Thomas W. White, expressed the popular view when he declared that “as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large scale foreign migration.”[viii]

Supporting the Australian government’s stance, the influential publication The Bulletin argued that “Australia cannot be expected to imperil its existence or to receive vast numbers of alien refugees for the gratification of German Jews, New York politicians and editors, and is not going to do it, either.”[ix] Referring to Jewish immigration, the weekly Truth asserted in 1938 that “As a racial unit they are a menace to our nationhood and standards.”[x] A similar view was reflected by one concerned citizen who wrote to the Minister for External Affairs in 1938 insisting that the Jewish immigrant was: “unBritish in his dealings, he is unscrupulous, unprincipled except towards his kith and kin – he’ll stop at nothing in his mercenary and spineless tactics to gain his own ends. …  God help us if something is not done to block these scurrilous and designing people from gaining a stranglehold which all the laws imaginable will not prevent.”[xi]

When the Australian government announced in December 1938 that 15,000 more refugees would be admitted over the following three years, the Catholic Advocate warned that:

If the present policy of admitting large numbers of Jewish immigrants is continued, we are likely to be confronted by a rapid increase in anti-Semitism. … The Jews are not simply an international religious body like the Catholics: they are a nation with well-marked characteristics, both mental and physical, with their own virtues, vices and talents, and with their peculiar loyalties. … It is the sense of this difference which has caused friction between the Jew and his hosts throughout the ages, and which has constantly brought tragedy to the Jews.[xii]

Another leading voice of opposition to Jewish immigration to Australia around this time was the patriotic Australia First movement which was inaugurated by the Sydney businessman W.J. Miles. When the movement was constituted in 1941 it issued a manifesto which declared that: “The Jewish practice of racial segregation and exclusiveness makes the assimilation of Jews into the Australian community an impossibility; … people who are determined to remain racially aloof should never be admitted in large numbers to Australia.”[xiii] Following Miles’ death in 1942, the Australia First movement came under the leadership of P.R. Stephensen, an Australian cultural nationalist, literary figure and Rhodes Scholar. In an article in the Australian Quarterly in 1940, Stephensen observed that “Wherever Jews wander they take not only Semitism, but also anti-Semitism with them. … As has been said elsewhere, ‘they chose to be Chosen, and must take the consequences.’ … It is solely because the Jews insist on preserving their racial identity that they are a problem in every country in which they settle.”[xiv]

Stephensen noted that Jews always exerted disproportionate influence in the countries they resided in because, unlike their neighbors, they are highly-organized, which “guarantees their survival and prosperity wherever they go” and “undoubtedly supplies the inspiration and model for Communist Party organization in all countries, including Russia and Australia.”[xv] Given that Stephensen started his political life as a founding member of the Australian Communist Party, he was well placed to comment on the significance of Jewish influence within Communist Party organizations. The Communist Party of Australia itself was to be dominated throughout the Cold War period by Jews like Laurie Aarons, its secretary between 1965 and 1976.

P.R. Stephensen

Deeply concerned at increasing Jewish power and influence in Australia, Stephensen declared:

The answer to Semitism is anti-Semitism; and when Jews gain too many advantages for themselves, by their practice of self-segregation, they invariably find (and surely should expect to find!) that the majority of non-Jews will resent, and eventually will curb, the privileges which the Jews have won for themselves by concerted sectional action. That is what will inevitably occur in Australia sooner or later, if a large colony of self-segregating Jews is allowed now to establish itself in our community.[xvi]

For Stephensen, Jewish ethnocentrism and endogamy were at the heart of the Jewish problem, and the solution to this problem was simple:

It is well known that there are many Jews who are good citizens, honest and cultured, despite the reputation of the generality of their kind of being financially “tricky”, unscrupulous, and parasitical. That there are intellectual and sensitive Jews is also as well-known as that there are many “Flash Yids” who degrade and debase public culture. No case can be made against Jews generally, except … that their insistence on racial self-segregation is anti-social, considered from the point of view of the community as a whole. We cannot concede to them in Australia a right which, if conceded in perpetuity to other types of immigrant … would lead to the sectionalizing of the community and its disunification. … The remedy is that the Jewish Race should abolish itself, by becoming absorbed in the common stream of mankind. [Otherwise] we others, who are so strictly excluded from the Jewish community, have at least a reciprocal right to exclude them from ours.[xvii]  

In retrospect, Stephensen accurately predicted the fragmentation of Australian society that was to occur under the malign influence of multiculturalism – a Jewish-originated and promoted ideology designed to preserve Jewish particularism, while demographically, politically and culturally weakening the majority White Australian population. In the Jewish promotion of racial and cultural “pluralism” in Australia, Jews have, exactly as Stephensen predicted, caused the “sectionalizing” and “disunification” of the Australian community.

In 1939, Stephensen successfully sued a Communist Party newspaper for libel when it accused him of “being a propagandist for the Nazis.” When asked in court whether, through his writings, he had “sedulously endeavoured to stir up anti-Semitic feeling in this country” he replied: “Not as you put it; but as a Gentile, I am opposed to Jewish influences in Australia.”[xviii] Stephensen was the editor of the Australia First publication Publicist which published articles by a range of distinguished writers who were forthright in their views about the dangers of substantial levels of Jewish immigration. One of these contributors, Rex Williams, wrote that

Australians would be silly to ignore the warnings of 5000 years of Jewish history – a history of penetration by guile, followed by expulsion by force from almost every land in which Jews have settled. It is no use blaming gentiles for “persecuting” Jews! The Jews, by their malpractices, ask for it – and get it. They are never loyal to any country in which they settle: they are loyal only to their “international” and “non-national” Race. And that is how they get themselves into trouble, in Australia, as everywhere else.[xix]    

Another leading voice of opposition to Jewish immigration was Henry Baynton Gullet, the Liberal member for the electorate of Henty in Victoria. In 1947, in a letter to the Melbourne Argus he observed that the Jews “are European neither by race, standards, nor culture… In 2000 years no one but Britain has been successfully able to absorb them, and for the most part they owe loyalty and allegiance to none… They secured a stranglehold on Germany after the last war during the inflation period, and in very large part, brought upon themselves the persecution which they subsequently suffered… These are the people who at the direction of international Jewish organisations, are being foisted upon us who are to become the dumping ground for the world’s unabsorbable.” Gullet concluded his letter by declaring that, “The arrival of additional Jews is nothing less than the beginning of a national tragedy and a piece of the grossest deception of Parliament and the people by the Minister for Immigration.”[xx]

Cartoon in Smith's Weekly, February 1947 — State Library of New South Wales

Another group opposed to Jewish immigration was the Returned Services League (RSL), whose president in New South Wales, Ken Bolton, called for the immediate and total cessation of Jewish immigration to Australia in the national interest. In 1946 Bolton declared: “let us not beat about the bush. … they are German Jews of the same ilk as those who have come before.” The president of the Australian Natives Association, P.J. Lynch, stated in 1947 that Australia must not become a “dumping ground for European refuse now causing trouble in Palestine … as Jews in Palestine were murdering and flogging British subjects.” Lynch, like many Australians, was outraged by the terrorist attacks on the British Mandatory forces in Palestine by Zionist terrorists. These included the assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944, the dynamiting of the King David Hotel in July 1946, the flogging of a British officer and sergeants, the kidnapping of a judge in December 1946, and the hanging of two British sergeants by the Irgun in July 1947. As a result of the anger generated by these events, and the backlash suffered by the Chifley Labor government for accepting a quota of Jewish refugees in 1945-46, restrictions on Jewish immigration were introduced in 1947 and maintained until 1952.[xxi]

Jewish motivations for opposing the White Australia policy

Jewish interest in the liberalization of Australia’s immigration policies thus stemmed, at least initially, from a desire to provide sanctuary for Jews fleeing Europe. Indeed memories of the Australian government’s opposition to expanded Jewish immigration prior to and immediately after World War Two was undoubtedly a prime motivating factor behind the Jewish campaign to end the racially-restrictive White Australia policy and establish support for multiculturalism as a central pillar of Australian government policy.

Furthermore, these memories continue to drive Jewish ethno-political activism in contemporary Australia. For the prominent Jewish intellectual (and self-appointed moral conscience of the Australian nation) Professor Robert Manne, “One of the most powerful stories to emerge from the Holocaust, which meant a lot to me, concerned the unwillingness of almost all the Western nations to offer homes to significant numbers of Jews who fled from Germany in the 1930s. The defence of refugees has been for me and for many post-Holocaust Jews, a permanent feature of the political landscape.”[xxii]

Professor Robert Manne

The disgraced former judge and leading representative of the Australian Jewish community, Marcus Einfeld, expressed a similar sentiment, declaring that “Australia has long held the sentiment that it offers a good quality of life to those within its borders, free of problems and conflicts. It seems that opening its doors to save thousands of Jews from wholesale murder in the approaching Nazi storm was thought likely to bring unwanted problems and imbalance and to disturb the peaceful Australian lifestyle.”[xxiii] Einfeld was especially angry that even after the war “protests from trade unions and the conservative side of politics amongst others, forced the government of the day to limit the number of Jews on any one ship to 25 per cent, thus leaving many to wallow in camps in Europe until the birth of Israel or the willingness of other countries to take them.”[xxiv]

In response to these views, one is prompted to observe that the same rationale for restricting Jewish immigration to Australia in the 1930s and 1940s (i.e. national and ethnic self-interest) has been, and continues to be, invoked by Israel and its supporters to justify its racially-restrictive immigration policy, and for its recent deportation of “enemy infiltrators” from Africa. Jewish intellectuals hypocritically condemn the Australians of the 1930s and 1940s for having refused to subordinate their group interests to those of a hostile out-group – when Jews and the state of Israel resolutely refuse to do the same. Only European-derived peoples have opened their doors to the other peoples of the world and now stand in danger of losing control of territory occupied for hundreds of years, as in Australia, Canada and the United States, or, in the case of Europe itself, many thousand years.

Another source of Jewish hostility to White Australia was their belief that “Nazi collaborators” and “war criminals” were given sanctuary by the Australian government. 200,000 European displaced persons were accepted into Australia between 1947 and 1950, including from nations that had been German allies during the war. According to the Jewish historian Suzanne Rutland the Australian selection procedures were inadequate, with the focus on excluding “enemy aliens” such as Germans and Italians “rather than on Eastern European collaborators, many of whom had joined the Waffen SS.”[xxvi] She claims that the small number of Jewish displaced persons in migrant camps “often experienced anti-Semitism, and in some cases even recognized a camp guard.”

The “Jewish Council to Combat Fascism and Anti-Semitism” was formed to follow up these claims. Rutland claims that “When data of Nazi and anti-Semitic activities in the migrant camps was presented to the Department of Immigration, it was disregarded because of the communist links of the Council to Combat Fascism and Anti-Semitism” and because the government believed the charges were “activated by religious or national bias.”[xxvii] Interestingly, Jewish leaders have never expressed any corresponding concern that Jewish communist criminals from the former USSR and the Eastern bloc were able to freely migrate to Israel and the West following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The cover of Sanctuary (1989) by Jewish and Australian Communist Party activist Mark Aarons

Jewish organizations in Australia lobbied energetically for Germans to be excluded from the Australian post-war migrant intake. In 1950 the Australian Jewish Council issued a booklet entitled German and Volks Migration Will Flood Australia With Nazis. It depicted an arrogant army officer as the type of German migrant Australia would be likely to receive.

The Nazi Germans who are likely to come to this country will be bad migrants and … will endanger the living standards of the people. … There are certain people in Australia who are anxious to abolish the 40 hour week, and destroy the independent trade union movement. How much better can this be done with a horde of Nazi migrants accustomed to working a 48 hour week and hostile to trade unionism?[xxviii]

White Australia is widely regarded by Jews (together with the United States, Canada and Britain) as having been an accessory to the “Holocaust” by limiting the number of Jewish refugees it was willing to accept from Europe, and also by accepting thousands of “Nazi war criminals” as migrants after the war. Given this perception, it will come as no surprise that Jewish ethno-political activism was fundamental to ending White Australia and in establishing support for ‘multiculturalism’ as a central pillar of Australian government policy.

An added stimulus was the sense of Jewish insecurity that accompanied the 1967 and the 1973 wars between Israel and the Arabs. Throughout the Jewish world there was a spontaneous and immediate response to the 1967 crisis, and the Australian Jewish community was no exception. In Melbourne, 7,000 out of a community of 34,000 attended a public rally called at the outbreak of the fighting, and 2,500 attended a youth rally in the same week. In Sydney, over 6,000 people crowded into the Central Synagogue and its surrounds. In both cities, hundreds of Jewish youth volunteered to go fight for Israel. A 1967 study of Melbourne Jewry found that most people interviewed reacted with deep emotional upset, staying glued to the news from Israel, and seeking social contacts with family members and other Jews.[xxix] Australian Jews who were more “assimilated” or not active in communal organizations were equally affected. These feelings were reinforced by the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Professor Robert Manne’s response to the 1967 war was typical:

My most intense political feelings about Israel occurred when I was in my second year of university, at the time the war between Israel and the Arab world in June 1967. Shortly after the war broke out I attended a large meeting somewhere near Albert Park Lake in Melbourne. At the time no one knew whether or not Israel would survive. Neither before nor since have I experienced such an atmosphere charged with political emotion. This was the only time in my life when I felt the visceral power of nationalism which took hold of me and of much of the audience of mainly post-Holocaust young Jews. Like many others I was determined to go to Israel to fight. Twenty years after the Holocaust, I felt that I could not remain in the safety of Australia while the Jewish people in Israel were destroyed.[xxx]  

This was the intellectual and political context for Jewish ethno-political activism in Australia (and throughout the Western world) between 1967 and 1973. This activism centered around three main objectives: to ensure the ongoing existence of Israel as an ethnically homogeneous Jewish state; to ensure the safety of diaspora Jewry by reforming Western immigration policies to promote racial and ethnic diversity (high levels of White racial homogeneity being regarded as potentially dangerous to Jews); and finally, to ensure the continuation of Jewish ethnic separatism and endogamy (and counter assimilation) in the West through promoting the official adoption of “multiculturalism.” This unanimity of opinion among Australian Jews with regard to these key objectives continues through to the present day. Historian William D. Rubinstein notes that

Politically, the Jewish community is strongly united on a limited number of goals on which there is consensus or near consensus, especially support for Israel, fighting anti-Semitism and endorsing multiculturalism, and stemming assimilation through Jewish day-school education. It has been fairly successful in achieving these goals, probably because it is unusually united and also because the quality of its secular leadership has been very high. The contemporary world Jewish situation, formed chiefly by the Holocaust and the re-emergence of the state of Israel, has produced a near universal consensus on similar goals through the Jewish world.[xxxi]     

The “Holocaust” and Zionism continue to be “the magnetic poles for the compass of Australian Jewish identity.”[xxxii] Anti-Semitism and intermarriage are still regarded as the two most ominous threats to Diaspora Jews. The liberalization of Western immigration policies and the institution of state-sponsored “multiculturalism” throughout the West are almost universally regarded by Jews as the most effective ways to counteract these threats. The next part of this essay will look at the crucial role of the leading Australian Jewish activist Walter Lippmann in establishing multiculturalism as a central pillar of Australian government policy.

Go to Part 3.

REFERENCES

Einfeld, M. (2006) ‘We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 305-315.

Fagenblat, M., Landau, M. & Wolski, N. (2006) ‘Will the Centre Hold?,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 3-16.

Goldberg, D. (2006) ‘After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 140-152.

Manne, R. (2006) ‘The Holocaust and Political Identity: A Personal Account,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 46-55.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

Rubinstein, H.L. (1991) The Jews in Australia – A Thematic History, Volume 1: 1788-1945, William Heinemann, Melbourne.

Rubinstein, W.D. (1991) The Jews in Australia – A Thematic History, Volume 2: 1945 to the Present, William Heinemann, Melbourne.

Rubinstein, W.D. (1995) Judaism in Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Rutland, S.D. (2005) The Jews in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

Rutland, S. (2006) ‘Why Does Australian Jewish History Matter?,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 293-304.

Stratton, J. (2000) Coming Out Jewish – Constructing Ambivalent Identities, Routledge, London.

Tavan, G. (2005) The long, slow death of White Australia, Scribe Publications, Melbourne.

Walter Lippmann – The Jewish architect of Australian Multiculturalism

While the Minister for Immigration in the Whitlam government (1972-1975), Al Grassby, is widely renowned in politically correct Australian circles as the “father of Australian multiculturalism,” the real architect of this poisonously anti-White ideology and policy in Australia was Walter Lippmann, a German-Jewish refugee who settled in Melbourne in 1938. Lippmann was a businessman and a prominent member of Melbourne’s Jewish community who by 1960 had become president of the Australian Jewish Welfare and Relief Society.

In his advocacy of multiculturalism in Australia, Lippmann tore a page out of the writings of the pioneering Jewish-American multiculturalist Horace Kallen. Lippmann deeply resented the assimilated culture of the Australia he entered in 1938, and believed Jewish immigrants had left one type of oppression behind only to be subjected to another: the Australian expectation to assimilate. Kallen had described the corresponding expectation in the early twentieth century United States as “the Americanization hysteria” or the “Americanization psychosis.”[i] The multiculturalism espoused by Walter Lippmann in Australia, a toxic blend of postmodernism and Marxism, implied “a rejection not only of the attempts to promote an amalgam of cultures but also of any assumptions of Anglo-Saxon superiority and the necessary conformity to English-oriented cultural patterns.”

In an article entitled “Australian Jewry – Can It Survive?” published in the Jewish community newspaper The Bridge in January 1973, Lippmann argued that “The positive value of a multicultural society needs promotion in the Australian environment.” His argument was developed against the background of news that Lippmann found deeply disturbing, namely that “for the first time in the history of Australian Jewry, the 1971 Commonwealth Census has disclosed a decline in the number of Jews identifying as such.”[ii] Lippmann identified three major reasons for the decline: the post-WWII migration of Jews had mostly consisted of the middle-aged, the relatively low birth-rate of Australian Jews, and the relatively high rate of marrying out.

Advertisement

---

Walter Lippmann

Lippmann suggested that two interconnected developments needed to take place to ensure the long-term survival of Australian Jewry. One was the organization of a Jewish community relevant to the Australian political context. The other was recognition by government that Australian society was “suffering from an ambivalence on the vital ‘unity through diversity’ aspect of nation building,” and was “imposing upon immigrants pressures to conform, so that they can establish themselves.” Stratton notes that it was in this context that Lippmann argued for a change in government policy. Lippmann argued that “For a Jewish community to survive in the Australian environment, it is necessary that Jewish separateness be defined for and imbibed by coming generations.” Australian Jews were to have their ethnic and cultural separateness strengthened and normalized through the power of government. Jewish ethnic identity was to be affirmed, and equivalences made between, for example, the Jewish and Greek ethnic Diasporas. For Lippmann, the future of the Australian Jewish community depended upon “a recognition of cultural pluralism in Australia.”[iii]

In reality, as Kevin MacDonald observes, multiculturalism, like neo-Orthodoxy and Zionism, is simply another Jewish response “to the Enlightenment’s corrosive effects on Judaism” which likewise involves the creation of a “defensive structure erected against the destructive influence of European civilization.”[iv] It is an attempt to resolve the “fundamental and irresolvable friction between Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure.”[v]

Lippmann’s goal was to transform Australia from a racially and culturally assimilated White society into a multi-racial, multicultural society with wide variety of religions, cultures, and linguistic groups spread across the country’s landscape and accorded equal status by government. According to the Jewish Australian academic Andrew Markus, Lippmann’s basic message was: “that you’re not advantaging a specific group until you’re advantaging the whole society. You’re enriching the whole society. You’re freeing up potential, you’re freeing up human potential. Instead of people being locked away, denied opportunities, everyone benefits by opening up opportunities and by welcoming and recognizing diversity.” This vision of a new multicultural paradise where all kinds of racial, ethnic and cultural groups live in peace and harmony was laughably utopian, and heedless of the long catalogue of failed multicultural experiments around the world.

MacDonald notes that the problem with this multicultural scenario from an evolutionary perspective (or even a common sense perspective) is that “no provision is made for the results of competition for resources and reproductive success within the society.”[vi] The inevitable racial, religious and cultural conflict that “cultural pluralism” would inevitably provoke was ostensibly regarded by Lippmann as an acceptable price to pay for guaranteeing Jewish ethnic continuity. Thus, even if the multicultural utopia is never attained and Australia became a nation of warring tribes, the policy will at least have ended the hated “hegemony” of the old White Australia and ensured the survival of Australian Jewry.  Lippmann, like Kallen, was a strongly identified Jew and Zionist, and it was hardly surprising that his ideal for Australia was a form of social organization that conforms to Jewish interests and compromises the interests of White Australians; with multiculturalism being, at its core, “a social form that guarantees the continued existence of Judaism as a social category and a cohesive ethnic group while at the same time, given the characteristics of Jews [high IQ, high levels of education etc.], guarantees Jews economic and cultural pre-eminence.”[vii]

Walter Lippmann’s ethno-political activism

Through Lippmann’s membership and connections in the Australian Labor Party, he was appointed chairman of the influential Committee on Community Relations of the Federal Department of Labour and Immigration when it was established in 1974 by the Whitlam government. Lippmann also secured board positions on the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, and a host of other bodies involved in shaping government policy.

There was considerable disquiet within the Department of Labour and Immigration following his appointment as Chairman of the Committee on Community Relations, with the Department official Andy Watson recalling that “The Department regarded Lippmann as an ‘empire builder’ for the Jewish community’s benefit. The Department was sceptical of Lippmann’s personal ambitions.”[viii] Lopez notes that “Lippmann regarded his appointment in strategic terms as a major breakthrough in advancing his pluralist cause. His appointment gave the proto-multiculturalists their first formal access to the [Immigration] Department’s system of generating policy advice. He intended to use his position of influence to achieve ideological change in settlement and welfare policy.”[ix]

Lippmann used his simultaneous membership in the numerous organizations and committees that made submissions to the Committee on Community Relations to ensure that his own (and the Jewish community’s) views prevailed in the committee’s final report. Essentially Lippmann was using organizational sock-puppets to make submissions to the government committee that he himself chaired. Under this arrangement, the recommendations of the committee inevitably represented the views of Lippmann and the Australian Jewish community. Lopez notes that:

Lippmann was the most skilled of the multiculturalists at using his numerous committee memberships, both government and non-government, to gain tactical advantages in seeking to influence government policy. …  Sometimes Lippmann used his position in several committees in a coordinated campaign such as his campaign for a closed seminar to articulate an ideology of multiculturalism. He launched the campaign in ACOSS [the Australian Council of Social Services], using his position as the Chairman of the ACOSS Joint Committee on Migrant Welfare to make a submission to the Immigration Advisory Council. This proposal was presented not as a Lippmann proposal but as an “ACOSS” proposal. He then used his position in the Immigration Advisory Council to argue for the acceptance of the ACOSS proposal. Once the proposal had been formally discussed in the Immigration Advisory Council it was presented to the Minister as an Immigration Advisory Council proposal. When the proposal was defeated due to a combination of ministerial indifference and opposition from senior department officers, Lippmann used his committee memberships to work towards establishing a place for a multiculturalist manifesto within the environs of the Department.

When the National Population Inquiry, chaired by Professor Borrie, became a public inquiry he used his position in ACOSS to submit a multiculturalist manifesto as an ACOSS submission. It failed to influence the Borrie Committee so Lippmann tried again, using his position as chairman of the IAC Committee on Community Relations to attempt to insert a statement of multicultural ideology into that Committee’s report. To historians unaware of the maneuvering by a leading multicultural activist, like Lippmann, the documents left in Lippmann’s wake may seem to indicate a consensus among ACOSS and several IAC committees on a particular multicultural idea. What can seem to be a consensus is actually a trail left by a few, or one activist using multiple committee memberships as a vantage point to gain influence.  [x]         

The multicultural ideology that Lippmann so zealously and cunningly foisted on generally unreceptive White bureaucrats and politicians, and consequently on the Australian nation, amounted to support for everything that the organized Jewish community in Australia wanted—namely, official acceptance of the idea that ethnic groups in Australia should form their own communities, maintain their own distinctive cultural beliefs, languages and customs, and that government and taxpayers should support them in all of this.

Furthermore, rather than expecting migrants to change to fit Australia, Australian society should change to fit the migrant. Markus notes that, for Lippmann, “It was a mistake to base policy on an assumption which could never be realized, the assumption that ethnic identity would be obliterated and replaced by so-called Australian cultural norms.”[xi] Instead, invoking Horace Kallen’s “polycentric” ideal for American ethnic relationships, “Lippmann urged acceptance of multi-dimensional identity, a recognition of the culture of immigrants and Aboriginal peoples, the open embrace of cultural pluralism. …  Australian society would benefit and advance on the basis of a ‘cultural mosaic whose strength and beauty lies in its diversity.’”[xii] MacDonald notes that “a consistent theme of the intellectual rationale for this body of ethnic activism emphasized the benefits to be gained by increased levels of intergroup harmony – an aspect of idealism inherent in Horace Kallen’s conceptualization of multiculturalism – without mentioning that some groups, particularly European-derived, non-Jewish groups, would lose economic and political power and decline in cultural influence.”[xiii]

Under Walter Lippmann’s leadership and behind-the-scenes influence, the final report of the Committee on Community Relations in 1975 recommended that Australian government social policy be henceforth formulated on the basis of four key elements.

First, the task for political leaders was to promote understanding and respect for difference and our common humanity. Second, legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission. …  Government services would be culturally sensitive and provided in community languages. Third, schools would teach their students to respect the culture of others, provide knowledge of traditions, history, literature and geography of the countries of the major immigrant groups. …  Fourth, the mass media had the responsibility to further the understanding of cultures and provide meaningful communication between the various groups that constituted Australian society.[xiv]

In response to the Committee’s (which were essentially Lippmann’s) recommendations, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia in the 1970s, and extended under the Fraser [1975-1983] and Hawke governments [1983-1991] in the 1980s. Based on the premise that migrant problems stemmed from the low self-esteem they suffered in a society that was hostile to racial and cultural difference, multiculturalism launched countless government programs catering to ethnic communities, using taxpayer’s money to help them preserve their cultural practices and resist assimilation. The most expensive of these programs was the Australian multicultural broadcasting service SBS.

Prime Minister Bob Hawke and wife Hazel with Walter Lippmann (far right) in the mid-1980s

Historian James Jupp notes that Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke “was strongly in favour of multiculturalism, which was not necessarily true for all his ministers. He was particularly close to the Jewish community and personally intervened to liberalize Soviet policy towards Jewish emigration. … Influential individuals such as Walter Lippmann, James Gobbo and Peter Abeles [who was also Jewish] had direct access to the prime minister.”[xv] Bronwyn Hinz likewise notes that:

The introduction of multicultural principles and rhetoric to the Whitlam government via the prime minister and his staff, and their institutionalization under the Fraser government, were perhaps the most pivotal in the construction of Australia’s multicultural policy framework. In the 1980s, the ECCV [Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria] worked closely with Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a personal friend of ECCV founding Chairperson Walter Lippmann. As the representative of Melbourne’s most ethnically diverse electorate, Hawke was especially cognizant of the value of close connections with the peak council, its activists and member groups, accepting most invitations to their functions, and providing Lippmann and other ECCV activists with direct access to his office. In the first year of the Hawke government, the ECCV’s lobbying culminated in the reduction of citizenship waiting period to two years, the replacement of the term alien with ‘non‐citizen’ in the 1983 Migration Act, and an increase of the refugee intake.[xvi]

Once the Jewish-inspired ideology of multiculturalism had obtained the imprimatur of government, it became a runaway success with Australia’s alienated liberal intelligentsia, who became zealous missionaries of “diversity.” Conservative historian Keith Windschuttle notes that: “Any academic with a project to change the ideas of Australians about an aspect of race or migration found research grants readily available. Book publishers, film makers and various other cultural producers found government departments willing to subsidise them and their output.” By the 1980s, multiculturalism had become “a White collar industry of substance. …  Aspiring members of this in-group soon realised that correct views on race and the composition of the migrant intake were essential barriers to entry. To question immigration was to step outside the circle of acceptability.””[xvii]

Australian Anti-White Propaganda Poster

The ideology of multiculturalism created a great divide between the intellectual class and the majority of the Australian population, and the intellectuals supporting multiculturalism quickly “established a terminology that soon became the only publicly acceptable discourse on the topic. Although they professed their motives were social justice and political progress, the same intellectuals held an overt contempt for the majority of White Australians, who they thought remained mired in materialism and shrouded in xenophobia… ”[xviii] In order to achieve the goals of multiculturalism, its promoters felt compelled to ban and punish speech that was critical of the values or practices of non-White minority groups. The new politically correct speech code was soon enforced by the weight of law with the enactment of racial and religious vilification laws that criminalized dissenting speech. Australia’s liberal intelligentsia urged Australians to define themselves anew by developing close ties with East Asia, opening their doors to migrants from all countries, and creating a multicultural society. Windschuttle notes how:

The sixties generation supported a version of multiculturalism that sought to use immigration to change the host society itself. By advocating the preservation of their cultures intact, radical multiculturalists encouraged immigrants to withhold loyalties and affiliations to the host nation. They also aimed to destabilise Australian traditions, values and institutions by censuring the nation’s original character. Although they advocated the relativist doctrine that all cultures are equal, and none could be judged better than others, only different, their position was always hypocritical. The one culture that was not regarded as equal was that of traditional Australia. In the version of history advanced by the multiculturalists over the last thirty years, Australia is deeply and shamefully tainted by its racism towards non-European immigrants and its indigenous people.[xix]

If races and cultures really were as equal as multiculturalists sanctimoniously claim, then there would be no need to change the White Australian society and culture by introducing other races and cultures. That they routinely degrade White Australia and its traditional culture utterly belies their argument that all races and cultures are equal. Of course, the reality is that it is the very European-derived people (so loathed by the Jewish-dominated intellectual elite) which made Australia and other Western nations so successful in the first place. And it is precisely these people and their culture that the promoters of multiculturalism seek to destroy.

The Benefits of Multiculturalism for Australian Jews

That large-scale non-White immigration and multiculturalism are perceived by Australian Jews as having been of enormous benefit to them is illustrated by an extraordinary speech given by the editor of the Australian Jewish Times, Susan Bures, at the opening of the Sydney Centre for Intercultural Studies at the Sydney Jewish Museum in 1997. Bures rejoiced in the exalted place that Jews were now able to occupy in the new multicultural Australia, noting that:

Being Jewish in Australia today means a group such as this can attract the state’s governor to launch this centre. Being Jewish in Australia today means that the state governor is not just a guest – he’s Jewish too. Being Jewish in Australia today means the state’s premier has sent a representative to honour the occasion. Being Jewish in Australia today means that this function is held in a multi-million-dollar museum founded and funded by a man who came as a penniless refugee some fifty years ago. It means meeting in a museum that attracts thousands of visiting school children whose teachers know that the Jewish experience has lessons for all Australians. Being Jewish in Australia today means that this centre has been formed because a sufficient number of Australian scholars and students are teaching and learning Jewish history, philosophy, language and culture; and it means not all of these scholars and students are Jews. Being Jewish in Australia today means that both state and federal governments have welcomed the service of many Jews like me on its authorities, commissions and boards. To be Jewish in Australia today means we can welcome publicly a representative of the first Jewish state in nearly 2000 years. … In the entire history of the Jewish people outside their ancestral land of Israel, never before have Jews had the freedoms, the protections, the rights and the obligations to participate which they have in Australia.[xx]

In accounting for the unprecedented growth in the wealth, power and influence of Australian Jewry, Bures highlighted the importance of state-sponsored multiculturalism and of legislation outlawing racial discrimination. Andrew Markus proudly observes that “Jews were amongst the leading advocates of the enactment and extension of racial vilification and anti-discrimination legislation by the federal and state parliaments.”[xxi] In truth, the achievement of the twin Jewish goals of ending the White Australia policy and instituting state-sponsored multiculturalism were attained with the passing into law of the Racial Discrimination Bill of 1975 which stated: “It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.”[xxii] Journalist Paul Kelly notes that the abolition of the White Australia Policy was “a reform that pretended to be no reform.” According to Kelly: “The reason is manifest: any declaration that White Australia was being abolished would have provoked a public outcry. The issue was never put to the people.” Instead, Kelly points out that “The White Australia policy was dismantled by stealth” through maneuverings that amounted to “a smoke and mirrors exercise.”[xxiii]

In practical effect, the passing of the Racial Discrimination Bill in 1975 was the Australian equivalent of the drastic rewriting of American immigration law in 1965. In both cases, the gates were opened to non-White immigrants from the Third World with racial and cultural backgrounds very different from the majority European-derived population. In her book Ideology and Immigration the Australian sociologist Katharine Betts states that the dismantling of the White Australia policy was the result of an elite conspiracy: “Public resistance,” she notes, “was circumvented by the use of administrative procedures and secrecy rather than open debate.” The final phase of the abolition, which involved the enactment of Racial Discrimination Act by the Whitlam government, was “a political victory” for the cosmopolitan elite, which while failing to convert White Australia’s supporters “by reason and evidence,” left them “unconverted but outmaneuvered.” [xxiv]

In 1976 the relentless Walter Lippmann led a delegation to Canberra which lobbied successfully for the introduction of Australia’s first dedicated refugee policy. Bronwyn Hinz notes that:

Meeting with senators and senior government officials the delegation strongly recommended the federal government increase its humanitarian intake, and that this intake be separate from the regular immigration intake to allow the acceptance of refugees on humanitarian grounds even if they did not meet immigration criteria or if immigration quotas had been met. Within a few months of Lippmann’s lobbying, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence acknowledged the “complete lack of policy for the acceptance of people into Australia as refugees rather than as migrants”, and using Lippmann’s arguments, recommended as a matter of urgency “a comprehensive set of policy guidelines and the establishment of appropriate machinery” to be applied to refugee situations, including those currently unfolding.[xxv] 

The first Indo-Chinese and Vietnamese boat people started to arrive in Australia in 1976, and in the 1980s Chinese immigrants started to arrive in response to the discriminatory policies against the Chinese in Malaysia (i.e., failed multiculturalism). By the 2001 census there were approximately 170,000 Indo-Chinese in Australia, and Asians comprised approximately four per cent of the population. Ten years later the 2011 census has revealed a rapidly expanding Asian population, which, including those born in Australia, now easily surpasses 10 per cent of the Australian population.

The consequences of Multiculturalism for White Australia

As in other Western nations, those migrants from Asia (predominantly China) and their offspring are increasingly out-competing White Australians at gaining admission to the best schools and universities, and consequently in obtaining prestigious high-income jobs. The long-term result of this trend will inevitably be “that the entire White population (not including Jews) is likely to suffer a social status decline as these new immigrants become more numerous.”[xxvi] Like the United States and Canada, Australia is well on the road to “being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional and media elite.”[xxvii]

 This Australian Jewish business, professional and media elite has been enlarged over the past two decades by the thousands of Jews who have fled the post-Apartheid South Africa that so many of them agitated to bring about—including the daughter of ANC activist Joe Slovo. By 2001, South Africans comprised 12.5 per cent of all Jews living in Australia. Suzanne Rutland notes that these South African Jews “arrived with a strong sense of Jewish identification and a very low intermarriage rate” and that “many are still coming, largely because of the high level of crime and a sense of insecurity”[xxviii] (another failure of multiculturalism). This experience has not, unfortunately, prevented many of the new South African Jewish arrivals from becoming actively involved in anti-White activism and agitation in Australia—proving, if anything, that their atavistic hatred of Europeans certainly runs deep.

At the other end of the spectrum from the Jews and Chinese, significant numbers of low-IQ refugees from Africa (mainly Sudanese and Somalis) have arrived in recent years. They are almost totally welfare-dependent and are vastly over-represented, along with Pacific Islander groups, in conviction rates for violent offences. Multicultural activists routinely blame the social pathologies of these groups on White “racism.” Muslim immigration has also expanded in recent years, and Australian security services require ever growing budgets to monitor the activities of would-be terrorists from within this alienated and heavily welfare-dependent group. Gun crime among middle-eastern gangs has become a major problem in parts of Sydney and Melbourne.

Muslim immigration has created major headaches for Australian law enforcement

As a result of the weakening of Australia’s border protection laws by the current Labor government, Australia also has an increasing problem with illegal immigration by sea. Boatloads of Pakistani, Afghan, Iranian and Sri Lankan “asylum seekers” are taking advantage of what is effectively an open-door refugee policy to gain access to Australia’s generous welfare system. People smuggling from Indonesia (in close collaboration with ethnic communities and refugee advocates in Australia) has become a thriving industry. A recent attempt by the Australian government to deter illegal arrivals by arranging a refugee swap deal with Malaysia was torpedoed in the High Court after a challenge by the Jewish “refugee advocate” David Manne (nephew of Robert; see Part 2). From Walter Lippmann to David Manne, Jews have been, and continue to be, pivotal in driving the social and demographic transformation of the Australian nation.

Go to Part 4.

REFERENCES

Fagenblat, M., Landau, M. & Wolski, N. (2006) ‘Will the Centre Hold?,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 3-16.

Hinz, B. (2010) ‘Ethnic associations, networks and the construction of Australian multiculturalism,’ Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Corcordia University, Montreal, 1‐3 June. http://www.bronwynhinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Hinz-2010-Australian-multiculturalism-paper-for-CPSA-v4.pdf

Jupp, J. (2002) From White Australia to Woomera – The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

Kallen, H. (1924; reprint 1970) Culture and Democracy in the United States, Arno Press, New York.

Kelly, P. (2001) 100 Years: The Australian Story, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Lopez, M. (2000) The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

Markus, A. (2006) ‘Multiculturalism and the Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 93-107.

Rutland, S.D. (2005) The Jews in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

Stratton, J. (2000) Coming Out Jewish – Constructing Ambivalent Identities, Routledge, London.

Tavan, G. (2005) The long, slow death of White Australia, Scribe Publications, Melbourne.

Windschuttle K. (2004) The White Australia Policy, MacLeay Press, Sydney.

Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia and the Jewish response

Australian Jewry, now just one ethnic group among many in a “multicultural” society, remains, as Rubinstein observes, “one of the best organised Diaspora communities in the world and is frequently at the forefront of ethnic and multicultural affairs in Australia.”[i] The one-time editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat, Miriam Faine, got right to the heart of the Jewish support for large-scale non-White immigration and multiculturalism when she noted that: “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would be more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.”[ii] Comments like these make it clear that Jewish promotion of non-White immigration and multiculturalism has been first and foremost a form or ethnic strategizing (or ethnic warfare) concerned with preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Australia and other Western societies.  

It is, therefore, not surprising that Australian Jewry has reacted aggressively to any manifestation of White ethnocentrism or opposition to multiculturalism from among the White Australian population. Markus notes that: “The post-Holocaust generation [of Australian Jews] has been acutely aware that any public manifestation of bigotry and racism, whoever the immediate target, has the potential to impact across society, on all minorities, however defined.”[iii] He further observes that “Changes occurred in Australian society in the last decade of the twentieth century, which heightened the significance of multiculturalism for the Jewish community and for the wider society.”[iv]

Conservative commentator John Stone recalls that by the mid-1980s support for Australia’s immigration program was increasingly “qualified by growing doubts about the increasingly contrived use of that program to remake Australia in a politically-correct ‘multiculturalist’ image.” The then Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, when asked by a journalist in 1988 whether the sharply increased rate of Asian immigration was too high, had replied: “I am not in favour of going back to the White Australia policy. I believe that, if it is in the eyes some in the community… too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb [it] was greater.” For having expressed even such mild a criticism of Australia’s immigration program, Howard was assailed by all sections of the liberal elite with his arguments about “social cohesion” being seen as a smokescreen for “racism.” Under sustained attack, Howard backed down in humiliating fashion.

Advertisement

---

The first genuine challenge to the politically correct consensus (of bipartisan support for non-racially discriminatory immigration and multiculturalism) was the emergence of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party in the 1990s. Hanson was unexpectedly elected as the member for the previously safe Labor electorate of Oxley in the state of Queensland in 1996. In her maiden speech to parliament she launched a strong attack on official multicultural policies, stating that:

Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40% of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price. Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said: Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-White and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians. I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

Her speech created a nation-wide sensation. Despite frantic efforts to paint her as an evil racist, her electoral popularity soared. The subsequent formation of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party swiftly led to success in the June 1998 Queensland election. John Stone notes that:

Standing for the first time after having been cobbled together only six months earlier, and handicapped by hastily chosen candidates, inadequate financing and a hopeless administrative machine, One Nation nevertheless recorded 22.7 per cent of the formal votes cast. This exceeded both the Liberal Party vote (16.1 per cent) and the National Party vote (15.2 per cent). One Nation won eleven seats in the new Parliament, while the Liberals and Nationals each lost six seats. Although Labor lost no seats, its share of the votes shrank from 42.9 per cent in 1995 to 38.9 per cent. Remarkably, the election also saw the highest voter turnout (92.9 per cent) for a state election since 1966, and the lowest rate of informal voting (only 1.5 per cent) since 1960. It seems fair to surmise that the advent of Hanson “energised” many voters who had previously either deliberately voted informal or not at all.[v]         

Here was clear evidence that a large segment of the European-derived population of Australia had come to the realization that they were being ill-served by mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism – policies they had, incidentally, never supported in the first place. Andrew Markus notes how Hanson’s “campaign evoked widespread condemnation within the Jewish community and calls for mobilisation to challenge the growing influence of her movement. Concern was at its peak following the success of One Nation in the 1998 Queensland election, which opened the prospect of a One Nation dominated Senate.”[vi] In response to Hanson, more than thirty Jewish organizations signed a statement denouncing “racism,” and supported the formation of a new Jewish activist front group called “People for Racial Equality.” Jewish leaders vehemently opposed to the Hanson movement included the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, and the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council led by its then national chairman Mark Leibler. The “People for Racial Equality” campaign aggressively targeted political parties and politicians, demanding they put One Nation last on their “how to vote cards,” as well as individual voters, urging them all to put One Nation last under Australia’s system of preferential voting.

Pauline Hanson

As in the United States, individuals and groups who challenge the politically correct consensus of open door immigration and multiculturalism in Australia are “regularly monitored by the Jewish media and the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission” –  the Australian equivalent of the ADL.[vii] In an effort to shame and intimidate Hanson’s supporters, the B’nai B’rith obtained a list of the 2000 people associated with the One Nation Party and had it published in the Australia/Israel Review under the headline “Gotcha! One Nation’s Secret Membership List.”[viii] In keeping with the tactics of organized Jewry throughout the Western world, the attempt by Hanson and her supporters to ensure that White Australia retained demographic, political and cultural control of Australia was represented as racist, immoral, and indicative of psychiatric disorder.

Central to the Jewish response to One Nation, notes Markus, “was repugnance at public expressions of bigotry and a sense that while the focus of the Hanson movement was not on Australian Jews, it would not be long before they were targeted.”[ix] A leading critic of One Nation was the former judge Marcus Einfeld, who at the time was an executive member of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, and a Councilor on the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Einfeld, who was stood down as a judge in disgrace when convicted and imprisoned for perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice in 2009, made a speech immediately following the success of One Nation in the 1998 Queensland election, in which he declared:

We must never allow society to forget that the train of racism and other forms of discrimination never stops at the first station. It may be indigenous black people and Australian’s of Asian origin today. It takes little to imagine who will not be far behind. Even though the Jewish community has not felt the real brunt of the recent rise in racial vilification, we must nevertheless be extremely concerned. The Jewish community should not underestimate the valuable role which it can play in combating racism in this country. Some of us saw first-hand the tragic results of the use of racism to make scapegoats out of people; many others of us have had close personal contact with people who survived the attempt to murder every Jew in the world. We are strongly aware that simplistic responses to economic and social problems do not provide any real solutions at all, but if anything, only lead to even deeper tragedy. But we also know what happens when the train is nevertheless permitted to go on and on down its track unhindered, even if only because people think the train is going nowhere and can be ignored. Regrettably, that attitude is a recipe for incalculable harm and damage to the very fabric of society.[x]  

It is no surprise, then, that Australian Jewish organizations have also been leading the push to criminalize thoughts that question the multicultural utopia toward which Australia is supposedly headed:

Andrew Fraser, a former professor of public law at Macquarie University in Sydney, was brought before the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he had written a letter published in a newspaper suggesting that ”once black African colonies in Australia grow in size and in confidence, one can reasonably expect a number of social problems and rising levels of crime and violence.” In his comments before the Commission, Fraser noted that the charges against him by an African had actually been instigated by ”several organized Jewish groups that boast openly of the campaign they have organized against me,”citing articles in Jewish newspapers. Fraser wrote that Jewish individuals and organizations had acted ”to further their shared ethnic interest in the growth of a multi-racial society in Australia.” (See here)

The next significant manifestation of resistance to multiculturalism from White Australia occurred in December 2005 when there was confrontation between young White Australians and Muslim migrants in the Sydney suburb of Cronulla. In what were termed “race riots,” a large crowd of White Australians confronted and in some cases set upon some Middle-eastern men. The attack followed several years of offensive behavior by (mainly Lebanese) Muslims towards Australian women on the beach there, and conspicuous failure by the local police to deal with the ensuing complaints. Later that day a convoy of cars carrying young Muslim men from the Lebanese areas of Sydney converged on the Cronulla area, smashing windows, damaging parked cars, and viciously assaulting innocent bystanders, male and female. While a few of the Australian offenders were later prosecuted, the Muslims got away scot-free.[xi]

Scene from the Cronulla riots in 2005

The establishment of a significant Muslim population in Australia, and the extremely ingrained anti-Western tendencies apparent in this group, starkly illustrates Kevin MacDonald’s point that many of the immigrants to the West “bear a strong resemblance to the collectivist, anti-assimilatory tendencies present in Jewish culture” and that these new migrant populations “are similarly unable or unwilling to accept the fundamental premises of a universalistic, culturally homogeneous, individualistic society.”[xii] Andrew Markus acknowledges that Muslim alienation in Australia cannot be explained “simply in terms of failures within Australian society and government. Radicals within the Muslim community reject secular and pluralist institutions. They present a major problem for Australian society – one that is magnified by Muslim-Jewish relations.”[xiii]

In the interpretation of Jewish academic Dan Goldberg, during the Cronulla incident, “Gangs of White supremacists locked horns with disgruntled Muslim youths, waging war over Australia’s most quintessential patch of the land: the beach.” For Goldberg, “Cronulla was stark reminder to Australians that under the surface lies a bubbling brew or racism and xenophobia. If the Bali bombings brought terror virtually to our backyard, then the Cronulla riots brought the underbelly of the Australian racism to our doorstep.” The Cronulla riots were, for Goldberg, enough “to raise an eyebrow at best, and miss a heartbeat at worst, for any Australian Jew. For these two opposing gangs shared at least one common thread – hatred of the Jews. The fear, which was fortunately unfounded, was that these youths could turn on us.”[xiv]

Despite the perceived threat to Jews represented by both sides of the Cronulla conflict, in the words of Konrad Kwiet, a Jewish professor at the University of Sydney: “What happened in Cronulla is a great example of what racism can do,” and accordingly, “If today’s minorities or groups in society are being targeted for defamation, discrimination or even genocide, Jews, in my view, need to support them not denounce them. It is an obligation of Jews to support them.”[xv] Jewish writer Peta Jones-Pellach likewise argues that Australian Jews should support the Muslim minority in any conflict with White Australia, arguing that “We recognise that our ongoing harmonious acceptance into the Australian community depends on forging bonds with the increasing numbers of non-Jewish Australians who might be our theological opponents or even our enemies.”[xvi] For the Jewish historian Suzanne Rutland, the Cronulla riots evoked parallels with “the anti-Jewish refugee hysteria that manifested itself in the late 1930s and 1940s.”[xvii]

Jewish support for Multiculturalism – despite the disadvantages

Andrew Markus notes that: “From the Jewish perspective there are two interlinked reasons for continuing engagement with multiculturalism. The first is the imperative to work to make the world better, to repair and heal [tikkun olum]. The second is self-interest. As repeatedly demonstrated through history, the erecting of barriers and the ending of dialogue acts as a poison. Leaders of the Jewish community recognized this danger with the advent of the Hanson movement. The same danger is in evidence in hostility towards Muslim Australians.”[xviii] Rubinstein likewise notes that “Thus far, any serious questioning of multiculturalism has not resulted in an anti-Semitic backlash; nevertheless, the Jewish community would certainly be exceedingly disturbed by any basic reversal of the commitment to multiculturalism by successive governments.”[xix]

While acting as the architects and leading proponents of a “Holocaust-proof” multicultural Australia, Jews have been careful to genetically segregate themselves from this new mongrelized society of their own creation. Referring to Australian Jews, Goldberg notes that

we have, to a large degree, segregated our children from multicultural Australia through our exclusive Jewish school network (which has, however, been an effective bulwark in the battle against assimilation), and have been forced to segregate ourselves by building security walls and fences around our institutions. This apparent segregation, both free-willed and forced, does not appear to blend neatly with the notion of multiculturalism, but in modern-day Australia our melting pot may be becoming less of a melange and more of a mix of virtually self-sufficient, independent ethnic and religious parts.[xx]

The supposed benefits to Australian Jewry that multiculturalism has bestowed – most notably the diminished threat of the emergence of a mass movement of anti-Semitism from White Australians – is seen as having far outweighed any negative effects of mass non-White immigration such as the fact that “Some Australian Jews fear that migrants arriving from Muslim countries will contribute to anti-Semitic currents in Australia, inflame extremist groups and pose a threat to the relative peace they currently enjoy.”  For Marcus Einfeld, any such concerns are overshadowed by the need to ensure the “door [is] held open to the refugee and migrant.”[xxi]

Disgraced ex-Judge and Jewish activist Marcus Einfeld

 The rise of Islamic anti-Semitism in the West reveals a paradoxical element of the overwhelming Jewish support for multiculturalism; an element which resulted in the emergence and growth in Jewish support for neoconservatism. MacDonald notes that “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[xxii] Australian Jews like Dan Goldberg recognize the danger, noting that:

Herein lies an underlying tension that exists in the psyche of Australian Jews in the new millennium: on the one hand understanding the fundamental wrong in tarring all Muslims with the same extremist brush; on the other hand feeling great unease in showing support for Muslims, some of whose brothers are waging jihad against Israel and the Jews. … Many Australian Jews are therefore caught between these tides, ostensibly supportive of minority rights but cognizant of the fact that among the Muslim community are radical elements who seek our destruction. [xxiii]

The establishment of various Third World immigrant communities in Australia, and their mutual embrace of “multiculturalism” as a doctrine benefiting them, has had negative consequences for Australian Jewry. Among these low-IQ groups who struggle to compete with White people, multiculturalism “has been quickly identified with the idea that each group ought to receive a proportional measure of economic and cultural success.”

Andrew Markus acknowledges this, noting that “through the promise of positive discrimination to overcome disadvantage, more an issue in the 1980s than the 1970s, there was the prospect of relative loss for those [like Australia’s Jews] who had achieved success.”[xxv]  Despite this, Jews see themselves as longer-term beneficiaries of policies explicitly designed to dilute the power of the European-derived majority. MacDonald notes that “the mainstream Jewish attitude about a non-White future: It presents problems, but the problems are manageable if the organized Jewish community makes alliances with the looming non-White majority.”

Australian Jewry has therefore sought to make alliances with the various immigrant groups in opposition to the White majority, including Aborigines (discussed in Part 5) and Muslims. Attempts to form a political coalition with Australian Muslims date from the earliest days of Australian multiculturalism. Australian Jews sought Muslim support for the enactment of the racial discrimination legislation recommended by the Lippmann-chaired Committee on Community Relations in the mid-1970s. In the years since, Jews have repeatedly sought the support of the Muslim community in lobbying for various multicultural policies, including those relating to “access to government services, recourse for victims of discrimination, and protection from harassment” (see here). According to the Jeremy Jones, the director of international and community affairs of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, “the relationship between Australian Jews and Muslims has developed positively over the past decade.” Nevertheless, he believes that “maintaining the momentum will require leadership and determination, but there are good grounds for optimism given the network of relations and shared fruitful experiences in contemporary multicultural Australia.”

Clearly, Australian Jewry believes that, despite the threat to Jews represented by the strong anti-Jewish sentiment in growing sections of the Australian Islamic community, the relationship is basically manageable in the longer-term.

The support of Australian Jews for multiculturalism, despite its various disadvantages, sits hypocritically alongside a staunch Zionism and an overwhelming support among Australian Jews for Australia’s military involvement in the disastrous wars in the Middle East. The man who agreed to Australia’s shameful involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, former Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007), probably even exceeded Bob Hawke in his philo-Semitism and devotion to Israel. Dan Goldberg, the editor of the National Jewish News, observed in 2006 that:

From his first encounter with Jews, as a nineteen-year-old at the Sydney law firm of Myer Rosenblum, Howard has, especially over the last decade, cemented his alliance with the Jews, and has arguably eclipsed even the great Bob Hawke as the most pro-Israel prime minister in Australian history. Most of his empathy is a function of his foreign policy, pivoted on the US alliance, which translates in the Middle East arena to unequivocal support for Israel, regardless of which prime minister is in power in Jerusalem. Of course, Australia’s role in the war in Iraq was no doubt seen by most Australian Jews as yet another significant milestone in the long history of relations between Canberra and Jerusalem.

It is no coincidence therefore that Howard has received major awards from three Jewish community organisations in the last couple of years. It is also no coincidence that he speaks regularly to Jewish audiences, and that he is closely allied with a clutch of Jewish powerbrokers. … Understandably, most Jews were in favour of eliminating Saddam Hussein and his regime if only because he bankrolled families of Palestinian suicide bombers to the tune of US$25,000 each, not to mention the fact that it would neutralise the threat to Israel’s eastern flank. The fact that Australian SAS forces took out Saddam’s stockpile of Scuds aimed at Tel Aviv in the early hours of the war only augmented the bond between Canberra and Jerusalem.[xxvii]  

As in the United States, Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which practically guarantees broad political support for putting the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. Goldberg notes that “The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics.”[xxviii] Jewish wealth (and therefore political power) is, in proportional terms, almost as pronounced as in the United States. Goldberg writes that: “So great has our success been, we are sometimes envied to the point of hatred for our rags to riches successes. This, unfortunately, fuels stereotypes and breeds hostility.”[xxix]

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2007-2010) pays homage to organized Jewry

The wealthy Jewish property developer Morry Schwarz has bankrolled the intellectual Left in Australia for years, and his publishing company Black Inc. has become a key part of the media infrastructure of the pro-multicultural intellectual establishment. Schwartz’s Quarterly Essay and The Monthly magazine have been called “the most powerful left-wing voices in Australia.” Despite this, and the central role of Walter Lippmann in forging Australian multiculturalism (see Part 3), the Jewish historian Suzanne Rutland claims it is a “myth” that “Australian Jews influence public policy through their wealth and business connections.”[xxx] Of course, the reality is that, as in the United States and Britain, Jews exert enough power and influence to ensure that both major political parties never stray off the reservation on issues of importance to Jews. 

Go to Part 5.

REFERENCES

Einfeld, M. (2006) ‘We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 305-315.

Goldberg, D. (2006) ‘After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 140-152.

Jones Pellach, P. (2006) ‘Interfaith Dialogue and the State of Israel,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 130-139.

Jupp, J. (2002) From White Australia to Woomera – The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

Markus, A. (2006) ‘Multiculturalism and the Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 93-107.

Rubinstein, W.D. (1991) The Jews in Australia – A Thematic History, Volume 2: 1945 to the Present, William Heinemann, Melbourne.

Rubinstein, W.D. (1995) Judaism in Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Rutland, S. (2006) ‘Why Does Australian Jewish History Matter?,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 293-304.

Stone, J. (2009) ‘Immigration and Citizenship,’ In: The Howard Era, Ed. Keith Windschuttle, David Martin Jones & Ray Evans, Quadrant

Jewish anti-White activism and Australia’s Aborigines

As in the United States, Australian Jews have formed strategic partnerships with various the non-White “victim” groups, who, like them, have been the alleged victims of White oppression and injustice. Prominent among these non-White groups is Australia’s indigenous people. One Jewish source describes Jews and Aborigines as “two peoples with histories of dispossession and humiliation and killing who recognise each other, who find points of intersection and of parallel.”

Seeing a parallel between the “Holocaust” and the White Australia’s treatment of Australia’s Aborigines, the Jewish Australian Professor Robert Manne has written that: “Although there was never a time when I was tempted by the thought that the Holocaust and the dispossession [of Australia’s Aborigines] were morally equivalent horrors – the British settlers did not intend to wipe out the Aborigines and would have been content if the Aborigines had uncomplainingly abandoned their way of life and their land – I have no doubt that in part I was drawn to this chapter of Australian history because of the role the Holocaust played in my thought.”[i] Thus, while careful not to detract from the metaphysical preeminence of the “Holocaust,” Manne has been particularly keen to make the plight of Australia’s Aborigines an important part of the anti-White narrative.

Advertisement

---

Disgraced former judge and prominent Jewish activist Marcus Einfeld has likewise noted parallels between the plight of Australia’s Aborigines and the “Holocaust,” claiming that “Just as Aboriginal dispossession and discrimination in Australia, often brutally carried out and enforced, have helped to fashion a new consciousness and pride in Aboriginality, the unique history of the Jewish people, and most recently the Holocaust experience, has played a pivotal role in the formation of the collective Jewish identity.”[ii] Australian Jewish leader and activist Mark Leibler claims to “have developed a deeper understanding of the connections between Indigenous and Jewish people and the underlying affinity we share. … We must listen to and respect the hard stories. Stories that are repeated all over Australia – stories of injustice, oppression and horror. Defiant stories of the proud survival of identifiable people. Stories resonating with familiar themes for each and every Jew.”[iii]  Speaking on behalf of Australian Jews, Leibler claims that: “We’ve suffered 2,000 years of persecution and we understand what it is to be the underdog and to suffer from disadvantage.”

Mark Leibler with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Aboriginal activist Patrick Dodson

Academic and non-academic activist Jews have been leading proponents of the view that European settlement of Australia, and later government policies like allowing the removal of half-caste Aboriginal children from their families (generally to save the child from abusive or otherwise appalling conditions) amounted to acts of genocide. The late Jewish lawyer Ron Castan, who led the 1992 High Court challenge that resulted in the recognition of Aboriginal land rights, saw direct parallels between the supposed historical plight of Jews, and that of Australia’s indigenous people. He claimed that reading the work of left-wing “revisionist” historians like Professor Henry Reynolds had “opened my eyes, my mind and my heart to Australia’s own version of genocide.” Castan backed calls for the

appropriate recognition and representation at the Australian War Memorial of those heroes of Aboriginal Australia who died fighting for their lands. And just as there are Holocaust museums in Israel and Australia, so this country desperately needs its museum to the Stolen and Dispossessed – and proper memorials and remembrance ceremonies at every massacre site across the land. The refusal to apologise for dispossession, for massacres, and for the theft of children, is the Australian equivalent of the Holocaust deniers – those who say it never really happened.[iv]

Invoking the “full-court press” employed by Jewish activist organizations worldwide, Castan proposed that: “The answer to the Holocaust deniers and to those who use terms like ‘black armband’ is to write more books, give more talks, fight more native title cases in the courts, tell more stories of the stolen generation, teach more courses in schools and universities and build more monuments and statues of indigenous freedom fighters so that the cult of disremembering can never take hold again.”[v]

The attempt by Jewish activists to pin all of the blame for the social pathologies of Australia’s Aborigines on the evil legacy of European colonialism and “White racism” is anti-White hate propaganda pure and simple. Nobody disputes that the traditional hunter gatherer lifestyle of the Australian Aborigines was severely disrupted by the arrival of Europeans. There were around 300,000 Aborigines in Australia at the time of European colonization in 1788. Their numbers declined considerably in the decades that followed – mainly as a result of diseases contracted from Europeans for which they had no immunity. Aborigines were also killed by Whites in violent clashes on the frontier; however, such behavior was never sanctioned by the governing authorities, and White settlers were charged with murder and executed for killing Aborigines. The 1961 census reported that the Aboriginal population of Australia at around 106,000. This had increased to 171,000 by 1981, and (incredibly) to over 500,000 in the 2011 census. This figure has been inflated by those with tiny amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) claiming to be Aboriginal to take advantage of a raft of generous indigenous welfare programs and career opportunities.

There’s much to be gained by being “Aboriginal" in today’s Australia

The real cause of the social pathology of Australia’s Aborigines

Notwithstanding the fact that European colonization had a range of very negative effects on Australia’s indigenous people, the real (though never acknowledged) source of the ongoing social dysfunctional of Aboriginal people is their extraordinarily low average intelligence. In his 1997 book Guns, Germs and Steel the Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond, currently a professor of geography at UCLA, declared that the idea that there are genetic factors which cause Europeans to be more intelligent (on average) than Australian Aborigines is morally loathsome. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Diamond observed that

most laypeople would describe as the most salient feature of native Australian societies their seeming “backwardness.” Australia is the sole continent where, in modern times, all native peoples still lived without any of the hallmarks of so-called civilization – without farming, herding, metal, bows and arrows, substantial buildings, settled villages, writing, chiefdoms, or states. Instead, Australian Aborigines were nomadic or seminomadic hunter-gatherers, organized into bands, living in temporary shelters or huts, and still dependent on stone tools. During the last 13,000 years less cultural change has accumulated in Australia than in any other continent. The prevalent European view of Native Australians was already typified by the words of an early French explorer, who wrote, “They are the most miserable people in the world, and the human beings who approach closest to brute beasts.”

… When asked to account for the cultural “backwardness” of Aboriginal Australian society, many white Australians have a simple answer: supposed deficiencies in the Aborigines themselves. In facial structure and skin color, Aborigines certainly look different from Europeans, leading some late-19th century authors to consider them the missing link between apes and humans. How else can one account for the fact that white English colonists created a literate, food-producing, industrial democracy, within a few decades of colonizing a continent whose inhabitants after more than 40,000 years were still nonliterate hunter-gatherers. It is especially striking that Australia has some of the world’s richest reserves of copper, tin, lead, and zinc. Why, then, were Native Australians still ignorant of metal tools and living in the Stone Age? It seems like a perfectly controlled experiment in the evolution of human societies. The continent was the same; only the people were different. Ergo the explanation for the differences between Native Australian and European-Australian societies must lie in the different people composing them. The logic behind this racist conclusion appears compelling. We shall see, however, that it contains a simple error.[vi]            

According to Diamond, this simple error consists in failing to take into account the differing environments of Aborigines and Europeans, and how these differing environments determined the divergent historical development of these groups. Totally ignoring the numerous studies showing very large differences in average IQ between Europeans and Aborigines, Diamond posits that Europeans only developed a more technologically advanced society than Aborigines because they were fortunate enough to be situated in a band of “lucky latitudes” running across Eurasia from the Mediterranean to the Yellow Sea that made the agricultural revolution possible. They were also fortunate to have many plants and animals suitable for domestication. The comparative backwardness of Aborigines in 1788 was entirely due the corresponding lack of these geographic factors. This, he claims, made it more difficult for them to develop agriculture, which, in turn, delayed their development of science and technology. According to Diamond, geography, not race, determined the contrasting fates of Europeans and Australia’s Aborigines.

Professor Jared Diamond

The failure of Australia’s Aborigines to domesticate plants and animals is attributed by Diamond to “the lack of domesticable animals, the poverty of domesticable plants, and the difficult soils and climate.”[vii] Yet Diamond confirms that yams, taro, and arrowroot grow wild in northern Australia and could have been cultivated along with two native grasses which could have been bred to produce cereals. Richard Lynn notes that Diamond fails to acknowledge that Australia’s climate is very varied and that “apart from the deserts of the central region is potentially suitable for the agriculture that was developed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Europeans.”[viii]

The real reason why the Aborigines continued to live as hunter-gatherers right up to the time of European contact (and after) is most likely that the evolution of sufficiently high intelligence was an essential preliminary for the independent invention of agriculture, with an average IQ of about 80 necessary for this to occur. Lynn notes that the transition to agricultural societies was not possible until people evolved sufficient intelligence to take advantage of wild grasses, and that it was only after the last glaciation that they were cognitively fit to do this. Evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton points out that: “Lynn’s view provides an explanation for why these advances were never made by Negroids or those southeast Asian populations who escaped the rigors of the last glaciation.”[ix] Michael Hart makes the points that “The idea of planting crops, protecting them, and eventually harvesting them is not obvious or trivial, and it requires a considerable degree of intelligence to conceive of that notion. No apes ever conceived of that idea, nor did Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, nor even archaic Homo sapiens. It seems unlikely that such a notion could be originated by a group of humans with an IQ of about 70.”[x]

According to psychologist Richard Lynn, the first attempt to estimate the intelligence of the Australian Aborigines was made by Francis Galton in 1869. On the basis of descriptions of their accomplishments, he estimated that their intelligence was approximately three “grades” below that of the English. Lynn explains that “In Galton’s metric, a grade was equivalent to 10.4 IQ points. Hence in terms of the IQ scale, he estimated the Australian Aborigine IQ at 68.8. Seventeen studies of the intelligence of Australian Aborigines assessed by intelligence tests have shown that this was a fairly accurate assessment. … The median IQ of the seventeen studies is 62 and represents the best estimate of the average intelligence of Australia’s Aborigines”[xi] In 1929 the eminent Australian anthropologist A.P. Elkin had observed that “some races possess certain powers in greater degree … than do others. Thus the Australian Aborigines and the African Negroes are human and have powers but they are not necessarily equal to the white or yellow races.”[xii]

The findings from studies into Aboriginal IQ have been corroborated by a study showing Aborigines have slower reaction times (reaction time being significantly correlated with IQ), and seven studies showing that the average brain size of Aborigines is significantly smaller that Europeans (brain size being correlated with IQ at approximately 0.4). The most authoritative study of Aboriginal brain size is that of Smith and Beals (1990) which gave a brain size difference between Aboriginal and Whites of 144cc. or about 10 per cent. Four studies put the average IQ of Aboriginal-European hybrids at 78 — about midway between the IQs of Aborigines and Europeans. The low intelligence of the Aborigines is also corroborated by their very low levels of educational attainment. Lynn notes that “Aborigines do poorly in education, consistently with their low intelligence, showing that their low cognitive abilities are not confined to their performance on intelligence tests.”[xiii] As of 1976 no Aborigine had ever obtained a Ph.D. Citing psychological studies showing that Aboriginal Australians had a much stronger self-concept (self-esteem) than Europeans, Lynn makes the point that “These are remarkable results considering the low levels of achievement of Aborigines in school and employment. Similar results however have been found for African-Americans in the United States, and Africans in Britain.”[xiv]

A 2010 report on Aboriginal school performance found that indigenous students in year 9 achieved similar scores last year to non-indigenous students in year 3. …  Of the indigenous students who sat the tests , 40 per cent – 60,000 students – failed to meet national minimum standards, a proportion mirroring the 40 per cent of indigenous families who were welfare-dependent. [Substantial percentages [18-30%, in different states] do not take the test and may be presumed to be likely to not meet minimum standards.) ”Every state and territory has a problem, in every year, in every subject,” the report said. (Indigenous students are six years behind in literacy and numeracy, report says)

Australian Aborigines have much higher rates of crime than Europeans. Studies show that they are 10 times more likely to commit homicide than Europeans, and are 10 to 15 times more likely to commit a serious assault. Aborigines are, consequently, vastly overrepresented in Australia’s prison population. It is common to blame White Australia for this dismal state of affairs. Lynn cites an Australian sociologist who argues that “the key general cause of the perceived criminalisation of Aborigines is universally perceived to be socioeconomic deprivation and consequential exclusion” and that “the underlying issues of unemployment, poverty, ill-health, dispossession, and disenfranchisement are the causes of the over-involvement of Aborigines in prison,” and these are themselves “the product of indirect discrimination.” Lynn notes wryly that “Thus it is the Europeans who are responsible for the high crime rates of the Aborigines.”[xv]

The reality is that a population with a mean IQ of only 62 is congenitally incapable of functioning effectively in a modern technological society like Australia. The observations of the German sociologist Hans Schneider, who studied Aboriginal communities in 1986, retain their relevance today. While the Europeans had built houses for the Aborigines,

the Aborigines do not accept these houses with the result that they are usually unoccupied. Many of them have been deserted, vandalized, or even destroyed. In order to prevent Aborigines destroying their houses, these are now prefabricated out of steel-plated units. Most of the inhabitants live in self-constructed shacks made from branches or sheets of corrugated iron, erected outside of and around the settlement. They have not accustomed themselves to garbage disposal with the result that the surrounding bush land is littered with old cans, bottles, tires, transistor radios, and batteries. Rusty car bodies and unauthorized garbage dumps can be seen everywhere. … The health, education and living standards are well below the Australian average. Almost all the inhabitants are unemployed and fully dependent on social security. They just sit around in a state of boredom and hopelessness. They do not send their children to school. The Aborigines have no problem operating machines or driving cars and tractors, but they have not learned how to service and repair them. Faulty machinery is simply left where it breaks down and transistor radios are thrown away when the batteries are flat. Under the supervision of whites they are able to establish a plantation or cattle station and will work there, but as soon as this supervision and instruction is withdrawn the project collapses.[xvi]

Aboriginal housing in Alice Springs

One Australian demographer has observed that “In every conceivable comparison the Aborigines stand in stark contrast to the general Australian population. They have the highest growth rate, the highest birth rate, the highest death rate, the worst health and housing, and the lowest educational, occupational, economic, social, and legal status of any identifiable section of the Australian population.”[xvii] To ascribe this situation exclusively to the legacy of European colonization and the evils of “White racism” in Australia is nonsense. Non-White migrants like the Chinese have somehow managed to overcome this supposedly intractable racism to outperform White Australians in a range of social indicators. Lynn points out that

the Australian Aborigines are a racial underclass with the same characteristics of the black underclass of the United States, Britain, and Brazil, but they are an even more serious social problem. They have much lower intelligence with an average IQ of 62, as compared with approximately 85 for Blacks in the United States and Britain, and they have worse rates of educational attainment, unemployment, crime, teenage motherhood, welfare dependency, alcoholism, and the other social pathologies of the underclass. In addition they have high fertility that is about double that of Europeans, and although this is to some degree offset by their high mortality, their numbers are growing to the extent that they are approximately doubling every generation.

There can be little doubt that the syndrome of social pathologies of the Australian Aborigines has a genetic basis. Their shorter gestation times and typically small brain size that underlies their low intelligence, poor educational attainment, and low socioeconomic status cannot be explained by environmental deprivation or European racism. None of this is recognized or at least articulated by any of the Australian social scientists. … None of them even make any mention of the contribution of low intelligence and high psychopathic personality to the social pathology of the Australian underclass.[xviii] 

Telling “noble lies” for the anti-White cause

Jewish activists and their ideological allies in Australian academia are content to disregard these inconvenient facts which totally undermine the anti-White narrative they have assiduously constructed. They let the truth be damned and instead seek to propagate “noble lies” intended to make Aborigines feel good by making their culture appear equal or superior to that of Europeans. This tactic is motivated by the Marxist-Leninist principle that the end justifies the means. As the goal of ending the White racial and cultural domination in Australia is held to be worthy, presenting false accounts as authentic history, anthropology, or sociology is believed to be justified. Consistent with the postmodernist argument that truth is only true when it benefits non-White minority groups, false accounts are not false if they contribute to the anti-White narrative and nurture White guilt. The scale of the White guilt, shame and pathological altruism this brand of anti-White activism has successfully engendered is reflected in the exponential growth in indigenous welfare schemes of every description. Decades of these programs have, however, done practically nothing to alleviate the social pathology of Australia’s Aborigines.

The social pathology of Australia’s Aborigines persists despite decades of expensive government programs

At the forefront of those propagating “noble lies” has been the leading “revisionist” historian Professor Henry Reynolds. In his book Why Weren’t We Told? Reynolds recounts his encounter with an “old ethnographer” in the 1960s who had told him “There could never be racial equality because Aborigines had much smaller brains than did Europeans. They were biologically incapable of emulating the white race.” Another man had told him that “although Africans had a brain cavity which was 15 cubic centimetres smaller than the average white man’s, they were intellectually ‘far above the Australian full-blood Aboriginal,’ who was quite unable to cope in competition to the white man and never could become an equal citizen of the country.”[xix] According to Reynolds, these were “men of their time. They had grown up when few people had questioned the primacy of race. What was disturbing was that many younger people agreed with their views.”

They had been brought up to believe that race was a fixed biological category, that Europeans and Aborigines were separated by unchangeable physical and cultural characteristics and that Aborigines were Stone Age people who had not advanced as Europeans had along the ascending path of cultural and social progress. Such ideas had pervaded Australian life until the 1940s and 1950s and many people continued to cling to them through their life and would no doubt take them to the grave. While views of this kind could easily be labelled racist, that categorisation did not on its own provide an understanding of the problem. They did not necessarily lead people to act or speak with hostility towards indigenous people. Indeed, they often coexisted with sympathetic interest and a desire to lend a helping hand.[xx]     

So what specific evidence does Reynolds present to refute the assertions of these supposedly wrongheaded “racists”? He offers none. Like other historians and commentators of his political ilk, Reynolds seems to think that solemn expressions of disapproval at these statements are sufficient to establish their falsity. Reynolds acknowledges the real, totally unscientific, Jewish ethno-political origins of his belief in biological racial equality when he writes that “My students often ask me how it was that people in the past held such objectionable views. They have no understanding of just how pervasive racial thought was a generation or two ago, how the Second World War and the Holocaust marked an intellectual watershed after which nothing would be the same again.”[xxi]

It is now commonplace to portray pre-European Australia as having been a virtual Garden of Eden until the evil White man came from Europe and ruined it all. Aboriginal culture is now regarded as “sacred” and off-limits to criticism in the public square. Aboriginal people and culture are never to be criticized no matter how dysfunctional or barbaric some of their practices might be or have been. Mention of the incessant tribal warfare, cannibalism, infanticide, and endemic sexual violence against women and children have been effaced from contemporary accounts of Aboriginal society and culture. These have been replaced with flattering (but utterly false) notions of how “sophisticated” Aboriginal society and culture really was (and still is) if only the insensitive and racist Whites had the gumption to recognize it. These lies are reminiscent of the “noble lies” that Plato talked about in The Republic which were intended to persuade kings and the populace to achieve worthy objectives; and in the minds of activist Jews and their allies in Australia, nothing is worthier than destroying White Australia and its detested cultural legacy.

REFERENCES

Castan, M. (2006) ‘Memory and Mabo: Advancing Aboriginal Justice,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 325-333.

Curthoys, A. (2008) ‘Indigenous Subjects,’ In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 78-102.

Diamond, J. (1997) Guns, Germs and Steel, Random House, New York.

Einfeld, M. (2006) ‘We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 305-315.

Elkin, A.P. (1929) ‘The practical value of anthropology,’ Morpeth Review, Vol. 9.

Hart, M.H. (2007) Understanding Human History: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

Leibler, M. (2006) ‘Crossing the Wilderness: Jews and Reconciliation,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 316-324.

Lynn, R. (2008) The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

Manne, R. (2006) ‘The Holocaust and Political Identity: A Personal Account,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 46-55.

Reynolds, H. (2000) Why Weren’t We Told? – A personal search for the truth about our history, Penguin, Melbourne.

Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, Charles Darwin Research Institute, Port Huron, MI.

The nineteenth century English biologist Thomas Huxley is today best known as a leading early supporter of Darwin’s theory of evolution. His eloquent defense of Darwin during his famous 1860 debate with Samuel Wilberforce led to the wider acceptance of evolution. Huxley’s polemical support for Darwin’s theory (which earned him the title of “Darwin’s Bulldog”) has, however, overshadowed his status as a man who was an acute thinker in his own right. Particularly worthy of greater attention is his essay “Evolution and Ethics” (1894) where he argues that ethics are a by-product of natural selection, and particularly of the struggle for existence between groups.

Huxley starts his essay by distinguishing between what he calls the “cosmic process” and the “ethical process.” The cosmic process is, for Huxley, the process that governs the universe (or more specifically and to the purpose of Huxley’s essay, all of the “forms of life which tenant the world”).[i] He notes that “one of the most salient features of this cosmic process is the struggle for existence, the competition of each with all, the result of which is selection, that is to say, the survival of those forms which, on the whole, are best adapted to the conditions which at any period obtain; and which are, therefore, in that respect, and only in that respect, the fittest.”[ii] Like Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin before him, Huxley saw all living things as locked in a life and death struggle for existence – and human beings, like other living things, are fully implicated in this struggle which “tends to eliminate those less fitted to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their existence.”[iii] In “Evolution and Ethics,” Huxley observes that:

With all their enormous differences in natural endowment, men agree in one thing, and that is their desire… to do nothing but that which pleases them to do, without the least reference to the welfare of the society in which they are born. That is their inheritance (the reality at the bottom of the doctrine of original sin) from the long series of ancestors, human and semi-human and brutal, in whom the strength of this innate tendency to self-assertion was the condition of victory in the struggle for existence. (Emphasis added.)[iv]

Advertisement

---

Here Huxley, the man who gave us the term ‘agnostic’, offers us a thoroughly scientific and Darwinian interpretation of St. Augustine’s doctrine of “original sin.” Our original sin, according to Huxley, is not that we are born as humans, but rather that we are born (at least psychologically) as primates for whom self-interest — even accompanied by brutality — was paramount. Unlike the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin which requires us to believe in a fable about talking serpents and forbidden fruit, Huxley’s version of the doctrine rests on a simple acceptance of the law of natural selection, the characteristic feature of which “is the intense and unceasing competition of the struggle for existence.”[v]

If our original sin is to be born as mental primates, then, for Huxley, the only cure is for us to be made to feel ashamed of our primate nature. In identifying the biological reality at the bottom of the theological doctrine of original sin, Huxley recognized that any human group, if it hoped to cooperate and thereby survive as a group, had, of necessity, to develop internal defense mechanisms that could check the human animal’s “innate tendency to self-assertion.” Thus, in the interests of group survival, within any group “the cosmic struggle for existence, as between man and man, would be rigorously suppressed.”[vi] It is clear that, for Huxley, the only viable societal mechanism that could perform this task of suppressing human self-assertion was the socialization of children based on shame – emotionally wrenching and physiologically manifested shame.

Huxley observes that “every child, born into the world will still bring with him the instinct of unlimited self-assertion. He will have to learn the lesson of self-restraint and renunciation.”[vii] Children, from a very young age, had to be taught to be ashamed of their inborn animal desire “to do nothing but that which pleases them to do.” Reason, for Huxley, could not perform this service, because the instilling of shame had to occur long before the age of reason was reached; indeed, unless you first taught children to be ashamed of unreasonable behavior, you would have a hard time ever being able to reason with them at all. In short, without inculcating a shaming code in all members of a group, the group would merely be an agglomeration of different individuals, each of whom sought only “to do nothing but that which pleases them to do, without the least reference to the welfare of the society in which they were born.” For Huxley, shame was such a vital element in the ethical progress of mankind for reasons that relate directly to natural selection. In essence, it was shame that led to cooperation, and cooperation to group survival.

Social organization for the purposes of group survival is certainly not peculiar to man and Huxley notes that: “Other societies, such as those constituted by bees and ants, have also arisen out of the advantage of cooperation in the struggle for existence.”[viii] He points out that: “Wolves could not hunt in packs except for the real, though unexpressed, understanding that they should not attack one another during the chase.”[ix] For Huxley, it was axiomatic that, all things being equal, an individual who was part of a larger group increased his chances of survival due to the protection offered him by the size of the group. In the struggle for survival, loners are losers. Huxley posits that the most basic form of human social organization – the family – came about for precisely this reason, noting that “it is easy to see that every increase in the duration of the family ties, with the resulting cooperation of a larger and larger number of descendants for protection and defense, would give the families in which such modification took place a distinct advantage over the others. And, as in the [bee] hive, the progressive limitation of the struggle for existence between members of the family would involve increased efficiency as regards outside competition.”[x]

Thomas Huxley

But if the survival of the individual depends on the group, then the group that can be relied on the most will give its members an evolutionary advantage over those weaker groups that lack the same cohesiveness. If you are a member of a weak group, all the members of which scatter upon encountering a band of enemies, what advantage does your membership in it give you? It is always more adaptive to be a member of a strong group, and a strong group can be defined as one in which all members are united by a strong collective shaming code felt at a visceral (i.e., emotional) level. Aside from the ethnocentrism stemming from their phenotypic similarity, it is this which will make the members of the group feel as one. They are disgusted, angered, delighted, and shamed by the same things. Huxley notes that human socialization, involving the inculcation of a group-centered shaming code (the embryo of all human ethical systems), is greatly facilitated by the mutual affection of parent and offspring during the long human infancy, and, most importantly, by

the tendency, so strongly developed in man, to reproduce in himself actions and feelings similar to, or correlated with, those of other men. … It is needful to look around us, to see that the greatest restrainer of the anti-social tendencies of men is fear not of the law, but of the opinion of their fellows. The conventions of honor bind men who break legal, moral and religious bonds; and, while people endure the extremity of physical pain rather than part with life, shame drives the weakest to suicide. … We judge the acts of others by our own sympathies, and we judge our own acts by the sympathies of others, every day and all day long, from childhood upwards, until associations, as indissoluble as those of language, are formed between certain acts and the feelings of approbation or disapprobation. It becomes impossible to imagine some acts without disapprobation, or others without approbation of the actor, whether he be one’s self, or anyone else. We come to think in the acquired dialect of morals.[xi]

This acquired dialect of morals is what provides a group with a powerful sense of collective identity: it makes members of a group think and feel as a tribal community. This shared visceral code, when pushed to the extreme, makes it almost impossible for the individual to feel himself as an individual. This negation of the individual – so characteristic of almost all cultures besides Western culture – served an important collective purpose: it kept all the members of the tribe feeling viscerally in sync with one another, and prevented the emergence of groups within the tribe who might break down its solidarity. According to Huxley, this solidarity gave an enormous evolutionary advantage to those who had obtained it, which would explain why the tribe would react ferociously to any threat to it. It would act, in a sense, like the human immune system: the moment it detected a foreign agent that threatened the entire organism, it would not ask questions, but would promptly attack to eliminate the intruder as quickly as possible before it had a chance to reproduce and spread.

The whole point of an effective tribal shaming code is to make the person who has internalized it feel that it is entirely natural and obvious. It is instilled in us from infancy, and certainly before we have sufficient rational judgment of the world, or knowledge of ourselves, to voluntarily accept it.  We could not have chosen it for ourselves – rather it was chosen for us. That is why so many people find it virtually impossible to stop being ashamed of those things that they were taught were shameful from infancy. Even when we later become aware of it, and are able to offer rational criticism of it, we are nevertheless still subject to it at a visceral level – shameful conduct will automatically trigger physiological symptoms of panic and anxiety – we will blush, break out into a sweat, have trouble breathing, feel nausea, and so forth. The pre-emptive physiological judgment passed by the shaming code is not a product of moral reflection – it is a reflex reaction, but one that has been instilled by the society, rather than endowed by nature.

In his essay Huxley emphasizes the survival value of the tribal mind in a world ruled by the cosmic process, (i.e., the law of the jungle). A tribe that shares a powerful visceral code that inhibits the natural tendency of the individual to self-assertion will present a united front against its enemies. It will stick together and not fragment and dissolve under stress in the face of conflict. In a strong group, when an individual is given a chance to desert his fellows in order to save his own skin, he will be inhibited from this act of selfish betrayal by an unbearable visceral shame. What will keep him loyal to the group are not his higher faculties of reflection and cogitation – all of which may be screaming to him, “Run for your life, you fool!” Rather, it is the physiological reactions that have been programmed into him from an early age through the process of shaming. It is his nervous system, his sweat glands, his bowels that force him to stand and fight with his group rather than to flee at the first opportunity. One is reminded of the fanatical, indeed suicidal, resistance of the Japanese and German armed forces in the closing months of World War II.

While this can also be dubbed a code of honor, Huxley would say that a code of honor is just the conscious psychological assent to the rightness of the physiological responses his culture has implanted in him. A warrior, for example, is first made to feel deep shame at betraying his comrades in battle; it is only after having been programmed to feel this shame under even the most dire circumstances that the warrior can come to take pride in the training and discipline that made him incapable of acting in his own self-interest.

The socialization of German children under National Socialism offers a compelling illustration of the use of a shaming code to engender intense group cohesion and promote selfless behavior. A constant refrain of the literature of the Hitler Youth was the idea of the individual sacrificing himself for his leader, where the basic idea was

of a group of heroes inseparably tied to one another by an oath of faithfulness who, surrounded by physically and numerically superior foes, stand their ground. … Either the band of heroes is reduced to the last man, who is the leader himself defending the corpses of his followers – the grand finale of the Nibelungenlied – or through its unparalleled heroism brings about some favorable change in fortune. [xii]

The socialization of the Hitler Youth emphasized group cohesion, selflessness, and hostility to the outgroup

Huxley identified the flaw in any political ethic that like that of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) which was is based on enlightened self-interest alone: a rationally derived self-interest — even the most enlightened —  would not result in people willing to die for the group. If human beings had to wait until they were reasonable enough to see the advantage of entering into Hobbes’s celebrated social contract, they would long since have become slaves or the defenceless prey of the those groups whose social unity was based on a primordial and visceral sense of loyalty – a cohesion so intensely felt that it did not need rational arguments to create it.

In other words, those groups animated by a high degree of ethnocentrism and group cohesion would eliminate those whose fragile solidarity was merely based on reason and the social contract. Cohesive groups invariably out-compete individualist strategies. As Roger Scruton points out: “The error of individualism lies in the attempt to found a vision of society on the idea of rational choice alone – on an ‘abstract’ notion, as Hegel put it, of practical reason, which makes no reference to history, community, and the flesh.”[xiii]

Huxley’s Ethics and Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy

Huxley’s explanation for the emergence of human ethics ties in neatly with Kevin MacDonald’s theory of group evolutionary strategies that operate through the construction of culture. A key feature of any effective group evolutionary strategy will be the construction of an effective societal shaming code designed to reinforce group cohesion and solidarity. Jews are the prime example of a biological community with a powerful shaming code imposed by a set of practices aimed at socializing individuals into identifying strongly and exclusively with the ingroup. MacDonald notes that the defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance.

Of the hundreds of human groups in the ancient world, only Judaism avoided the powerful tendencies toward cultural and genetic assimilation. Judaism as a group strategy depends on the development of social controls reinforcing group identity and preventing high levels of genetic admixture from surrounding groups. … As with all collectivist cultures Judaism depends on inculcating a very powerful sense of group identification. Socialization in collectivist cultures stresses group harmony, obedient submission to hierarchical authority, the honoring of parents and elders, in-group loyalty, and trust and cooperation within the in-group. … There has been a very conscious attempt on the part of the Jewish community to inculcate a sense of group belongingness among all Jews. One aspect of these socialization influences is to continually place group members in situations where group activities involve very positive experiences, but there is also socialization for developing feelings of separateness from gentile culture. [xiv]     

Charles Murray notes that “traditional Jewish culture is not all that different from Confucianism or Islamic culture in the way that it embeds individual moral agency in family and community. Orthodox Jewish culture is effective in fostering human capital through its emphasis on education and indirectly through its effects on mating patterns, but duty takes precedence over vocation, and the interests of the family and community takes precedence over self-fulfillment.”[xv] Given the potential for post-Enlightenment Western social structure (based on individualism and moral universalism) to break down Jewish cohesiveness, the socialization of Jewish children took on, post-Emancipation, even greater importance as a way of maintaining the group identification and commitment of Diaspora Jews.

Orthodox Jewish “habits of mind” are inculcated from an early age

The incredible strength of group identification engendered by the traditional Jewish shaming code is revealed by the fact that, in post-emancipation Germany of the nineteenth century, assimilation did not occur at any level of the Jewish community. MacDonald notes that: “In addition to a very visible group of Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe, Reform Jews generally opposed intermarriage, and secular Jews developed a wide range of institutions that effectively cut them off from socializing with gentiles.”[xvi] In accounting for the overwhelming tendency of Jews to resist assimilation into German society, Jacob Katz asserts that: “What secular Jews remained attached to was not easy to define, but neither, for the Jews involved, was it easy to let go of: there were family ties, economic interests, and perhaps above all sentiments and habits of mind which could not be measured and could not be eradicated.”[xvii] These “sentiments and habits of mind” were the desired product of many centuries of eugenic practices which reinforced Jewish ethnocentrism, in conjunction with a virulently strong tribal shaming code which inculcated a fanatical devotion and commitment to the tribe and an equally fanatical intolerance and hatred of the outgroup. Like Jews, Muslim immigrants to the West have, by and large, not shown any inclination to assimilate themselves. Instead, like Jews, when they move to the West, they quickly begin to demand that the local culture start to transform itself to accommodate them.

Multiculturalism, as a Jewish intellectual and political movement, is just the latest attempt by Jews to erect a rigid barrier against the individualistic Western social structure that threatens to undermine Jewish cohesiveness through undermining and weakening the psychological grip of the traditional shaming code of Judaism. MacDonald observes that multiculturalism, like neo-Orthodoxy and Zionism, is simply another Jewish response “to the Enlightenment’s corrosive effects on Judaism” which involves the creation of a “defensive structure erected against the destructive influence of European civilization.”[xviii] It is an attempt to resolve the “fundamental and irresolvable friction between Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure.”[xix]

Jewish history clearly indicates that the tribal mind and in-group fanaticism are functional adaptations to a world ruled by Huxley’s cosmic process (i.e. the law of the jungle) – functional in the sense that they increase the odds of survival. In his History of the Hebrew People the nineteenth century French historian and philosopher Ernst Renan maintained, like Huxley, that tribal fanaticism has played a dialectically necessary role in human ethical progress. The Jews were undoubtedly tribal fanatics, Renan observed; yet without their fanaticism they would not have preserved the cultural practices necessary for group survival. The essence of fanaticism is to follow blindly the collective mind without question or criticism. It is the negation of individual thinking that pays off in terms of the capacity of a group to survive in competition with other groups. The fanatic is the person who is willing to follow blindly, and to trust implicitly, and never to doubt or to question the authority of the group customs and traditions.

Jewish tribal fanaticism is highly adaptive

By sharp contrast, Western history has been punctuated by numerous instances where White people have appealed to their own conscience to condemn the behavior of members of their own biological community. During the Boer War, for instance, there were many in England who through the English were acting unjustly toward the Afrikaners, and who were particularly outraged by Lord Kitchener’s policy of interning Boer women and children in disease-ridden “concentration camps.” The tribal actor, on the other hand, cannot take a moral stance outside the perspective of his tribe. For the tribal actor, the highest ethical idea is: “My tribe, right or wrong.” The mere idea that his tribe could be wrong is unthinkable for the tribal actor, since he defines as right whatever the tribe deems right, and wrong as whatever the tribe deems wrong.

Huxley’s Ethics and Western Individualism

Our sense of individuality is acquired by the recognition that there are differences between us and other people, but in a cohesive group ruled by a monolithic shaming code everyone is mentally in sync with each other. The question then presents itself: if a tribe can increase its chance of survival by suppressing the individual through the imposition of a group-oriented shaming code, then how did Western societies in which individualism has been encouraged and, indeed, has become the basis of law and custom, emerge in the first place? Or, to put it in Huxley’s terms: how could human beings be free as individuals, and still cooperate enough to survive?

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott stated the obvious when he observed that: “The disposition to regard a higher degree of individuality in conduct and in belief as the condition proper to mankind and as the main ingredient of human ‘happiness’, had become one the significant dispositions of the modern European character.”[i] Clearly, to emerge in the first place, Western individualism had to be adaptive at some level. In accounting for the historical emergence of the individualism and moral universalism of White people, some, like Kevin MacDonald, emphasize genetic factors (our unique evolutionary history as northern hunter-gatherers) while others, like Ricardo Duchesne, emphasize cultural factors. These genetic and cultural explanations are certainly not mutually exclusive. Regardless of its exact origins, Western individualism has undoubtedly been conducive to economic development, and the resultant boost in material living standards dramatically reduced child mortality and increased the human carrying capacity of Western nations by augmenting supplies of resources like clean water, food, clothing and housing.

In addition, Western individualism, acting in combination with the relatively high intelligence of White populations (the legacy of selection pressures imposed by the harsh European environment over millennia), facilitated an incredible explosion of creativity and invention in the arts and sciences. In his book Human Accomplishment Charles Murray makes the point that: “A major stream of human accomplishment is fostered by a culture that encourages the belief that individuals can act efficaciously as individuals, and enables them to do so.”[ii] This explosion of European creativity and invention from the Renaissance onwards provided the basis for the development of technologies that fuelled further economic development and dramatic improvements in material living standards. When the exclusive beneficiaries of this economic development were White populations in what were basically homogeneous White nations, Western individualism was highly adaptive and supportive of the group evolutionary interests of White populations.

Advertisement

---

Indeed, Western individualism has, throughout most of history, offered Whites an enormous advantage in facilitating the acquisition of resources and in aiding reproductive success. However, with the advent of mass third-world immigration and multiculturalism in the West over the last few decades, this is no longer the case. As I noted in my essay “Free to Lose” (The Occidental Quarterly Fall, 2011), the only time that Whites will be acting in their own evolutionary self-interest in embracing economic individualism will be when they either live in a racially homogeneous society where their group interests are not imperiled by the utility-maximizing behavior of individual Whites; or in a multi-racial society where competing racial groups do not exceed whites in their ethnocentrism; or they do exceed whites in their ethnocentrism, but lack the intelligence to capitalize on this by effectively employing altruistic group strategies in competition with individualistic whites. Unfortunately, the contemporary West corresponds to none of these scenarios.

While Western civilization as a whole has been strongly characterized by moral universalism and individualism, National Socialist Germany, during its brief existence, offered a prominent example of a European society that, like Judaism, employed a strong shaming code, and which imposed a set of practices aimed at socializing individuals into identifying strongly with the group. Noting the “eerie” parallels between National Socialist ideology and traditional Jewish ideology, Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that:

The National Socialist movement in Germany from 1933–1945 is a departure from Western tendencies toward universalism and muted individualism in the direction of racial nationalism and cohesive collectivism … characterized by several key features that mirrored Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Most basically, National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. There was an emphasis on the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism combined with outgroup hostility. … These anti-individualist tendencies can be seen in the Hitler Youth movement. … After 1936, membership was compulsory for children after their tenth birthday. A primary emphasis was to mold children to accept a group strategy of within-group altruism combined with hostility and aggression toward outgroups, particularly Jews. Children were taught an ideology of nationalism, the organic unity of the state, blind faith in Hitler, and anti-Semitism. Physical courage, fighting skills, and a warlike mentality were encouraged, but the most important aspect of education was group loyalty: “Faithfulness and loyalty irrespective of the consequences were an article of faith shared among wide sections of Germany’s youth” (Koch, 1976, 119). Socialization for group competition was strongly stressed, “all the emphasis centering on obedience, duty to the group, and helping within the group” (Koch 1976, 128). The ideology of National Socialism viewed the entire society (excluding the Jews) as a large kinship group – a “Volksgemeinschaft transcending class and creed” (Rempel 1989, 5). [iii]

As with Judaism, the National Socialists were obsessed with socializing group members into accepting group goals and the importance of within-group altruism and cooperation in attaining these goals. In Mein Kampf, Hitler states that the greatest strength of the Aryan race is their willingness to sacrifice self-interest to group goals, and that in the Aryan “the instinct of self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.”[iv] The success of the National Socialist inculcation of a group-oriented shaming code is indicated by the fact that, by some estimates, 95 per cent of young Germans remained committed to the war effort after the defeat at Stalingrad. The high level of selfless behavior among Germans during the war both as soldiers and support personnel clearly indicates that the indoctrination of young people with National Socialist ideology was quite successful and was causally responsible for self-sacrificing behavior.

A German soldier in 1945

 While it is common for most White people to smugly assume that the ethnocentric tribal mindset is inferior to the individualism and moral universalism that has so characterized Western societies, this is a seriously mistaken assumption. The first law of the jungle states, that in the struggle for survival and supremacy, there are no rules. From a biological standpoint, anything that achieves victory is automatically self-justifying, and the reality is that the morally autonomous individualist stands little chance of surviving in the jungle. He who has neither tribe nor pack to defend him will perish. The idea that Western individualism is sophisticated and modern and represents a higher stage of social or psychological evolution is based on the naïve assumption that the White individualist lives, and will continue to live, in an environment where Huxley’s cosmic process (i.e. the law of the jungle) has been revoked. He does not have to struggle against bands of tribal fanatics. But what if mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism radically transform his society and he suddenly finds himself in the jungle once more?

Huxley’s Ethics and The Culture of Critique

Implicit in Huxley’s theory of ethics is that an effective form of group warfare would consist in subverting the shaming code of rival groups to fracture their cohesion and reduce their solidarity, and render them less effective competitors in the struggle for survival. The Jewish intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique were centrally preoccupied with undermining the traditional ethical precepts (and shaming codes) of Western societies, thereby rendering them less effective competitors to Jews for access to resources and reproductive success. Each of the movements sought to overturn the established expectation whereby, as Huxley notes, each man “should be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed it [their society]; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live.”[v]

MacDonald makes the point that no evolutionist should be surprised that “intellectual activities of all types may at bottom involve ethnic warfare, any more than one should be surprised at the fact that political and religious ideologies typically reflect the interests of those holding them.”[vi]  Based on his evolutionary theory of ethics, Huxley would have undoubtedly accepted this proposition as self-evidently true.  According to the philosopher and writer, Bryan Magee, almost all the intelligent Jews of his acquaintance accepted that Judaism, while literally untrue, amounted to a highly effective group evolutionary strategy:

Of the religions I studied, the one I found least worthy of intellectual respect was Judaism. I have no desire to offend any of my readers, but the truth is that while reading foundational Jewish texts I often found myself thinking: “How can anyone possibly believe this?” When I put that question to Jewish friends they often said that no intelligent Jew did. To quote the precise words of one: “There’s not a single intelligent Jew in the country who believes the religion.” What they do believe, they tell me, is that it is desirable that traditional observances be kept by at least some Jews because it is these observances more than anything else that give the Jewish people its identity, and therefore its cohesion; but that the doctrinal content or implications of the observances are not expected to be taken with full intellectual seriousness by intelligent people.[vii]  

All of the Jewish intellectual movements featured in The Culture of Critique encouraged the subversion of the traditional Western socialization of children (i.e. its tribal shaming code). Boasian anthropology sought, for example, to overturn established notions regarding the importance of racial differences, and therefore the perceived need to maintain immigration restrictions, and to instil a strong racial identity in White children and a strong aversion to miscegenation as part of their socialisation. The subversive doctrines of Freudian psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School likewise promoted the replacement of the traditional Western shaming code (based on racial pride and Christian values) with a new politically correct shaming code that amounts to a recipe for White suicide. Roger Scruton points out how this new ethical paradigm

while exhorting us to be as “inclusive” as we can, to discriminate neither in thought, word, nor deed against ethnic, sexual or behavioural minorities … encourages the denigration of what is felt to be especially ours. … The gentle advocacy of inclusion masks the far-from-gentle desire to exclude the old excluder: in other words to repudiate the cultural inheritance that defines us as something distinct from the rest. The “down with us” mentality is devoted to rooting out old and unsustainable loyalties. And when the old loyalties die, so does the old form of membership. … We who live in the amorphous and multicultural environment of the postmodern city must open our hearts and minds to all cultures, and be wedded to none.[viii]

This was undoubtedly the intended consequence of the promotion of radical individualism as the epitome of psychological health by the Jewish ethnic activists of the Frankfurt School. The psychologically healthy White person was held by them to be an individual who has broken free from traditional Western shaming code, and who realized their human potential without relying on membership in

Erich Fromm

collectivist groups. Frankfurt School theorist Erich Fromm argued, for instance, in his book The Sane Society (1956) that: “Mental health is characterized by the ability to love and create, by the emergence from incestuous ties to clan and soil, by a sense of identity based on one’s experience of self as the subject and agent of one’s powers, by the grasp of reality inside and outside of ourselves, that is, by the development of objectivity and reason.” [ix]According to Fromm’s criteria, virtually no Jew would be considered to be mentally healthy. The embrace of radical individualism among non-Jews, promoted by the likes of Fromm, was, not surprisingly, very conducive to the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive group.

Most importantly, to effectively undermine the traditional shaming code that sustained the traditional White family, and Western civilization more broadly, movements like Freudian psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School needed to  promote a revolution in the traditional Western family structure and in child-rearing practices. This revolution has occurred, and has had dire consequences for White group interests. MacDonald notes that: “Applied to gentile culture, the subversive program of psychoanalysis would have the expected effect of resulting in less-competitive children; in the long term, gentile culture would be increasingly characterised by low-investment parenting, and … there is evidence that the sexual revolution inaugurated, or at least greatly facilitated, by psychoanalysis has indeed had this effect.”[x]

Roger Scruton notes that the assault on the family from the 1960s onwards was part of a great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values. “Wilhelm Reich, R.D. Laing, Aaron Esterson, and radical psychotherapists of their persuasion see the family as a burden imposed by the past: a way in which parents encumber their offspring with an inheritance of defunct authority. Schizophrenia, in Laing’s view, arises because the Self is made Other by the parental imposition of dysfunctional norms.”[xi] Inevitably, these dysfunctional norms were the traditional family structure and regulative ideas of Western societies. Following the path laid out by these intellectuals, “radical feminism has set out to deconstruct the family entirely, exposing at as an instrument of male domination, and advocating new kinds of ‘negotiated’ union in its place.” This radical deconstruction of the traditional Western family structure was never accompanied by an analogous deconstruction and critique of the traditional Jewish family structure and its regulative ideas. Scruton observes how under the new politically correct shaming code

permission turns to prohibition, as the advocacy of alternatives gives way to a war against the former orthodoxy. The family, far from enjoying the status of a legitimate alternative to the various “transgressive” postures lauded by the elite, is dismissed out of hand as a form of oppression. … Like Marxism, feminism purports to show us the world without ideological masks or camouflage. Its repudiating zeal is not, as a rule, directed against Islam or the cultures of the East. It is directed against the West, and its message is “down with us.”[xii]

Given the existence of significant differences between Jews and non-Jews in mean IQ (and associated differential propensities toward high-investment parenting), there is, as MacDonald notes, every reason to suppose that Jews and non-Jews have very different interests in the construction of culture. This is because Jews are relatively less dependent on the preservation of cultural supports for high-investment parenting compared to non-Jews.

Accordingly, the consequences of the erosion of traditional Western shaming code which enforced constraints on sexuality (the result of the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of Western culture since the 1960s) have been far more deleterious to those lower-IQ non-Jewish groups that are genetically predisposed to precocious sexuality than to diaspora Jews (greater intelligence being correlated with later age of marriage, lower levels of illegitimacy, and lower levels of divorce) (see also Charles Murray’s  Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960–2010and “The Dissolution of the family among non-elite Whites“). The result has been the establishment of a society controlled by a Jewish “cognitive elite” who politically, economically and socially dominate “a growing mass of individuals who are intellectually incompetent, irresponsible as parents, prone to requiring public assistance, and prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse.”[xiii]

Recruiting White Foot Soldiers

Meanwhile, at the other end of the social spectrum, Jewish ethnic activists have been able to recruit the most intellectually capable elements from within White populations and use them as foot soldiers in a relentless campaign against their own kind. The practice of using Europeans in this fratricidal way is not without historical precedent. Through their control of the dissemination of information in the West, Jews have reinstituted a version of the Devçirme practiced for centuries by the Ottoman Empire.  Devçirme is the Turkish word for the process of stealing the best, brightest, fittest, and handsomest boys from their non-Muslim subject populations. The Turks had no compunction in stealing European children, mostly from the Balkans, forcibly converting them, training them to be fanatical and ruthless warriors (the famous Janissaries), and employing them to suppress the communities of their biological origin.

Painting depicting children stolen from the Balkans under the Ottoman system of Devçirme

 From the point of view of Huxley’s cosmic process, the system of Devçirme was a machine of ruthless efficiency in the struggle for survival and supremacy, and it was an important part of enormous power the Ottoman Empire was able to wield for centuries. In the modern Jewish version of Devçirme, the best and brightest White youth are brainwashed through the media and in educational establishments, and trained to be fanatical intellectual warriors to be used to suppress communities of their own biological origin. The ongoing loyalty of these elite intellectual warriors is then sustained through a perverted system of incentives in the world of academia that rewards White scholars who harm the interests of their own people. Similar processes occur in the media and politics.

For tribal groups with small populations like the Jews, there are big evolutionary advantages to creating artificial tribes based on ideology – providing these artificial tribes do not compromise the cohesiveness of the original ethnic group. The artificial tribe can be used to work for the interests of the biological tribe, and, as in the Ottoman example, the creation of artificial tribes allows the original tribe to tap into the biological reservoir of the peoples and tribes they have under their control. By stealing European boys and instilling in them the shaming code of the Janissary, the Ottomans could create an army that far surpassed the manpower that even the largest blood tribe could produce. Similarly, by intellectually capturing and mobilizing the cognitive elite of White societies, Jews — who are only a tiny fraction of Western populations — have created a vast intellectual army of Whites fighting aggressively for Jewish interests.

Conclusion

The demographic transformation of the West through displacement-level non-White immigration will bring Huxley’s cosmic process increasingly to the fore, and as the law of the jungle based on group competition becomes an ever more prominent feature of Western life, White people — despite the incessant multicultural propaganda, the legal strictures, and the perverted system of rewards and punishments in place — will inevitably begin to behave more like tribal actors once again. The increasing racialization of American politics is evidence that this process is already well under way.

The real danger is that White people do not make this transition quite quickly enough. Until Western societies cross a demographic threshold (perhaps the point where Whites are consigned to minority status) the majority of Whites will continue to try to minimise the threat posed by the steady return to the law of the jungle. They will try to explain it away, or simply deny it. They will continue to make concessions (economic, legal and cultural) to non-White groups in the hope of placating the ever-growing and increasingly emboldened non-White communities in their midst. They will continue to resist all efforts of White partisans to enlist them to their cause.

The London riots: a taste of what’s to come for Western societies?

 Yet as the demographic crisis deepens, those White people who refuse to stop playing the role of the morally autonomous individualist will find themselves increasingly friendless in an world full of enemies, until the day comes when they too must choose sides and embrace the tribal ethos of Us versus Them. The inevitable consequence of the return to the law of the jungle — even for those Whites who have been brainwashed to regard their own demise as a moral imperative — is the reawakening of the tribal mind.

If there are other tribes in my vicinity that hate me because they see me a member of an enemy tribe, then my only hope of security lies in standing firmly with my own tribe. As the old adage goes, there is safety in numbers. What good would it do for me to assure those who hate my tribal identity that I am not really a member of my tribe, but an individual, capable of moral autonomy? The White person who insists on remaining a “rational” individualist when his world has reverted to the ways of the jungle is not, in fact, acting rationally. Rationality, at this point requires group solidarity. To survive in a dog-eat-dog world you must run in packs — and the tribe is your pack. Rationality therefore dictates the surrender of moral autonomy and the embrace of the tribe.

Ben Zygier

A fascinating article recently appeared in the Fairfax newspapers in Australia concerning the late Melbourne-born Mossad agent Ben Zygier. The result of a joint investigation by Fairfax in Australia and Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine, the article, entitled “The life and death of Prisoner X,” outlines the sequence of events which led to Zygier’s arrest, imprisonment, and ultimate suicide in an Israeli prison. In the words of the author, Jason Koutsoukis, Ben Zygier “was responsible for one of the most serious security breaches in Israeli history, a breach that led directly to the imprisonment of two of Israel’s most prized Lebanese informants.” While an interesting story in its own right, the Zygier case also highlights the perils of allowing Australian Jews to have joint Australian-Israeli citizenship: in particular, it reveals how the Mossad deliberately recruit these dual nationals to use their Australian passports as cover for their operations – including for assassinations.

The general tone of the article is sympathetic to Zygier, whose story is described as “the tragic downfall of a passionate Zionist, a young man who aspired to a life of heroism, and yet, in the wake of his own shortcomings, willingly gave away such sensitive information to the enemy that it represents one of the most serious security breaches in Israel’s 65-year history.” It is quite bizarre that an Israeli spy, who betrayed his Australian nationality by using his Australian passport to conduct intelligence operations for another country, is described in an Australian newspaper as someone whose downfall was “tragic.” Zygier was a shameless traitor to the land of his birth, and one can only conclude that his ultimate downfall, rather than being “tragic,” was entirely appropriate.

Ben Zygier was born in 1976 in Melbourne to a wealthy Jewish family. His father owned a food manufacturing business and became a leading figure in Melbourne’s Jewish community, serving as Chief Executive of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. Educated at Jewish Schools, Zygier quickly became a passionate Zionist and joined the Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair. After beginning a law degree at Monash University, he deferred his studies to move to Israel. He ended up living at the Kibbutz Gazit close to Israel’s border with Lebanon. There he met up with fellow Australian Jew Daniel Leiton and the two became friends. Koutsoukis notes that “Leiton recalls first meeting Zygier in the late ‘80s in Melbourne. Even then, he says, the two teenagers shared a passionate belief in Zionism, with Zygier already making it clear he would make Aliyah, the act of immigration for diaspora Jews to the land of Israel.”  Another friend of Zygier, Lior Brand, described him as “obviously clever, and ready to defend Israel against its enemies, no matter what the cost.”

Advertisement

---

Zygier subsequently took Israeli citizenship under the adopted Hebrew name of Ben Alon. He then “flitted back and forth between Israel and Australia, in turn completing his law degree at Monash, and completing his military service in Israel.” In the early 2000s, the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (known as the “Mossad,” the Hebrew word for “Institute”) began its first ever public recruitment drive. Advertisements appeared in the Israeli press promoting “the job of a lifetime” and claiming “The Mossad is open – not for everyone, but for a few. Maybe for you.”

Zygier responded to the advertisement, and his application was warmly received. This is because, as Koutsoukis points out, “For an agency like the Mossad, which depends on its ability to send its agents unsuspected behind enemy lines, foreign-born nationals like Zygier offer an inherently valuable bonus – access to a genuine foreign passport that bears no link to Israel.” While Zygier pursued his legal career, first at a Jewish-owned law firm in Melbourne, and then in Tel Aviv, the Mossad was evaluating his potential suitability as an intelligence agent. They interviewed him as part of a psychological assessment to determine if he had any “obvious flaws or personality traits that might disqualify them from a career in the clandestine intelligence service.”

Zygier was formally accepted into the Mossad in December 2003, and underwent an intensive year-long training program that “included such techniques as how to falsify resumes and other documents, and how to manipulate people.” In early 2005, Zygier was sent on his first mission to Europe with instructions to infiltrate companies that did business with Iran and Syria. Zygier initially targeted a technology company in Milan, and then other companies in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. For over a year and a half, he worked in various roles for a mid-sized European company with extensive business interests across the Middle East and Persian Gulf – including Iran. While regarded as intelligent and capable, Zygier’s erratic behavior, which at one point caused a major client to sever links with the company, eventually led to his dismissal.

Zygier gained no information of any strategic value to Israel while working for this company and, dissatisfied with his performance, he was recalled from the field in mid-2007 and assigned a desk job back at the Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv. Koutsoukis notes that:

Inside the Mossad’s hexagonal headquarters off Tel Aviv’s Highway No. 5, the agency is divided into three main sections. Keshet, which means rainbow in Hebrew, is the first section, and is responsible for surveillance and other forms of covert intelligence gathering. The Caesarea department, which is named after the nearby ancient Roman settlement, is home to the Mossad strike force, the men and women who prepare and execute attacks abroad. The largest section is called Tzomet, which is Hebrew for crossroads, a more bureaucratic, less glamorous section that deals mainly with the evaluation and analysis of the information coming in.   

Zygier was assigned to work in the Tzomet section. While there, because of recent changes in the structure of this department, he had unprecedented access to incoming intelligence from field operatives. It later transpired that the Mossad made a massive error in providing Zigier with this access to vital intelligence. In the spring of 2009, the Lebanese security services busted open several Israeli spy rings. Mustafa Ali Awadeh, an important Israeli agent in Lebanon, was arrested.  Then, in May 2009, the Lebanese special-forces raided the house of the 61-year-old Ziad al-Homsi and arrested him on suspicion of spying for Israel. Homsi’s arrest in particular shocked the Lebanese public because he had previously served honorably as a mayor, and was regarded as a war hero for his exploits in fighting for the PLO against Israel, and for the Syrian army in the Lebanese civil war.  

Lebanese hero turned Israeli spy: Ziad al-Homsi

It later emerged that Homsi had been acting as an Israeli spy since 2006, and had received around $US100,000 for his information. The importance of Homsi to the Mossad is underscored by the fact that, under interrogation, he revealed that “he had told his Israeli handlers he could lead them to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Israel’s mortal enemy, Hezbollah, who has lived in hiding for years, thereby paving the way for another assassination.” The indictment against Homsi revealed to what elaborate lengths the Mossad will go to recruit a high-value target like Homsi.

According to Homsi, a Chinese man named “David” had come to his village in Lebanon, introducing himself to Homsi as an employee of the City of Beijing’s foreign trade office, and claiming that he wanted to establish business ties in Lebanon. At a business meeting in Lebanon, “David” invited Homsi to Beijing to attend a trade fair, telling him that the invitation had come directly from the Chinese government. Homsi enjoyed a successful visit to Beijing, where he was promised a salary. Later, he was invited to another meeting abroad, this time in Bangkok. But instead of talking business, the people on the other side of the table started asking Homsi what he knew about three Israeli soldiers who had been missing since a 1982 battle that Homsi had fought in on the side of the Arabs. “This is the moment at which the defendant becomes aware that he is dealing with Israelis, who work for the Mossad and have nothing to do with import-export companies or services that search for missing people,” reads the Homsi indictment.

Homsi agreed to work for the Mossad, which provided him with a computer and a doctored USB flash drive, as well as a device that looked like a stereo system but was in fact a transmitter for sending messages, all of which were seized upon his arrest. Homsi, says General Ashraf Rifi, the head of the Lebanese intelligence, was one of the most important catches his agency had ever made. Homsi was later sentenced to 15 years in prison with hard labor.

The arrests of Awadeh and Homsi represented the greatest setback the Mossad had experienced in decades. Attention soon turned to how the Lebanese had managed to uncover these agents. At this time the Israelis received a tipoff that talk within Hezbollah suggested a Mossad agent, then in Australia, could be in danger. It soon became clear that this agent was Ben Zygier, who, with the approval of the Mossad, had returned to Australia in early 2009 to pursue further study at Monash University. Concerned for his safety following the revelation that Hezbollah now knew his identity, Zygier was summoned back to Tel Aviv by his Mossad superiors in January 2009. When he arrived back in Israel, his superiors “thought that there was something odd about his behavior” and “the suspicion arose that he might have had a role in the arrests in Lebanon.” These suspicions only grew until January 2010, when Israel’s General Security Service, the Shin Bet, finally arrested Zygier. Under intense questioning, he revealed his connection to the arrests in Lebanon in 2009. It emerged that, in an effort to regain a coveted Mossad operations role, Zygier had embarked on a rogue mission without informing his superiors.  Koutsoukis relates that:

Zygier, apparently frustrated by his demotion to a desk job, had decided to take matters into his own hands and find a way to rehabilitate his reputation in the organization. … [He] admitted that sometime in 2008, before he took leave of absence and moved to Australia, he had flown to eastern Europe to meet a man he knew to have close links with Hezbollah, with the intention of turning that person into a double agent. Instead that man reported the recruitment attempt to Beirut, and himself began playing the same game as Zygier, except in reverse. Without Zygier’s knowledge, the man was reporting every detail of his contact with Zygier back to the Hezbollah leadership in Beirut. Israeli officials believe even Hassan Nasrallah was being kept informed.

The contact between Zygier and the man went on for months. When the man asked Zygier for proof he was a Mossad agent, Zygier readily complied and began supplying him with real intelligence from Tel Aviv, including the names of Ziad al-Homsi and Mustafa Ali Awadeh, the Mossad’s two top informants in Lebanon.  Israeli officials with access to the probe say that when Zygier was arrested, he was also found carrying a compact disc with additional classified information from the Tzomet department, which they also believe he was intending to hand over to the other side.                        

In his bungled attempts to redeem himself for his earlier failure in Europe, Zygier unwittingly became a conduit for information flowing from Tel Aviv to Hezbollah. Koutsoukis quotes an Israeli official who observed that Zygier “crossed paths with someone who was much more professional than he was.” While Israeli agents had changed sides in the past, a regular Mossad employee had never done what Zygier did in effectively becoming a double agent. Koutsoukis notes that the Zygier case represents “a bitter defeat for the Mossad, but for Hezbollah it is one of the rare instances in which an Arab intelligence service prevailed over its Jewish counterpart.” Sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment, Zygier (known to the Israelis as “Prisoner X”) was found hanging in his high-security prison cell on December 15, 2010.

The Ben Zygier case, while fascinating in itself, reveals how Israel, a supposed friend of Australia, has no qualms about using Australian passports to carry out intelligence operations on foreign soil. Zygier was employed by the Mossad and sent to Europe to infiltrate companies doing business with Iran and Syria precisely because his Australian citizenship enabled him to use his Australian passport for the operation. In encouraging their agents to use Australian nationality as cover for their work, the Mossad is engaging in the kind of behavior that could easily endanger Australian citizens. In releasing his department’s internal inquiry into its consular handling of the Zygier case, Australia’s Foreign Minister Bob Carr noted:

If Australian passports were misused here, that’s something we are forced to take very seriously, because no country can live with any erosion of the integrity of its passport system. If the world thinks that Australian passports are routinely debauched by another country, then Australians presenting their passport somewhere in the world could well face their lives in danger. We can’t live with that. And if that’s confirmed, we’ll be registering the strongest protest.

Unsurprisingly, the Israeli government’s response has been muted. The Australian government has sought more detail about the Zygier case from Israel, but Foreign Minister Carr has revealed that this information has “not been forthcoming.” The Zygier case is not the first instance of Australian passports being used by the Mossad as part of their operations. Evidence of the practice first emerged in 2010, when it was revealed that Israel had used faked Australia passports in their assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai that year. This had prompted the Australian government to expel an Israeli intelligence officer from the Israeli embassy in Canberra.

A fake Australian passport used in the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in 2010

Alone among Jewish commentators, Ben Saul, the professor of international law at the University of Sydney, admitted that the Ben Zygier case “illustrates the dangers of divided loyalties” and the dangers of allowing dual nationality (as Australia has since 2002). Writing in the Fairfax newspapers, he noted that: “From afar, Israelis may not have appreciated the fury of the Australian government and people after Mossad used fake Australian passports in the operation to kill a Hamas man in Dubai.” Saul labeled the practice “an illegal, hostile, and shameful act by Israel against a supposed friend, Australia.” Noting the potentially deadly consequences of this practice, Saul observes that “if other countries suspect that Australian passport-holders might be Mossad spies or assassins, it could cause a great deal of trouble for innocent Australians.”  

Saul then got right to the crux of the problem of the Australian government allowing dual Australian-Israeli citizenship, observing that:

The case raises the broader problem of divided loyalties among Australians with multiple national identities, in this case some in the Jewish community. Australia permits dual citizenship. It becomes a problem where people put themselves in the position of having to choose between competing obligations of different countries, whether by spying or through military service. Israel and Australia are indeed good friends, but they are not always on the same page. For a start, there is a gulf in values. Australian security services do not assassinate people, including civilian scientists who are driving to work in neighboring countries. Australia does not torture prisoners. Australia has not militarily occupied a foreign people’s land for 40 years, or built illegal colonies on their lands. Australia does not believe in nuclear weapons or hide their existence. When it comes to the crunch, most Australians would expect Australian Jews to choose loyalty to Australia over Israel, or even hope that Australian agents in Mossad are our double agents. Undoubtedly, Israel would expect them to side with Israel. … There comes a point where a Jewish person cannot faithfully be both Australian and Israeli. One has to choose. 

Not surprising, Saul’s plain-speaking sent members of the Australian Jewish community into apoplexy. The academics and Australian Jewish activists, Kim Rubinstein and Danny Ben Moshe, slammed Saul for “wanting to turn back the clock of globalization and multiculturalism,” and for using the Zygier case to “tarnish the Australian Jewish community by invoking classical anti-Semitic allegations of divided loyalty and the enemy within.” According to Rubinstein and Ben Moshe: “The failure of Saul’s argument, and the great offence it causes many Jews, is that for the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews, irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with specific policies of the Israeli government, identification with Israel as their cultural and spiritual homeland [note the careful avoidance of the term “ethnic homeland”] is part of being a Jew. It has been for millennia.” Rubinstein and Ben Moshe are certainly correct on that score – and therein resides the age-old problem of the Jewish presence within non-Jewish nations. Jewish identification and loyalty supersede all others.

Rubinstein and Ben Moshe were particularly aggrieved that Saul had invoked “the rationale espoused from darker periods of history calling on this boundary [of single nationality] to be imposed because fundamentally the loyalty of Jews cannot be trusted.” They angrily insisted that “Saul’s claim that ‘there comes a point where a Jewish person cannot faithfully be both Australian and Israeli. One has to choose’ is fundamentally wrong,” and that while Pauline Hanson tried to revive such sentiments towards Asians and other migrants in the 1990s, this is an archaic notion and today’s migrants in Australia and migrants all around the world have multiple identities that coexist and are balanced.”

Apparently it is not such an archaic notion in Israel, which retains a racially-restrictive immigration program which denies an Israeli identity to all potential migrants without Jewish ancestry. While Israel’s status as a Jewish ethno-state is accepted by Rubinstein and Ben Moshe as entirely uncontroversial (actually as a moral imperative at the core of Jewish identity), they condemn any concern over the divided loyalty of Australian-Israeli dual nationals as a despicable “turning back the clock of globalization and multiculturalism.” Of course, implicit in this specious argument is that “multiculturalism” is an apolitical default setting for social policy in Australia, rather than what it actually is: a radical political ideology which is a direct outgrowth of Jewish ethnic activism.  Given their track record in reengineering Australian society in their own group interests, allowing dual nationality for Australian Jews was always likely to lead to the kind of behavior exposed in the Zygier case. 

 In my extended essay ‘The War on White Australia,’ I explored how Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism were pivotal in ending the White Australia policy — a policy change opposed by the vast majority of the Australian population. Australian Jews take enormous pride in this achievement. For instance, the national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The Jewish promotion of non-White immigration and multiculturalism in Australia has been (and continues to be) a form of ethnic warfare aimed at destroying Australia’s traditional White racial homogeneity — and with it supposedly any potential for a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Australia.

The history of multiculturalism in Australia (and indeed throughout the West) is in large part an object lesson in how a small but highly organised and motivated group of activists can successfully hijack the demographic destiny of a nation for its own ends. Acknowledging that Australian multiculturalism is first and foremost a manifestation of Jewish ethno-politics, Jewish historian William Rubinstein observed that: “Thus far, any serious questioning of multiculturalism has not resulted in an anti-Semitic backlash; nevertheless, the Jewish community would certainly be exceedingly disturbed by any basic reversal of the commitment to multiculturalism by successive governments.”[i] In addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population.

In Part 3 of my essay I discussed how, under the chairmanship (and behind the scenes influence) of the Jewish activist Walter Lippmann, the influential Committee on Community Relations delivered a report to the Australian Parliament in 1975 which placed “multiculturalism” at the heart of Australian government policy. It recommended that Australian social policy be formulated on the basis of four key elements. One of these recommendations, as summarised by the Jewish academic Andrew Markus, was that: “legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission.”[ii]

Advertisement

---

In response to this and the Committee’s other recommendations, which were essentially Lippmann’s recommendations, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia in the 1970s, and extended under the Fraser [1975–1983] and Hawke governments [1983-1991] in the 1980s. Thus, in order to achieve the goals of multiculturalism, Jewish activists were determined from the beginning to bar and punish any speech that was critical of non-White immigration and multiculturalism. The new politically correct speech code was soon enforced by the weight of law with the enactment of racial and religious vilification laws that criminalized dissenting speech.

Professor Andrew Markus

Professor Markus proudly observes that: “Jews were amongst the leading advocates of the enactment and extension of racial vilification and anti-discrimination legislation by the federal and state parliaments.”[iii]   In truth, the achievement of the twin Jewish goals of ending of the White Australia policy and instituting state-sponsored multiculturalism were attained with the passing of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 which stated: “It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

In practical effect, the passing of the Racial Discrimination Bill in 1975 was the Australian equivalent of the drastic rewriting of American immigration law in 1965. In both cases, the gates were opened to a flood of non-white immigrants from the Third World with racial and cultural backgrounds very different from the majority European-derived population.

In her book Ideology and Immigration the Australian sociologist Katharine Betts states that the dismantling of the White Australia policy was the result of an elite conspiracy: “Public resistance,” she notes, “was circumvented by the use of administrative procedures and secrecy rather than open debate.” The final phase of the abolition, which involved the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act by the Whitlam government (1972–75), was “a political victory” for the cosmopolitan elite, which, while failing to convert White Australia’s supporters “by reason and evidence,” left them “unconverted but outmanoeuvred.”[iv]

In the decades since the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, Jewish activists in Australia have continued to push for further legal restrictions on speech deemed contrary to their interests. In 1995 their activism, in the form of detailed submissions to the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, succeeded in having section 18C inserted into the Act by the then Labor government. This radically restricted free speech in Australia by making it “unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person or of some or all of the people in the group.” In doing so, Section 18C placed totalitarian limits on the freedom of speech in a nation traditionally regarded as one of the freest in the world. Almost anything you might say about race is likely to offend someone. Section 18D sets out some supposed exemptions to this radical restriction on free speech — stating that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt providing they are “said or done reasonably and in good faith.”

Crucially, unlike with defamation laws, the truth of a statement is irrelevant as to whether an individual is entitled to be offended or insulted under Section 18C. If a truthful statement about a particular race or ethnicity (which a judge believes was not made “in good faith” according to his own subjective interpretation) causes offence to someone who identifies with that race or ethnic group, the truth-teller can be punished under the Act.

Thus Section 18C places drastic restrictions on the freedom of speech of Australians. It should not need saying that any commitment to free speech is a commitment to allowing people to say and write things you dislike, that you detest, that you disagree with and find offensive. If the words spoken are words we all find congenial, then there is no need for any commitment to free speech.

The ideological nature of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was starkly illustrated in the case brought against conservative commentator Andrew Bolt. In 2009 Bolt wrote two columns pointing out that individuals with very small amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or in some cases none) were taking advantage of a raft of government scholarships and affirmative action job vacancies by choosing to identify exclusively as Aboriginal. Bolt claimed these people were choosing to identify as Black to leverage their career and social advancement.

While Bolt did make some factual errors in these articles, his central proposition was entirely valid and later corroborated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which, in commenting on the results of the 2011 Australian Census showing a 93,000 increase in the number of Aboriginal people between 2006 and 2011, observed that:

A change in people’s propensity to identify as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin is found to be a significant contributor to the increase in counts of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people which cannot be attributed to measurable demographic factors. In particular, the large increase in the count of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children aged 5–14 years in 2011 has been driven by a greater propensity of their parents to identify themselves and their children as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin in the 2011 Census when compared to the 2006 Census.

For pointing out this this rather obvious fact, and that this increasing Aboriginal self-identification had been encouraged by the multitude of financial and professional incentives available to those identifying as “Aboriginal,” Bolt was pilloried, hauled into court, and found guilty of violating the Racial Discrimination Act. In September 2010 nine of the “Aboriginal” people Bolt identified in his articles commenced legal proceedings against him and his employer the Herald-Sun. The complainants, who were represented gratis in the Federal Court by the Jewish barristers Ron Merkel and Herman Borenstein, sought an apology, legal costs and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs and “other relief as the court deems fit.” In the trial Merkel argued in reference to Bolt’s articles that “this kind of thinking led to the Nuremberg race laws’ and that Bolt had adopted a eugenic approach to Aboriginality.”

Australian Jewry has a long history of using Aboriginal activism as a political and ideological weapon in their broader war on White Australia. One Jewish source describes Jews and Aborigines as “two peoples with histories of dispossession and humiliation and killing who recognise each other, who find points of intersection and of parallel.” Australian Jewish leader and activist Mark Leibler claims to “have developed a deeper understanding of the connections between Indigenous and Jewish people and the underlying affinity we share. … We must listen to and respect the hard stories. Stories that are repeated all over Australia — stories of injustice, oppression and horror. Defiant stories of the proud survival of identifiable people. Stories resonating with familiar themes for each and every Jew.”[v] Speaking on behalf of Australian Jews Leibler claims that: “We’ve suffered 2,000 years of persecution and we understand what it is to be the underdog and to suffer from disadvantage.”

In his ruling for the complainants in 2011 the presiding judge Mordy Bromberg (also Jewish) declared that: “I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles. … Even if I had been satisfied that Section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith.”

Thus “good faith” as interpreted by a judge is now the criteria for acceptable speech about race in Australia — with this to be determined by the likes of Justice Bromberg who is a prominent member of the Australian Jewish community. This point was not lost on Bolt himself who noted that “And which judge becomes relevant, doesn’t it? Or are we not allowed to suggest that, either?”

Justice Mordy Bromberg (on the right)

In light of Bromberg’s judgment, Bolt rightly concluded that: “This is a terrible day for free speech in this country. It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves.” Bolt later opined that: “Our laws against free speech are a disgrace. Aboriginal identity should not be a subject that cannot be discussed freely.”

Following the Bolt case there was a concerted push for the repeal of Section 18C from within conservative and libertarian circles in Australia. With the election of the Abbott Liberal government in September 2013, the repeal of section 18C became a potential reality with the new Attorney-General George Brandis promising to make repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act a priority of the new government.

Unsurprisingly, this has prompted a massive campaign of resistance among Jewish intellectuals and activists. The Shadow Attorney-General and prominent Jewish lawyer Mark Dreyfus led the charge, calling on Tony Abbott to back away from a pledge to repeal Section 18C. Dreyfus says he condemned Senator Brandis’ plans, ”from the moment he first opened his mouth,” saying Section 18C “embodies Australia’s condemnation of racial vilification and protects our society from the poisonous effects of hate speech. When Senator Brandis says that repealing these laws is in the interests of freedom of speech, what he really means is freedom to engage in public hate speech.”

Dreyfus had earlier sent an open letter to the then Opposition leader Tony Abbott in which he argued that the Coalition’s stance on Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is inconsistent with its support for the London Declaration on Combatting Anti-Semitism. Dreyfus insisted that Section 18C “is precisely the kind of legislated protection against anti-Semitism and discrimination that the London Declaration calls on its signatories to enact.”

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus

Showcasing their contempt for democracy when it conflicts with Jewish interests, Jewish activists oppose the repeal of Section 18C regardless of the fact that Tony Abbott and the Coalition went to the September 2013 election pledging to repeal all or most of Section 18C of the act. During the election campaign Abbott had noted that “If we are going to be a robust democracy,  … we’ve got to allow people to say things that are unsayable in polite company.”

Following Abbott’s electoral victory in September Australia’s Jewish leaders have stepped up their fight against any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Peter Wertheim, the Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, warned that the ”wholesale repeal” of sections of the act would encourage “more sinister forms of hate speech.” Wertheim claimed repealing the relevant section of the act, without any replacement, “would mean Australia was turning back the clock 15 years in complying with the convention against all forms of racial discrimination”. The executive director of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, chimed in, maintaining that repeal of Section 18C would give “succor to racists.”

Noting organised Jewry’s vociferous opposition to the repeal of Section 18C, the hitherto philo-Semitic Andrew Bolt argued that “I believe Jewish community leaders now leading the charge to defend the RDA have seriously misread the lessons of their community’s tragic history. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council … is profoundly wrong about this and is now publicly insulting people it privately supports.”

Bolt then turned his attention to the leadership of the AIJAC, noting that: “AIJAC chairman Mark Leibler is causing more harm than he realizes by sanctioning this vilification of people whose free speech his community and organization has relied upon. Mark, making me collateral damage in your campaign is something I cannot forgive.”

Bolt ostensibly feels entitled to some support from Jewish leaders after his many years of obsequious support for Israel:

Please do me the courtesy of not now trashing my reputation by smearing me as some kind of enemy of Israel or Jews just to win a debating point. I’ve dared say more in Israel’s defense in public than many Jews with a public profile. Drag me down in this debate and you only undermine one of Israel’s greatest supporters in the media. And you win only trash in doing so — laws even worse that the kind activists used to try to stop me from saying what I did … about anti-Israel boycotts. … I have risked my reputation to defend Israel from calumnies before a mob and a media only too keen to hear and spread them, and on national television.

Bolt was apparently under the delusion that his fawning support for Israel in the past entitled him to a degree of sympathy from organized Jewry in his backing for the repeal of Section 18C.

I have been particularly disappointed to be treated as collateral damage by Jewish community leaders and political players who have been demanding these illiberal laws be kept. Several have privately assured me they found the case against me a misapplication of the law or even an injustice. But not one publicly said so. Every one of them knows what a supporter I have been of the Jewish community, not just in print, yet not one publicly protested when a Jewish QC [Queen’s Counsel] told a Jewish judge in my case something far more foul than anything I had written — that my thinking resembled that of the Nazis who drew up the Nuremberg race laws. That obscene slur struck me as a legally sanctioned defamation. … But I believe the Jewish community — or those members involved in public advocacy — should reflect on whether principle here has been trashed for advantage by representatives who should know better.

One would hope that Bolt now realizes that organized Jewry have only one guiding principle: unconditional loyalty to their own ethnic group and its interests. Jewish leaders will readily throw a previously Jew-friendly commentator like Bolt under a bus if he strays off the reservation on issues of importance to Jews. Bolt can invoke his devotion to certain abstract principles all he likes — Jewish activists will continue to be exclusively guided by a ruthless and relentless self-interest.

Furthermore, they see threats to this self-interest anywhere and everywhere. Even Bolt’s mentioning above that the judge and prosecuting counsel in his case were Jewish provoked a hostile reaction: “I have been warned that some people are taking offence at my mentioning the religion of the judge and the barristers for the complainants. One Jewish community leader even had to wonder in an email to me if I was suggesting a “Jewish conspiracy.”

Andrew Bolt

Desperate to placate the Jewish activists now aggressively assailing him from every angle, Bolt adopted a more conciliatory tone, attempting to frame his opposition to Section 18C in terms more likely to appeal to them: Jewish self-interest:

I understand Jews fearing that too much free speech will unleash anti-Semitism — and I understand even better how much they have to fear from such racism, given the history of the last century. But they are drawing the wrong lessons from the rise of Nazism. The Nazis did not flourish because they had too much free speech. They flourished because their critics had none. Indeed, Germany had laws against Nazi hate-preaching before Hitler’s rise to power, and they made not the slightest difference (although, yes, they were weak and even more weakly applied). … Hitler even boasted of being censored to win support. Once the principle of such censorship was accepted, it was turned against everyone — and none more than the Jews of Germany.

Of course Jews are unlikely to be convinced by such arguments now that they enjoy a hegemonic position (politically, intellectually, culturally and financially) throughout the West. They know full well that free speech (and particularly the kind engaged in here at TOO) is not conducive to the preservation of this hegemony. Accordingly, Australian Jewry is pushing for ever more draconian laws against free speech. Thus in early 2013 it was reported that:

The Jewish Board of Deputies and the NSW Community Relations Commission are pushing for a radical overhaul of the laws in submissions to a parliamentary inquiry into whether it should be easier to criminally prosecute cases of serious racial vilification. … The Jewish Board of Deputies argues there is ‘’a serious gap’’ in the law and suggests a new offence of ‘’conduct intended to harass on grounds of race’’. The change would mean criminal prosecutions could be pursued over racial harassment that involves threats, intimidation or ‘’serious racial abuse’’, whether or not a physical threat is involved. The submission argues the maximum penalties should be a fine of $27,500 or two years’ imprisonment for individuals and fines of up to $137,500 for corporations. It also says the offence should be included in the Crimes Act, be subject to a jury trial and include online abuse.

The push by activist Jews for ever-tighter restrictions on free speech in Australia has been an important front in their broader war on White Australia. It has been a critical part of the suite of ideologies and policies that Jewish activists have deployed to ensure the dispossession and disempowerment of an increasingly imperiled White Australian majority. Of course this simply mirrors the tactics of organised Jewry throughout the West. These tactics have succeeded in putting White people under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of multiculturalism — with all resistance to this being suppressed by ever-harsher restrictions on freedom of speech.

REFERENCES

Leibler, M. (2006) ‘Crossing the Wilderness: Jews and Reconciliation,’ In: New Under the Sun — Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 316-324.

Markus, A. (2006) ‘Multiculturalism and the Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun — Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 93-107.

Rubinstein, W.D. (1995) Judaism in Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Tavan, G. (2005) The long, slow death of White Australia, Scribe Publications, Melbourne.      

Avigdor Lieberman

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and I have something in common: we are both deeply concerned about the future of our respective tribes. Of course, unlike Lieberman’s concerns, mine are regarded, in a Western world dominated by the enemies of my people, as the illegitimate and malevolent product of a sick mind. It seems Lieberman can openly call for all young Jews to be placed in virtual ethnic quarantine to prevent race mixing (Jews call it “intermarriage”) and to be inculcated with a fervent ethnic pride and nationalism (Jews call it “Zionism”). He can also call for the migration of 3.5 million of his ethnic kinsmen to the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel — a state which practices ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians and which deports non-Jewish “enemy infiltrators.”

He can say all of this without raising a murmur of reproach from the media. On the other hand, as someone living in a “diverse” and “multicultural” society largely created, dominated and policed by representatives of Lieberman’s tribe, I am chastised for even identifying as a White person. Such is the perverted, hyper-hypocritical world we now live in.

Last month the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations held its 40th annual meeting in Jerusalem. The four day conference was attended by Jewish leaders from around the world and by prominent figures in the Israeli government including Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was, however, the address by the Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman that gained most attention in the Israeli and Jewish media (all of it laudatory). In his speech, he declared: “I would like to state my firm belief that the biggest threat to us as Jews, both in Israel and the Diaspora, regardless of background, is the demographic problem currently facing world Jewry. It must become the most pressing issue on the global Jewish agenda. More pressing than the Palestinian negotiations or the Iranian nuclear threat.” Lieberman railed against the high rate of assimilation supposedly plaguing North American Jewry, declaring that: “If the current situation continues we will lose another six million Jews within a generation or two.” He warned American Jewish leaders that “You are facing a catastrophe.”

Advertisement

---

As recounted on the neoconservative site Frontpagemag.com:

Lieberman said that the samplings by Pew indicate that American Jewry is facing a catastrophe. He told the American Jewish leaders that, while for many years Israeli officials urged American Jews to invest their energy, time and their money in Israel, “today, however, I turn to you and say for all of us in Israel that we are thankful for your help but now it is time to concentrate on the challenges you face in your own communities, especially those which have resulted from the new trends in the Jewish community as reflected in the Pew survey.”

Lieberman asserted that the most critical problem the Jewish people face, whether in Israel or in the diaspora, is demography. Lieberman observed that in Israel today there are 6.1 million Jews, while in America the number of people identifying themselves as Jews is declining, according to the latest Pew Research survey titled A Portrait of Jewish America (October 1, 2013). Lieberman noted the rising levels of mixed marriages in the U.S. involving a non-Jewish partner, which has reached 58%. At the same time, according to the survey’s figures, the number of those identifying themselves as Jews is less than 5.3 million. Moreover, the percentage of Jews in the general population of the U.S. has declined to less than 2% from 3% a generation ago.

Lieberman’s solution to the “demographic crisis” supposedly facing world Jewry is for Israel (read American taxpayers) and Jewish organizations to fund “an essential educational project” dedicated to “the saving of the Jewish people.” Lieberman noted that the current Israeli government budget is over $100 billion. “I believe,” he said, “that the government of Israel should contribute $1 million a day or a total of $365 million, and you, the leaders of the Jewish Diaspora will match it to create an essential educational project.” This “essential educational project” would attempt to radically restrict Jewish “intermarriage” by placing all young Jews in Jewish day-schools (effectively in ethnic quarantine) where they would undertake instruction specially designed to strengthen their Jewish ethnocentrism and group loyalty. Lieberman emphasized that no Jew, whether in the Diaspora or in Israel, “is illegitimate and should be placed outside of the tent.”

Lieberman opined that the solution to assimilation, inter-marriage, and withdrawal from Jewish life is education. The Foreign Minister stressed that because Jewish education in America is so costly, it is preventing many Jewish families from partaking of it. He charged that “all Jewish children should have the capacity and capability to attend a school where they will receive an education that will teach them about Jewish history, values and traditions, to treasure their Jewish identity and to have a strong attachment to Israel and Zionism.” … The emphasis of such a network would, according to Lieberman, provide every Jewish child with a Jewish and Zionist education that would be recognized as the best in the world.

Lieberman claimed that only through this effort to improve Jewish education “can we ensure our endurance as a people.” He pointed out that: “the intermarriage rate has reached a high of 58% for all Jews, and 71% for non-Orthodox Jews, a huge change from before 1970 when only 17% of Jews intermarried… Above all discussions on Iran and the Palestinians, your discussions with the Israeli Government and the Jewish Agency should be focused on saving future generations.” In the conclusion to his speech Lieberman unveiled an even grander plan for safeguarding the group genetic interests of Jews, by stating “my aim is to bring 3.5 million Jews to Israel from the Diaspora in the next decade, so that the Jewish population in Israel will rise to over 10 million.” Lieberman’s proposals have been greeted enthusiastically by the Jewish media. Jewish neocon writer Joseph Puder praised Lieberman’s speech in the following terms:

Avigdor Lieberman’s idea of a network of excellent Jewish day schools presented to the Conference of Major Jewish Organizations leaders throughout the diaspora is practical and should be welcomed. Clearly, the realization of this venture would increase the sense of identity among Jews in America, and lead to greater identification and attachment with Israel. However, there is a critical problem that continues to affect American Jewish demography, that being late marriages and low birthrates among secular Jews which are far below replacement levels. The saving grace for Jews in America is the growing Orthodox community, and particularly the Modern-Orthodox segment, where a healthy demography and the strongest attachment to Israel are clearly in evidence.

According to Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, writing for The Jewish Press, what Lieberman essentially told the Jewish leaders was, “Wake up. It’s later than you think.” While praising Lieberman’s speech, Zionist Organization of America President Mort Klein doubted whether attracting 3.5 million Jews to Israel was feasible in the short term, claiming that: “The only way you would have a massive increase of Jews making Aliya is if you have a massive increase in anti-Semitism in America and around the world,” For Klein, only “an economic disaster,” coupled with “intolerable brutality against Jews,” would result in a mass exodus. “You can see an increasing number of Jews leaving France, but even with the increased hostility and violence you don’t see an astonishing increase in Aliya. You see a significant increase but not to the type of numbers that Lieberman is predicting.”

Zionist Organization of America President Mort Klein

Inevitably, Lieberman’s speech was not reported (let alone critically) in the Western media. Of course, if a minister of a European or European-derived nation had expressed the very same views regarding Europeans (or a European ethnic group) the individual would have been relentlessly assailed by all sections of the Jewish-controlled media and denounced as a “neo-Nazi” and “White supremacist.” Indeed Whites face opprobrium for even identifying as White, let alone openly discussing the very real demographic crisis we face and possible solutions to it. The firing of Pat Buchanan from MSNBC for having the temerity to openly discuss these issues is a case in point. Jewish writer Robert Elisberg was in good company when he ridiculed Buchanan’s book which “bemoans the future of White America,” and claimed that Buchanan deserved to be “fired from his job as an analyst for being a very public racist, anti-Semitic homophobe.”

It is no news to regular readers of TOO that Jews have been staunch and pivotal supporters of massive non-White immigration into America and other Western countries. The general Jewish attitude to the demographic crisis facing White America is captured in neoconservative Ben Wattenberg assertion that, “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” This attitude typifies the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far Left to the neoconservative Right, and is grounded in a simple logic: the take home lesson of  the Third Reich and the “Holocaust” is that all White people are incipient Nazis, and mass non-White immigration consequently makes formerly homogenously White nations safer for Jews. Jewish activists pose as moral paragons and humanitarians when their logic is nothing more than self-interested ethno-politicking: demographically swamp White nations so that the political power of Whites declines, making the rise of an anti-Jewish movement among Whites less likely. The result of these Jewish anxieties and hatreds is to promote the swamping the West with tens of millions of non-White immigrants, making Whites a powerless minority in the countries they founded and built.

Noting the outrageous hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning White racial consciousness and concern while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel and Jewish anxieties about rates of intermarriage, Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that:

Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. … A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.[i]  

In truth, Lieberman’s support for the segregated education of all young Jews is really just a re-statement and extension of the longstanding position of Jewish leaders throughout the West. For decades Jewish activism has centered on three main objectives: to ensure the ongoing existence of Israel as an ethnically homogeneous Jewish state; to ensure the safety of diaspora Jewry by reforming Western immigration policies to promote racial and ethnic diversity (high levels of white racial homogeneity being regarded as potentially dangerous to Jews); and finally, to ensure the continuation of Jewish ethnic separatism and endogamy (and counter assimilation) in the West through establishing separate Jewish organizations — especially  Jewish day-schools. The unanimity of opinion among Jews with regard to these key objectives continues through to the present day, with Jewish historian William Rubinstein noting that

politically, the Jewish community is strongly united on a limited number of goals on which there is consensus or near consensus, especially support for Israel, fighting anti-Semitism and endorsing multiculturalism, and stemming assimilation through Jewish day-school education. It has been fairly successful in achieving these goals, probably because it is unusually united and also because the quality of its secular leadership has been very high. The contemporary world Jewish situation, formed chiefly by the Holocaust and the re-emergence of the state of Israel, has produced a near universal consensus on similar goals through the Jewish world.[ii]     

So much for the platitude “two Jews, three opinions” — that Jews can’t agree on anything. While acting as the architects and leading proponents of a “Holocaust-proof” multicultural West, Jews have generally been careful to genetically segregate their children from these new mongrelized societies of their own creation. Referring to Australian Jews, Dan Goldberg notes that

we have, to a large degree, segregated our children from multicultural Australia through our exclusive Jewish school network (which has, however, been an effective bulwark in the battle against assimilation), and have been forced to segregate ourselves by building security walls and fences around our institutions. This apparent segregation, both free-willed and forced, does not appear to blend neatly with the notion of multiculturalism, but in modern-day Australia our melting pot may be becoming less of a mélange and more of a mix of virtually self-sufficient, independent ethnic and religious parts.[iii]

A key feature of any effective group evolutionary strategy is the capacity to socialize children in a way which reinforces group cohesion and solidarity. Jews are the prime example of a biological community with a powerful shaming code imposed by a set of practices aimed at socializing children into identifying strongly and exclusively with the ingroup. The defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance. Charles Murray notes that in orthodox Jewish culture “the interests of the family and community takes precedence over self-fulfillment.”[iv] Given the potential for post-Enlightenment Western social structure (based on individualism and moral universalism) to break down Jewish cohesiveness, the socialization of Jewish children since the Enlightenment took on even greater importance as a way of maintaining the group identification and commitment of Diaspora Jews.

A Jewish school in Britain: Why the lack of enriching “diversity”?

To the extent that the rate of Jewish “intermarriage” actually has increased in recent times, one can only assume that many American Jews have been caught up in intellectual currents (like “multiculturalism” with its “diversity” fetish) that were only intended by their Jewish originators for non-Jewish (particularly European) consumption. The psychologically healthy White person was held by the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique to be an individual who has broken free from the traditional Western shaming code, and who realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups.

Frankfurt School theorist Erich Fromm argued, for instance, in his book The Sane Society (1956) that: “Mental health is characterized by the ability to love and create, by the emergence from incestuous ties to clan and soil, by a sense of identity based on one’s experience of self as the subject and agent of one’s powers, by the grasp of reality inside and outside of ourselves, that is, by the development of objectivity and reason.” [v] The embrace of radical individualism among non-Jews, promoted by the likes of Fromm, was intended to undermine the group cohesion of Europeans while being conducive to the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive group.

Doubtless, Fromm would have been deeply disturbed by the idea that members of his own tribe would take his suggestions (which amounted to ethnic warfare through the construction of culture) seriously. The same would apply to Boasian anthropology which sought to overturn established Western notions regarding the importance of racial differences, and therefore the perceived need to maintain immigration restrictions, and to instil a strong racial identity in White children and aversion to miscegenation as part of their socialization. Again, this subversive doctrine was never intended by Franz Boas to be taken seriously by Jews.

Nevertheless, if the figures from the recent Pew survey are to be believed, these intellectual currents have undermined the traditional social infrastructure of Jewish tribalism in the West — such as the enrolment of Jewish children in Jewish schools. The economic factors Lieberman identified in his speech have doubtless also played a role. Lieberman’s speech is really a call for the reestablishment in the West of the traditional social infrastructure of Jewish tribal fanaticism — the systematic restoration of the ghetto. Jewish history clearly indicates that the tribal mind and in-group fanaticism are rational adaptations to a Darwinian world — rational in the sense that they increase the odds of survival. The results of the Pew survey are an acknowledgement of the power of Western societies, even in their “multicultural” incarnation (where they have been radically reengineered to specifically serve Jewish interests) to breakdown Jewish cohesiveness.

Kevin MacDonald makes the point that: “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[vi] This is despite the fact that multiculturalism, like neo-Orthodoxy and Zionism, is another Jewish response “to the Enlightenment’s corrosive effects on Judaism” which likewise involves the creation of a “defensive structure erected against the destructive influence of European civilization.”[vii] It is an attempt to resolve the “fundamental and irresolvable friction between Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure.”[viii]

These downsides of Western multiculturalism for Jews (most prominently the rise of Islamic anti-Semitism alongside historically high rates of intermarriage) are ostensibly regarded by Jewish leaders and activists as prices worth paying in their determined quest to demographically, politically and culturally neuter supposedly potentially dangerous White populations. In the minds of Western Jewish leaders nurtured since infancy on the cult of the “Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to the Jewish people. This is reflected in the ironclad commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in White nations — and only White nations.

Editor’s note: As someone who has  written chapters on Jewish apologia and  self-deception, I have to say that Caroline Glick may be the most extreme case I have ever encountered. One struggles for words to describe her rabid ethnocentrism and how it blinds her to the most obvious realities. Jews are morally superior paragons of rationality, responsible for everything good in the world, including Western institutions of democracy and individual freedom. With only a few exceptions (non-Jews who accept the tutelage of Jews), non-Jews are, as Brenton Sanderson phrases it, “brutish and irrational embodiments of evil” while Jews are “reasoning, intelligent moral paragons.”

Truly breathtaking. It’s terrifying to think that such a person is a highly praised and powerful member not only of the Israeli political establishment but is also a well-established figure in neoconservative circles and the media in the US.

Caroline Glick is an American-born Israeli journalist and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington DC-based neoconservative Center for Security Policy. A radical Zionist, Glick migrated to Israel in 1991 and served in the Israeli Defense Force before going on to serve as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Glick has been showered with awards and praise from Zionist and Jewish organizations. In 2003 the Israeli newspaper Maariv named her the most prominent woman in Israel. She was the 2005 recipient of the Zionist Organization of America’s Ben Hecht award for Outstanding Journalism (previous recipients included A. M. Rosenthal, Sidney Zion and Daniel Pipes). She has also been awarded the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch. In 2009 she received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. In 2012 The David Horowitz Freedom Center announced the hiring of Glick as the Director of its “Israel Security Project.”

Inevitably, given the Jewish stranglehold over the American media, Glick is given a regular platform to espouse her Jewish supremacist views in The Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Times and many other newspapers and journals around the world. She is also a regular pundit on MSNBC and the Fox News channel. Given her wide exposure in the Jewish-controlled media, and the senior positions she holds within the neoconservative establishment (where she is touted as “a brilliant and outspoken Jewish academic”), one might expect Glick to possess a formidable intellect and have a knack for formulating intellectually sophisticated Jewish apologetics.

Advertisement

---

Instead we find another Jewish mediocrity whose undeserved public prominence can only be ascribed to Jewish ethnic networking. Take, for example, a speech Glick recently gave to a neoconservative audience entitled “Why the Jews?” In this speech the “brilliant and outspoken” Glick explains to us the “roots of genocidal Jew hatred.” She begins by telling her audience that:

I don’t want to talk specifically about the ideology of Islamic anti-Semites or genocidal Jew-haters or European or Leftist people who want to destroy Jewish power and make us all needy and begging for our very lives. I want to talk about what all of the enemies of the Jewish people throughout the ages share. Because one thing about the genocidal axis is that it’s not new, it’s been here throughout time and the members of the genocidal axis, they may change their accents, they may change the books that they read, they may change a million different things, the continents they live in, but one thing that they share across time is that over and over and over again the target of their genocidal blood-lust is the Jews.

So the “brilliant and out-spoken” Glick begins her speech with a tautology: that the enemies of the Jewish people throughout the ages all shared one thing in common — they regarded the Jews as their enemies. Glick melodramatically claims that anyone who has ever opposed Jewish influence or even discussed it critically necessarily harbored a “genocidal blood-lust” against the Jews. Of course, unmentioned by Glick is the fierce and implacable Jewish hostility to non-Jews that has echoed down through the ages—from the enthusiastic and vastly disproportionate Jewish participation in the Bolshevik mass murder of millions of Eastern Europeans in the early twentieth century to the fear and loathing of White Christian America that results in overwhelming Jewish support for massive non-White immigration into Western nations.

Jewish hostility toward non-Jews is also exemplified by the egregious moral double standard which, as Israel Shahak notes, is alive and well in Glick’s favorite country:

Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews. Normally these attitudes are disguised from the outside world, but since the establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967 war and the rise of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters.

In recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the “natural” lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV, by Jewish farmers exploiting Arab labor, particularly child labor. Gush Emunim leaders have quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress Gentiles, as a justification of the attempted assassination of Palestinian mayors and as divine authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine.

In the Jewish view, servitude and cruel treatment are the natural lot of non-Jews. Who are the haters?

In her speech Glick recounts the close friendship she shared with Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion (another Jewish intellectual activist and apologist) and notes how the old man would “repeatedly and with the same impassioned anger” declare that “he could not stand the fixation on the Holocaust as some sort of singular moment in global history because there has been a holocaust of Jewry in every generation throughout the ages.” According to Glick, Netanyahu the elder believed:

That the same passions that inflamed the Germans and then spread out throughout Europe with this bloodlust of wanting to kill children like mine was due to a passion that moves through the ages, that there was nothing unique about that desire to shoot lead into Jewish babies. There is nothing unique about it. It’s been going on since the time of the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Egyptians. Just read the Bible, what is he [the Pharaoh] talking about? He wants to annihilate a people. It’s not he wants to enslave them; he wants them gone — out! What’s the difference between Pharaoh and Hitler? Technology? That’s it.

Conveniently, Glick has nothing to say about the genocidal Jewish hatred of non-Jews that pervades the very same Jewish Bible she cites. For instance, in Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites — men, women, children, infants, and their cattle — for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier. Ignoring all of this, Glick proposes that a “genocidal Jew hatred” is the “unifying force between Pharaoh and Ahmadinejad and Khomeini and yes the international Left which is the handmaiden of these monsters of the Islamic world, without which they could never, ever, march even one step forward.”

The inconvenient reality for Glick is that Jews have, for well over a century, been the intellectual, organizational and financial backbone of the Left. Furthermore, the only reason Jews are increasingly subject to Islamic anti-Semitism in countries like France is because of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism — both of which are the malignant outgrowths of Jewish ethnic activism.

So what is this mysterious “force” that Glick believes unifies those who have opposed the Jews at any time and place throughout history?

It is the rejection of reason. … What is it about reason and about choice and about the notion of moral choice and moral empowerment of individuals that stands at the root of the genocidal bloodlust against the Jews? The answer is that, from time immemorial, Judaism has been based, from the time that God first spoke to Abraham in Iraq and told him to leave his father’s home after Abraham took down the idols from his father’s store and broke them. Get thee to the land that I have promised you and your children. What was it about Abraham that God embraced at that time and about the Jews at every single generation since then that drives people bananas? It is the idea of good and evil, it is the idea that we as human beings have the responsibility to make a discernment between good and evil and to choose good in our lifetimes.

In attributing anti-Semitism to the rejection of reason, one is reminded of the “argument” of Horkheimer and Adorno in their Dialectic of the Enlightenment, a basic text of the Frankfurt School:

Horkheimer and Adorno propose that modern fascism is basically the same as traditional Christianity because both involve opposition to and subjugation of nature. … In an argument reminiscent of Freud’s argument in Moses and Monotheism, religious anti-Semitism then arises because of hatred of those “who did not make the dull sacrifice of reason. . . .The adherents of the religion of the Father are hated by those who support the religion of the Son—hated as those who know better” (p. 179). (see here, p. 156)

The notion that all non-Jews were mired in irrational amorality before the advent of the Jews is laughable. It is typical of hyper-ethnocentric Jewish activists like Glick to divide humanity into two groups — the inherently moral and righteous Jews on the on the one hand, and the inherently immoral and wicked non-Jews on the other — completely ignoring the ethical double standard that is absolutely central to Judaism as noted above. The origin of anti-Jewish sentiment, according to this conception, resides in the fundamental incapacity of non-Jews to exercise reason and moral discernment. As with Jewish apologetics stretching back to the ancient world, Glick once again presents us with the conception of the Jews as reasoning, intelligent moral paragons and non-Jews as brutish and irrational embodiments of evil. For Glick, what all of the anti-Semites throughout history simply cannot stand is:

A belief that defines us as a holy people, as a chosen people, [that] we accept, not divine salvation, but the notion of a life of hard choices, of constantly making a decision, and loyalty to a notion that it is our responsibility to do so, and that drives people to genocidal bloodlust because at the root of this bloodlust is a rejection of reason. It’s a rejection of individualism, it’s a rejection of responsibility, it’s a rejection of the notion that we have to be good. Because that makes our lives a struggle, that makes our lives difficult.

It takes a truckload of chutzpah from an ultra-Zionist like Glick to criticize those hostile to Jews for their “rejection of individualism” when the defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance. Judaism is the prime historical example of how the rejection of individualism leads to group evolutionary success. In Glick’s condemnation of non-Jews who reject individualism we hear echoes of the Frankfurt School’s promotion of radical individualism as the epitome of psychological health for Europeans. The sane and well-adjusted White person was characterized by these Jewish intellectual activists as an individual who had broken free from the traditional Western shaming code, and who realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups. This promotion of radical individualism among non-Jews was, of course, intended to undermine the group cohesion of Europeans and thereby weaken their capacity to compete effectively with Jews.

The reality is that hostility between Jews and non-Jews stems from conflicts of interests. However, for Glick, the existence of anti-Jewish sentiment is attributable to the fact that these hostile non-Jews are unreasoning, irrational brutes who only oppose Jewish power because “reasoning” is simply too hard them. Moreover, those who have the capacity to reason still hate Jews because they are irresponsible and simply do not want to be good. According to Glick:

It’s all about what does it mean to be a human being, and if you come down on that question, understanding that to be a human being means to be a moral agent, not an object, then you’re with the Jews, and you’re opposing totalitarianism, and you’re opposing hatred, and you’re opposing genocide. And if you come down on that question: “I want somebody else to tell me what to do, I don’t know, I’m too weak, I’m too lazy, I’m too uneducated, I’m too ignorant to recognize the meaning of freedom,” then you’re a slave, then you can run around saying “Liberate Palestine.”

It takes a real talent for casuistry, married with a profound dishonesty, to offer up the kind of moral inversion Glick gives us here. If you’re a reasoning moral agent you’re with the Jews and against totalitarianism, hatred and genocide — because the Jews by definition are incapable of engaging in totalitarianism, hatred and genocide, despite their egregious historical track record with regard to all three. If you oppose the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Israel you are a brain dead slave, despite the fact that this descriptor more aptly applies to the millions of people who uncritically accept the lies and cultural subversion offered them by the Jewish controlled media and entertainment industries.  So what does Glick make of those more individualistic nations like United States that have been far less effective in resisting Jewish domination?

Now what was it that made the United States the only country (to date) that didn’t have the same genocidal Jew-hatred at the root of its identity that we saw in country after country in Europe, [and] that we see in Arab world? It was that the United States, its forefathers, had this idea that was based on the Torah, of rule of law, of limited government, of the responsibility of the individual to make that decision between good and evil, and to choose good, and to have the liberty from that government to make that choice. The whole concept of the modern state is based on the philosophical works of men like John Selden and John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes who were Hebrew scholars, who based their whole concept of the modern state, that these men put together, on the rule of law, on divine law, that man could not be a totalitarian because we are not God.

Here Glick engages in a long-standing but utterly bogus Jewish intellectual tradition: that of Jews seeking to take credit for Western civilization (or at least the features of it amenable to Jews). (See, e.g., Andrew Joyce’s classic work on Spinoza in which he debunks the idea promoted by Jewish activist scholars that Spinoza had a crucial influence on the Enlightenment stemming from his Jewish background.) Thus, the only reason the United States is any good, according to Glick, is that its intellectual and political founders were steeped in the lore and traditions of the Jews — all roads lead to Jerusalem. Non-Jews are mostly irrational and wicked Jew-haters, and their few redeeming qualities can ultimately be traced the positive influence exerted by the Jews. Forget Plato and Aristotle and 2,500 years of Western philosophy; the best features of Western civilization find their wellspring in the mythology of the Hebrews. Indeed Glick even goes so far as to claim that: “The whole concept of the modern state was based on the Hebrew Bible and it was transported from the British enlightenment to the new world through the American forefathers.”

Glick is deeply troubled by the rising anti-Jewish sentiment among sections of the academic left in the United States. Of course, this as an entirely predictable response to the increasingly radical actions of an increasingly ruthless and rabidly ethno-nationalist Israeli government and its Zionist supporters in the United States — actions which include the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, a state-sponsored policy of ethnic apartheid, and the deportation of non-Jewish “enemy infiltrators” from Africa. Glick totally ignores this obvious fact and instead argues that hostility to Israel and its Zionist supporters stems from a rejection of American values and (because America was in her view created by Hebrew scholars) a rejection of righteous Jewish values.

What do we see today? Why is it that we see more and more and more Jew hatred and attacks on Jews in US universities, in political circles, on the left? Because the left is introducing an ideology that is fundamentally un-American, that is based on the totalitarian idea of a governing power that is absolute, that knows better than an individual what’s good from him or her. And if you know better than I do what’s good for me, what’s good for my children, then you’re an absolute power, and if you’re an absolute power you have to reject Jews. Because absolute powers must reject Jews who understand that there’s no authority except God and you’re not Him.

Anti-Zionist sentiment is growing, according to Glick, not because of the increasingly indefensible actions of the Israeli government (cheered on by their hypocritical Zionist cheerleaders in the West), but because the Zionist establishment in America is declining in influence.

We are faced with this wave, because the strength of people in this room, and unfortunately outside this room, seems to be waning. And the wave that is rising throughout the world is a wave of hatred, of bloodlust, of totalitarianism, and again this is familiar, this is known, we understand what we’re dealing with.

The ongoing Zionist outrages (despite the endless compensatory stream of “Holocaust” propaganda from Hollywood), has led to the erosion of Jewish moral legitimacy over recent years and has resulted in an unprecedented situation that Glick finds extremely disturbing, namely that:

The new thing in this generation is that we see Americans confused for the first time about what side they’re supposed to be on. We see that there is a question about “Is Israel evil for standing up for existing, for being different from all of its unaesthetic, misogynistic, totalitarian neighbors? Are we bad for being loyal to everything that we’ve stood for four thousand years?” How can you question that? Because Americans are beginning to question what it means to be an American.

For Glick, what it means to be American is to obsequiously accept the total Jewish domination of their nation and to support Israel to the last dollar and the last drop of American blood. For Glick, as for all of the “Israel-firsters” of the neocon establishment, Israel’s interests and America’s interests are indistinguishable. She thus concludes her speech with such shameless lies as: “You want a foreign policy that is coherent, that advances American interests? Then stand with Israel. You want to figure out how to ensure that America is safe? Stand with Israel.”

Jewish supremacists like Glick are increasingly disturbed that the old lies and hypocrisy simply don’t wash with growing numbers of people. If White nations are “evil for existing,” and for being different from their “unaesthetic, misogynistic, totalitarian neighbors” — as we are constantly told by the Jewish-dominated intellectual establishment — then Israel is necessarily evil too. How can Jews be anything but “bad” for “being loyal to everything that they’ve stood for four thousand years,” when Europeans are told they are evil for being loyal to everything they’ve represented for thousands of years. Glick’s utterly dishonest speech, aside from revealing her status as one of the most overrated figures among the Jewish activist ranks, also reveals how Israel is very much the Achilles heel of Jewish power and moral legitimacy.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr

In my series of extended essays entitled “The War on White Australia” I described how Jewish activism was pivotal in ending the White Australia policy and initiating the mass non-White immigration that is rapidly transforming that nation. In addition, I showed how Jewish activism was instrumental in establishing multiculturalism as the ideological and legislative basis for social policy in Australia. Recently I explored the Jewish role in pushing for the enactment and extension of laws banning speech deemed contrary to their interests. Given the profound impact of Jewish ethno-politics on the Australian nation, nobody will be surprised to learn that Jewish influence also extends to the determination of Australia’s foreign policy.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr recently confirmed that this is indeed the case, observing that Australia’s foreign policy (particularly with regard to the Middle East) was being virtually dictated by organized Jewry. Carr, Australia’s Labor Party foreign minister from March 2012 to September 2013, made his comments while promoting his new book Bob Carr: Diary of a Foreign Minister. Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in Julia Gillard’s cabinet.  As The Guardian reported:

Asked about the comments by the ABC’s 7.30 he said: “Certainly they enjoyed extraordinary influence. I had to resist it and my book tells the story of that resistance. … It needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.”

Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.

Following Carr’s comments The Jerusalem Post sourly noted that: “John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who wrote a 2007 book alleging that the ‘Israel lobby’ has a stranglehold on US Foreign policy, have an Australian cousin: former foreign minister Bob Carr.”

Advertisement

---

In his book Carr chronicles a bitter political fight in late 2012 with then-prime minister Julia Gillard over how Australia would vote in the 2012 UN General Assembly vote to recognize the Palestinians as a non-member state.

Gillard [was] opposed, while her political rival at the time Kevin Rudd, and Carr himself, were in favor. Rudd, according to a report of the book in The Guardian, went to Carr to talk about the vote.

“How much of this is about money, I asked him,” Carr wrote. “He said about one-fifth of the money he had raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community.”

Carr concluded that “subcontracting our foreign policy to party donors is what this involves. Or appears to involve.”

As in the United States (where Jews contribute much larger percentages of money in federal elections), Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which practically guarantees that both sides of politics are willing to put the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg notes that: “The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics.”[i]

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2007–2010) paying homage to organized Jewry

In his book Carr describes Israel’s former ambassador to Australia as “cunning” and reveals his fights with the self-described pro-Israel “falafel faction” in Labor’s caucus that includes Jewish MPs Mark Dreyfus and Michael Danby.Advertisement Carr makes the point that: “The public should know how foreign policy gets made, especially when it appears the prime minister is being heavily lobbied by one interest group with a stake in Middle East policy.” The Sydney Morning Herald noted that:

During his 18 months as foreign minister, Mr Carr orchestrated a significant shift in the Australian government’s Middle East policy, swinging support behind Palestine at the United Nations. Standing up to Ms Gillard, who was staunchly pro-Israel, Mr Carr succeeded in forcing her to abandon her determination to oppose Palestine’s attempts to gain observer status at the UN. Ms Gillard’s leadership wobbled in the process.

Mr Carr’s pro-Palestinian advocacy alienated many in Australia’s Jewish community, and some within his own party; and the publishing of his personal diaries is likely to inflame both the Australian Israel lobby and senior Israeli officials.

Mr Carr’s criticisms of Israel touch the highest levels of the Israeli government. Mr Carr describes Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman as “gloomy, taciturn”, and the former Israeli ambassador Yuval Rotem as “the cunning Yuval.”

In diary entries Mr Carr reveals just how deep his division with Ms Gillard went. He complains that Ms Gillard would not even let him criticise Israeli West Bank settlements due to her fear it would anger Australia’s pro-Israel lobby — a reference to the Melbourne-based Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council — which Mr Carr says had a direct line into the prime minister’s office.

“So, we can’t even ‘express concern’ without complaint,” Mr Carr writes. “This lobby must fight every inch.”

Reproducing private text messages, Mr Carr suggests Ms Gillard’s support of Israel was so immovable that she would not even allow him to change Australia’s vote on what he considered to be a minor UN motion.

“Julia – motion on Lebanon oil spill raises no Palestinian or Israel security issues. In that context I gave my commitment to Lebanon,” Mr Carr writes in a text message.

“No reason has been given to me to change,” Ms Gillard reportedly replies.

“Julia — not so simple,” Mr Carr responds. “I as Foreign Minister gave my word. I was entitled to because it had nothing to do with Palestinian status or security of Israel.”

Ms Gillard shuts him down in a final terse message: “Bob … my jurisdiction on UN resolutions isn’t confined to ones on Palestine and Israel.”

Jewish control over Australia’s foreign policy is nothing new. The support of Australian Jews for multiculturalism and mass non-White immigration sits hypocritically alongside a staunch Zionism and, consequently, strong support for Australia’s military involvement in the disastrous wars in the Middle East. The man who agreed to Australia’s shameful involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, former Prime Minister John Howard (1996–2007), was possibly the most compliant prime minister the Jewish lobby ever had the pleasure of dealing with. Dan Goldberg, the editor of the National Jewish News, observed in 2006 that:

From his first encounter with Jews, as a nineteen-year-old at the Sydney law firm of Myer Rosenblum, Howard has, especially over the last decade, cemented his alliance with the Jews, and has arguably eclipsed even the great Bob Hawke as the most pro-Israel prime minister in Australian history. Most of his empathy is a function of his foreign policy, pivoted on the US alliance, which translates in the Middle East arena to unequivocal support for Israel, regardless of which prime minister is in power in Jerusalem. Of course, Australia’s role in the war in Iraq was no doubt seen by most Australian Jews as yet another significant milestone in the long history of relations between Canberra and Jerusalem.

It is no coincidence therefore that Howard has received major awards from three Jewish community organisations in the last couple of years. It is also no coincidence that he speaks regularly to Jewish audiences, and that he is closely allied with a clutch of Jewish powerbrokers. … Understandably, most Jews were in favour of eliminating Saddam Hussein and his regime if only because he bankrolled families of Palestinian suicide bombers to the tune of US$25,000 each, not to mention the fact that it would neutralise the threat to Israel’s eastern flank. The fact that Australian SAS forces took out Saddam’s stockpile of Scuds aimed at Tel Aviv in the early hours of the war only augmented the bond between Canberra and Jerusalem.[ii]  

Particularly influential with regard to shaping Australian policy towards the Middle East is the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. The AIJAC aggressively lobbies politicians, funds study tours to Israel for journalists and politicians, publishes a monthly magazine and highlights examples of what it calls “anti-Israel bias” in the media.

Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the AIJAC, slammed Carr for his comments, saying his organization was “puzzled and disappointed” by his “strange claims” that Australian foreign policy was under the sway of the pro-Israel lobby, apparently a reference to AIJAC. Rubinstein declared: “It is frankly sad when an elected official imagines that disagreement with their policy position must stem from malicious influences,” he said. Rubenstein said the allegations that the lobby held unhealthy sway over Gillard “show her a distinct lack of respect.”

Colin Rubinstein

Carr’s comments naturally outraged all of the Jewish leaders and sent them into panicked damage control. The national chairman of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Mark Leibler, dismissed Carr’s claims as “a figment of his imagination,” and labelled Carr’s claims about Australia’s Israel Lobby as “inaccurate” and “bizarre.”

“Just unpick for a moment what he’s saying. He’s talking about the Jewish lobby, he’s talking about a difference of opinion between him and the prime minister,” Mr Leibler told Lateline.

“Why can’t they have a difference of opinion on a matter related to Israeli policy?

“No, if there’s a difference of opinion … the prime minister has to be wrong because she’s controlled by the Jewish lobby.

“How does the Jewish lobby control the prime minister? Through donations to the ALP and sending people to Israel. I mean, give me a break. Would anyone seriously accept that?”

Mr Leibler says he was able to raise concerns with Ms Gillard in the same way he raised them with Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating, Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser.

“Julia Gillard is an independent-thinking woman. She can come to her own conclusions without being influenced by the Jewish lobby,” he said.

He says the council’s lobbying of governments is no different to other community organisations.

“When we’ve got an issue which is a serious one, which needs to be raised, we haven’t had a problem in getting access to either ALP or Liberal prime ministers or foreign ministers and so it should be,” he said.

Mark Leibler (left) with former Prime Minister John Howard

The executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim, responded to Carr’s comments by claiming that the Jewish lobbying of government he described is nothing exceptional and that: “Every community in the country and other interest groups advocate their views to government – that’s the stuff of everyday democracy. Julia Gillard was very much her own woman with firm and long-standing views [on Israel]. The idea anyone in Melbourne could control those views is fairly ridiculous.”

Wertheim is disingenuous in claiming that “every community in the country” can advocate their views to government. The racial group who actually founded Australia and built it up into a successful and prosperous nation from scratch, are prohibited from openly organizing and advocating for their interests. This is, of course, principally due ultimately to the actions of anti-White Jewish activists like Wertheim and Leibler within the general context of the dominance of the intellectual left in academia and the elite media.

Carr’s former parliamentary colleague and Federal Labor and Jewish MP, Michael Danby (who is also the secretary of the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group), described Carr’s views on the influence of the Israel lobby as “bigoted.” He said that in retrospect, it was a mistake for Gillard to bring Carr in as foreign minister — doubtless because Carr was not sufficiently submissive to the dictates of his fellow Zionists in the Jewish lobby.

Michael Danby campaigning for gay marriage in Australia (but not Israel)

Danby then got down to some character assassination, stating: “I haven’t read the book. I’ve only seen excerpts and I only saw the interview, but here’s a bloke plucked from obscurity who was not working as a current politician, a former provincial premier who dumps on Gillard and the former Labor government.” He likened Mr Carr to Jack Nicholson’s character in the film As Good as it Gets, claiming “A lot of people are laughing at the book; they’re not laughing with you Bob, they’re laughing at you.” Danby claimed that:

Mr Carr’s “performance” on 7.30 last night was “comical bordering on maniacal” and no lobby group in Australia has that kind of influence.

“It’s laughable but I suppose in the current climate, as George Brandis says, it’s OK to be a bigot,” Mr Danby told the ABC’s Louise Yaxley.

“No-one has that kind of influence. There are various people who have different views in Australian political life and Bob’s a big boy. He should be bigger than that.

“It was just a silly comment in a silly interview.

“People try and get their views expressed, but you know, Bob Carr’s view is a caricature. Very sad to see a premier of New South Wales stereotyping people like that.

“The interview was very funny and I know lots of people are laughing at the book and they’re not laughing with you Bob – they’re laughing at you, but it’s still very sad to hear these kind of views.”

To his credit Carr has refused to back down in the face of intense criticism from the Jewish establishment. Instead he responded by observing: “The fact is the influence the pro-Israel lobby was attempting to exert on the government and did until I stood up to them was not in the interests of Israel, not in the interests of the Middle East peace, and was being inappropriately and bullyingly exercised in the government. It needed to be resisted and I’m proud to have done that.”

While I have little sympathy for Carr’s politics, he is to be strongly commended for this resistance and for speaking out about this aspect of Jewish power in Australia.

Arthur Schopenhauer is renowned as the philosopher of pessimism. White nationalists certainly have much to be pessimistic about these days, and we might be tempted to seek consolation in the wisdom of a man who undoubtedly possessed one of the most powerful minds in history.  Schopenhauer, who was an atheist, saw human existence as essentially meaningless and a mistake. The life of sentient beings, of which man is the highest form, is one of constantly jangling appetites that can never be sated, and the result is that pain and suffering are the inevitable accompaniments of any life. He concluded that the only way to get beyond the suffering of this world is to renounce life and thereby quell the appetites that constantly assail us — a conclusion he later discovered had also been arrived at by the Hindus and the Buddhists.

Advertisement

---

It is a testament to Schopenhauer’s genius that, writing many years prior to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, and almost a century before geneticists like Fritz Lenz and then evolutionary psychologists like J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn arrived at the same conclusion, he was already citing differential evolution (though he was unsure of the exact mechanism) to account for the higher civilization of the lighter-skinned races, whom, he correctly intuited, had gained sensitivity and intelligence as a result of surviving in a rigorous Northern climate. Schopenhauer observes that:

The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilization.[i]

Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all Western anthropologists and intellectuals posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlated set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Schopenhauer was, of course, writing in an age when the reality of racial differences was taken for granted, and this is reflected at various points in his work. For instance, in positing that higher intellectual powers are often accompanied by a relatively lesser tendency toward sociability, he asserts that “the most sociable of all human beings are said to be the Negroes who intellectually are decidedly inferior.”[ii]

This approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. The Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that “since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.”[iii]

Franz Boas: Jewish ethnic activist and pseudoscientist par excellence

Schopenhauer’s intuitive understanding of the link between race and intelligence has been more recently affirmed by psychologists like Richard Lynn and the late J. Philippe Rushton, who posited that groups that resided for many millennia in regions with cold winters gradually — through the process of natural selection — evolved higher intelligence than groups living in milder climates. Rushton noted that “colonizing temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters.” According to Rushton, “cognitive demands of manufacturing sophisticated tools and making fires, clothing, and shelters (as well as regulating the storage of food) would have selected for higher average intelligence levels than in the less cognitively demanding environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Those individuals who could not solve these problems of survival would have died out, leaving those with alleles for higher intelligence as the survivors.”[iv]

A consequence is that those tracing their origins to northern Asia and northern Europe now have mean IQs of about 100, while those from sub-Saharan Africa have a mean IQ of around 70, and those from the broad intermediate zone (stretching from north Africa across southern Asia and into Indonesia) have mean IQs in the 80-90 range. These figures are confirmed by numerous IQ tests taken over a period of more than 80 years from around the world, measures of average brain size (which is correlated with general intelligence at 0.45), the poor relative performance of blacks in Europe and America in intellectual endeavors, and the extreme backwardness of the countries in the “secluded zone” of sub-Saharan Africa before they had contact with either Islamic or European civilization, continuing up to the present day. These differences in mean IQ (and associated behavioral tendencies) among the races had, and continue to have, profound consequences in determining the civilization-building capacities of different racial groups. It is also a key reason why Third-World immigration to the West is so dysfunctional.

Invoking Aristotle, Schopenhauer asserted that the pleasures to be gained from this life (which, as mentioned, he believed consisted overwhelmingly of pain and suffering) are essentially hierarchical in nature. At the top of this hierarchy are those pleasures obtainable from intellectual activity. The capacity of an individual to access the higher pleasures of the intellect is, however, contingent upon his native endowment of intellect:

No one can get outside his own individuality. In all the circumstances in which the animal is placed, it remains confined to that narrow circle, irrevocably drawn for it by nature, so that, for instance, our endeavors to make a pet happy must always keep within narrow bounds precisely on account of those limits of its true nature and consciousness. It is the same with man; the measure of his possible happiness is determined beforehand by his individuality. In particular the limits of his mental powers have fixed once and for all his capacity for pleasures of a higher order.[v]

Therefore, to be born with a higher level of intellect is an indispensable prerequisite, Schopenhauer argues, to accessing the higher forms of human happiness. A corollary of his argument is that, as with individuals within a race, the capacity of a particular population to access the higher human pleasures is genetically predetermined by its racial particularity. The limits of a given race’s average intellectual powers have fixed once and for all its collective capacity to access pleasures of a higher order. Schopenhauer points out that:

If those [intellectual] powers are small, all the efforts from without, everything done for him by mankind or good fortune, will not enable him to rise above the ordinary half-animal human happiness and comfort. He [the intellectually inferior] is left to depend on the pleasures of the senses, on a cozy and cheerful family life, on low company and vulgar pastimes. Even education, on the whole, cannot do very much, if anything to broaden his horizon. For the highest, most varied, and most permanent pleasures are those of the mind, however much we may deceive ourselves on this point when we are young; but these pleasures depend mainly on innate mental powers. Therefore it is clear from this how much our happiness depends on what we are, our individuality, whereas in most cases we take into account only our fate, only what we have or represent.[vi]

Of course our individuality is essentially a product of our genetic inheritance, which, in turn, is a product of the evolutionary history of our ancestors. The fact that certain races have lower levels of general intelligence (as measured by mean IQ) would suggest that for a relatively larger percentage of these populations the higher order pleasures that Schopenhauer is talking about are simply inaccessible. Conversely, pursuit of the lower order pleasures will be the preoccupation of a larger percentage of less intelligent races compared with more intelligent races.

Schopenhauer asserts that as individuals we are, depending on our native endowment of intellect, predisposed to suffer either boredom (if that endowment is low) or increased sensitivity to physical pain (if that endowment is high). For Schopenhauer, a great affliction of less intelligent human beings is that idealities afford them no entertainment, but to escape from boredom they are always in need of realities: “The emptiness of their inner life, the dullness of their consciousness, the poorness of their minds drive them to the company of others which consists of men like themselves, for similis simili gaudet [like takes pleasure in like]. They then pursue pastime and entertainment in common which they seek first in sensual pleasures, in amusements of every kind, and finally in excess and dissipation.”[vii]

The dysgenic trends that have been set in motion by mass non-White immigration into Western nations have ensured that, for a growing percentage of these nations’ populations, “idealities” will indeed afford them little or no entertainment — instead these populations will increasingly look to realities to escape from boredom. A manifestation of this phenomenon was the rioting and looting in London in 2011. It was reported in the media at the time that the only shops that were left untouched by the rampaging mobs of largely Afro-Caribbean youths were book shops. These “temples of ideality” ostensibly offered nothing of interest to these people — in large part because this low-IQ population is largely devoid of intellectual needs.

As these people and their descendants progressively make up an ever larger segment of Western societies, the cultures of these nations are set to change profoundly, as public life increasingly takes on the characteristics of the source countries of these immigrant and immigrant-descended communities. According to Schopenhauer, “the life of the masses [and presumably that of the masses of the dark races to a greater degree than the white masses] is passed in dullness since all their thoughts and desires are directed to the petty interests of personal welfare and thus to wretchedness and misery in all its forms. For this reason, intolerable boredom befalls them as soon as they are no longer occupied with those aims and they are now thrown back on themselves, for only the fierce fire of passion can stir into action the dull and indolent masses.”[viii]

In this connection, it is interesting to note that a contemporary Danish researcher, psychologist Helmuth Nyborg, has highlighted how the projected decline in the mean IQ of nations like Denmark — mostly a result of low-IQ Third World immigration — will (if left unchecked) have momentous social and political consequences. Nyborg concludes that: “The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization.” Schopenhauer would have doubtless agreed with this assessment.

Schopenhauer on Judaism

Schopenhauer conceptualized Judaism in terms akin to Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy that emerged historically to promote the economic welfare and reproductive success of Jews as a genetically distinct group. For Schopenhauer, the religious doctrines and trappings of Judaism are merely cultural glue that holds the Jews together as a nation founded on blood ties. Referring to the Jews, Schopenhauer notes that

many great and illustrious nations with which this pettifogging little nation cannot possibly be compared, such as the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Etruscans and others have passed to eternal rest and entirely disappeared. And even so today, this gens extorris [refugee race], this John Lackland among the nations, is to be found all over the globe, nowhere at home and nowhere strangers. Moreover it asserts its nationality with unprecedented obstinacy and, mindful of Abraham who dwelt in Canaan as a stranger but who gradually became master of the whole land, as his God had promised him (Genesis 17:8), it would like to set foot somewhere and take root in order to arrive once more at a country, without which, of course, a people is like a ball floating in air. Till then, it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil; but yet it is inspired with the liveliest patriotism for its own nation. This is seen in the very firm way in which Jews stick together on the principle of each for all and all for each, so that this patriotism sine patria inspires greater enthusiasm than does any other. The rest of the Jews are the fatherland of the Jew; and so he fights for them as he would pro ara et focis [for hearth and home], and no community on earth sticks so firmly together as does this.

As a formidably cohesive group whose loyalty to their ethnic kindred vastly outstrips their loyalty to the non-Jewish nations within which they dwell, Jews should absolutely never, Schopenhauer affirmed, be allowed to play any role whatsoever in the governance of these nations. If allowed to do so they would unquestionably exploit this power for their own ends — inevitably at the expense of the majority non-Jewish population:

It follows from this that it is absurd to want to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country. Originally amalgamated and one with their state, their religion is by no means the main issue here, but rather merely the bond that holds them together, the point de ralliement [rallying-point], and the banner whereby they recognize one another. This is also seen in the fact that even the converted Jew who has been baptized does not by any means bring upon himself the hatred and loathing of all the rest [of the Jews], as do all other apostates. On the contrary, he continues as a rule to be their friend and companion and to regard them as his true countrymen, naturally with a few orthodox exceptions. … Accordingly, it is an extremely superficial and false view to regard the Jews merely as a religious sect. But if, in order to countenance this error, Judaism is described by an expression borrowed from the Christian Church as “Jewish Confession,” then this is a fundamentally false expression which is deliberately calculated to mislead and should not be allowed at all. On the contrary, “Jewish Nation” is the correct expression. The Jews have absolutely no confession; monotheism is part of their nationality and political constitution and is with them a matter of course.

Schopenhauer’s conception of the Jews as a distinct and highly ethnocentric ethnic entity — arrived at well before the advent of modern population genetic studies — is very accurate. While not entirely uniform, all Jews comprise a genetic cluster that share large swaths of DNA. For instance, the study by Atzmon et al. from 2010 confirmed that all the different Jewish groups comprise a distinct genetic community. This study examined genetic markers spread across the entire genome, and showed the Jewish groups (Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi) share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships, and while each Jewish group in the study (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek and Ashkenazi) had its own genetic signature, each was more closely related to the other Jewish groups than to their non-Jewish countrymen. Atzmon and his colleagues found that the SNP markers in genetic segments of 3 million DNA letters or longer were 10 times more likely to be identical among Jews than non-Jews, and that any two Ashkenazi Jewish participants in the study shared about as much DNA as fourth or fifth cousins.[ix]

The overlapping genetics of Jewish populations

Of course, Judaism could still be a group evolutionary strategy even if Jews were not a genetically separate group, providing that Jews believed that they were, and behaved accordingly — which is exactly what they did believe and behaved like for centuries before recent population genetic studies confirmed what they had always assumed. The Zionist writer Robert Weltsch nicely summed up this hyper-ethnocentric mentality when he noted in 1913 that: “When it comes to the unity of the Jews, there is one irrefutable proof: the consciousness of this unity, which is an inner experience that every individual Jew possesses.”[x]

Schopenhauer concludes his comments on the Jews by again emphasizing their ethnically alien status with Europe and by using an anecdote to reiterate his position that the Jews (as a group whose intense loyalty to its own people and hostility to outsiders is so profound) should absolutely never be given the right to exercise power over other people.

They are and remain a foreign oriental race, and so must be regarded merely as domiciled foreigners. When some twenty-five years ago the emancipation of the Jews was debated in the English Parliament, a speaker put forward the following hypothetical case. An English Jew comes to Lisbon where he meets two men in extreme want and distress; yet it is only in his power to save one of them. Personally to him they are both strangers. Yet if one of them is an Englishman but a Christian, and the other a Portuguese but a Jew, whom will he save? I do not think that any sensible Christian and any sincere Jew would be in doubt as to the answer. But it gives us some indication of the rights to be conceded to the Jews.[xi]

Schopenhauer’s observations on the Jews influenced a range of notable figures, most famously including Adolf Hitler who (according to an inventory of the books he borrowed between 1919 and 1921 at the National Socialist Institute in Munich) read a volume entitled Schopenhauer and the Jews alongside such works as Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century and the German translation of Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem.[xii] Schopenhauer is mentioned by name twice in Mein Kampf. One of these references relates to Schopenhauer’s observation in his Parerga and Paralipomena that “the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised. This may be due partly to the fact that they were the only people on earth who did not credit man with any existence beyond this life and were, therefore, regarded as cattle, as the dregs of humanity, but as past masters in telling lies.”[xiii]

Conclusion

Schopenhauer is universally recognized as an intellectual giant and for good reason. His thinking was often decades, and sometimes centuries, ahead his contemporaries. Nevertheless, the philosophy of Nietzsche (despite its contradictions) has enjoyed far wider acceptance among those on the racialist right. That is largely because of the marked anti-egalitarianism of Nietzsche, and the fact that Schopenhauer’s pessimism and advocacy of life-renunciation is profoundly dysfunctional from a group evolutionary standpoint. As MacDonald has pointed out, we are all free to decide to not play the evolutionary game. We Westerners are particularly prone to moral idealisms that compromise their legitimate ethnic/racial interests. However, if we (or our racial or ethnic kindred) decide to not play the evolutionary game, we automatically lose. We are destined for ultimate extinction.

This is why, while recognizing the genius of Schopenhauer’s thought, we must, in the end, eschew his pessimistic conclusions and side with Nietzsche’s doctrine of life-assertion. The White race did not become the dominant force on the planet through renouncing life and avoiding conflict in the manner of Buddhists monks. Our European ancestors, who built Western civilization and spread it around the globe, lived life to the full, affirmed life, and did not shirk from conflict. They behaved as all healthy living creatures behave spontaneously in nature. Asserting our racial interests will inevitably bring us into conflict with others doing the same (especially Jewish interests) but this is inevitable and natural and is simply the price we must pay to secure our existence. We have to embrace the fight for the survival of our race, and to strive to enlist others in this fight, because, in the end, there is no acceptable alternative.

[i] Arthur Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 2, Trans. By E.F.J. Payne (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1974), 158-59.

[ii] Arthur Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 1, Trans. By E.F.J. Payne (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1974),  331.

[iii] Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain — The History of the Jews (New York, HarperCollins, 1994), 336.

[iv] J. Philippe Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition (Port Huron, Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000) 228-29.

[v] Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 1, op cit., 317.

[vi] Ibid., 318.

[vii] Ibid., 321.

[viii] Ibid., 338.

[ix] Atzmon, G.; Hao, L.; Pe’er, I.; Velez, C.; Pearlman, A.; Palamara, P. F.; Morrow, B.; Friedman, (2010) “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics 2010,  86 (6), 850—859. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/?tool=pmcentrez

[x] Robert Weltsch, (1913) “Concerning Racial Theory,” In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, (Massachusetts, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, 2011). 311-16, 312.

[xi] Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 2, op cit., 261-64.

[xii] Timothy Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life (New York: Vintage, 2010), 50.

[xiii] Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 2, op cit., 357.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott

In the face of a coordinated and sustained campaign initiated and led by Jewish activists, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has abandoned his 2013 election promise to water down or remove Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to act in a manner likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the basis of race. Abbott said he had made a “leadership decision” to walk away from his pledge despite having promised to remove this outrageous restriction on the free speech after the law was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011.

It is a measure of the power wielded by organized Jewry in Australia that the Prime Minister would rather damage his political credibility by breaking a clear election promise than suffer the consequences of defying the single most powerful group in Australian society. Abbott, who made the announcement while outlining an extension of anti-terrorism laws, attempted to justify his broken promise by claiming “I don’t want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.” Abbott’s apparent desire to not further alienate Australia’s problematic Islamic community by repealing Section 18C (at a time when the government is set to strengthen laws against terrorism) is an obvious political smokescreen. The veteran Jewish journalist, Michael Gawenda, writing in the Business Spectator, identified the real reason behind the Prime Minister walking away from his election commitment:

While Abbott said that the decision to ditch the plan to rid the Racial Discrimination Act of section 18C was taken because of “complications” in dealing with Islamic communities in the context of the proposed tough new terrorism laws, it seems likely that more was involved in this decision. The conflict in Gaza and the coverage and reaction to this appalling, heartbreaking conflagration, in my opinion, made it virtually certain that any move to change or abolish section 18C would extract too high a political price.

The repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say — without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful — that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA.  It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott.

Advertisement

---

The main reason that Brandis and Abbott were most concerned about the opposition of the Jewish communal leadership to any changes to section 18C is because the Jewish community is generally seen as a role model for successful multiculturalism. It is for these reasons that the Jewish communal leadership has played such an outsized role in the campaign against the watering down or elimination of section 18C. If the Jewish community is a prime example of successful multiculturalism, then its support for the retention of 18C, its highly effective campaign against any change to the RDA on the basis that any change would seriously undermine multiculturalism and free the racists to say whatever they please, represented serious political pain for Brandis and Abbott.

Gawenda is disingenuous in claiming that the source of the Jewish community’s power in this debate resides in its being a “role model for successful multiculturalism” rather than in its status as a group with the kind of financial, political and media clout to instil genuine fear in those who oppose its interests. As in the United States, Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which guarantees that most politicians are willing to put the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. The Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg acknowledges that: “The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics.”[i]

The sway held by organized Jewry over Australia’s political leaders was highlighted earlier this year when the former Foreign Minister Bob Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet.Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.” Carr’s observations were later corroborated by the former Australian Prime MinisterMalcolm Fraser who said Carr was “absolutely correct” in his view that the Jewish lobby wielded too much power.

Gawenda asserts that, unlike the vast majority of Australian Jews, he was originally in favor of the proposal to water down Section 18C of the Act until recent events gave him pause for thought: in particular the widespread criticism of Israel and its supporters for their attempts to justify the appalling massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza:

But here’s the thing. I believe that in recent days, in the light of what has been published about Jews and the conflict in Gaza, the clearly anti-Semitic cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald, for instance — for which the SMH has issued an apology in an editorial that I found unsatisfactory —\ not to mention the astounding amount of outright racist filth to be found on social media, it may no longer be the case that we can trust editors and executive producers when it comes to ensuring that what amounts to vilification is not given any room in mainstream commentary and analysis.

So, for Gawenda, the recent (and entirely legitimate) criticism of the actions of the ethno-nationalist state of Israel and its Zionist cheerleaders in the West only serves to confirm that Jewish leaders were right to oppose any changes to Section 18C. The criticism of the Israeli government and those who would defend its barbarity in Gaza simply confirms for Gawenda that Australians cannot be trusted with unfettered free speech. Incidentally, the supposedly “anti-Semitic” cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald to which he refers is less an anti-Semitic caricature and more an accurate representation of actual events — of Israeli citizens sitting outside to watch and cheer the bombing of the helpless Palestinian civilians as entertainment.

The “anti-Semitic” Sydney Morning Herald cartoon

An “anti-Semitic” photograph?

Likewise, for the Australian Jewish academic and activist Danny Ben-Moshe, the slaughter in Gaza “has led to the crossing of new anti-Semitic thresholds with the potential to take us down a dangerous path. It is a path not laid with guns and bullets, but with loose and manipulative language.”  According to Gawenda, it was the sudden outbreak of truth-telling about Israel and the dishonesty of its apologists that reinvigorated the campaign by Australian Jewish leaders to oppose any changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act:

It is this that made Jewish community leaders more determined than ever to oppose any change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. And in the main, Jews in Australia support the communal leadership on this issue. No one can doubt that there has been an alarming rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, something that is hardly reported in most of the Australian media. Jews feel under threat — in some cases physical threat — in France and Belgium and Germany and even in England. Not to mention Hungary, where an openly anti-Semitic party has garnered significant support. Thousands of French Jews have left France for Israel and other places. The numbers leaving every month are growing.

Though there has not been a similar rise in virulent anti-Semitism in Australia, Jews in Australia nevertheless have good reason to believe that if the virus of anti-Semitism is spreading in Europe, it might one day reach these shores. In this environment, Tony Abbott decided that the plan to change section 18C, a solemn promise he had made to Bolt and to his supporters at the Institute of Public Affairs had to be abandoned. Will there be a better political time to resurrect these proposed changes? Almost certainly not.

Note the standard pathologization of anti-Jewish sentiment as a “virus” that has nothing whatever to do with Jewish behavior. On the other hand, the reflexive Jewish hostility toward Europeans (which has led to the demographic transformation of Western nations over the last few decades) is apparently not a virus, but stems, rather, from some highly developed sense of fairness and universal brotherhood that is inherent in all Jews. Of course, what Gawenda won’t acknowledge is that the only reason Jews are increasingly subject to anti-Semitic attacks in countries like France and England is because of mass non-White (particularly Muslim) immigration and multiculturalism — both of which are the malignant outgrowths of Jewish ethnic activism.

A disappointedAndrew Bolt observed that Jewish leaders would ultimately regret opposing changes to the Act, noting that: “The Jewish leaders now should look very, very deeply into their souls at what they have helped wrought and ask themselves, are you seriously safer now as a result?” Bolt’s reasoning is that under Section 18C Australian Jews will in future be precluded from criticizing the beliefs and actions of a growing and increasingly militant Australian Islamic community which will be increasingly hostile to Israel and the interests of Australian Jews.

As with Gawenda, Bolt fails to mention that the only reason there are any Muslims in Australia at all (with all their myriad problems and social dysfunctions) is because Jewish activism succeeded in ending the White Australia policy and establishing multiculturalism as the basis for social policy in Australia. As The Jewish academic Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” It is clear that the Jewish fear and loathing of White Australia trumps any concern about the anti-Semitic tendencies among non-White immigrants that are being imported into the nation.

The Jewish writer Peta Jones-Pellach is not alone in expressing the view that Australian Jews should always back the Muslim minority in any conflict with White Australia, arguing that “We recognize that our ongoing harmonious acceptance into the Australian community depends on forging bonds with the increasing numbers of non-Jewish Australians who might be our theological opponents or even our enemies.”[ii] The supposed benefits to Australian Jewry that multiculturalism has bestowed – most notably the diminished threat of the emergence of a mass movement of anti-Semitism from White Australians — is seen as having far outweighed any negative effects of large scale Islamic immigration such as the fact that: “Some Australian Jews fear that migrants arriving from Muslim countries will contribute to anti-Semitic currents in Australia, inflame extremist groups and pose a threat to the relative peace they currently enjoy.”[iii]

The rise of Islamic anti-Semitism in the West reveals a paradoxical element of the overwhelming Jewish support for multiculturalism; an element which resulted in the emergence and growth of neoconservatism. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[iv] Australian Jewish activists like Dan Goldberg recognize the danger, and he notes that:

Herein lies an underlying tension that exists in the psyche of Australian Jews in the new millennium: on the one hand understanding the fundamental wrong in tarring all Muslims with the same extremist brush; on the other hand feeling great unease in showing support for Muslims, some of whose brothers are waging jihad against Israel and the Jews. … Many Australian Jews are therefore caught between these tides, ostensibly supportive of minority rights but cognizant of the fact that among the Muslim community are radical elements who seek our destruction. [v]

Despite these concerns, most Australian Jews see themselves as the longer-term beneficiaries of policies explicitly designed to dilute the power of the traditional European-derived Australian majority. Australian Jewry has therefore sought to make alliances with various immigrant groups in opposition to the White majority, including Muslims. Attempts to form a political coalition with Australian Muslims date from the earliest days of Australian multiculturalism. Australian Jews sought Muslim support for the enactment of the racial discrimination legislation recommended by the Lippmann-chaired Committee on Community Relations in the mid-1970s. In the years since, Jews have repeatedly sought the support of the Muslim community in lobbying for various multicultural policies, including those relating to “access to government services, recourse for victims of discrimination, and protection from harassment.” Jewish activism organizations such as the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council was quick to enlist Australia’s Muslim leaders in their campaign to oppose any changed to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

According to Jeremy Jones, the director of international and community affairs of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, “the relationship between Australian Jews and Muslims has developed positively over the past decade.” Nevertheless, he believes that “maintaining the momentum will require leadership and determination, but there are good grounds for optimism given the network of relations and shared fruitful experiences in contemporary multicultural Australia.”

Clearly, Australian Jewry believes that, despite the threat to Jews represented by the strong anti-Jewish sentiment in growing sections of the Australian Islamic community, the relationship is basically manageable in the longer-term.

Having won the battle over Section 18C, it is certain that activist Jews will push for even tougher restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia, and indeed throughout the West. The attempt to confine public discourse to within parameters that do not threaten Jewish interests has been a central preoccupation of Jewish activists for many decades. American Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the SPLC certainly do not view the American constitution as an insuperable barrier to the imposition of laws like to Section 18C in the United States.

——————-

[i] Goldberg, D. (2006) ‘After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. 151 [ii] Peta Jones Pellach, “Interfaith Dialogue and the State of Israel,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne, Black Inc., 2006), 139. [iii] Marcus Einfeld, “We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006), 311 & 314. [iv] MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313. [v] Goldberg “After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,” 145 & 146

Adam Garfinkle is the founding editor of The American Interest, a bimonthly magazine focused on politics, culture, and international affairs. He served as speechwriter for secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and has taught at John Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, the University of Pennsylvania, Haverford College, and Tel Aviv University. Garfinkle’s 2009 book, Jewcentricity: Why the Jews are praised, blamed, and used to explain just about everything is touted as an examination of “the various roles Jews are imagined to play on the world stage that they do not, in fact, actually play.”[1] It was published by Wiley, an elite, academic publisher. It is an excellent example of how books with little or no intellectual or scholarly merit are published by elite publishers if they contain positive portrayals of Jews.

Garfinkle’s basic thesis is that the ideas people have about Jews — both pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish — tend to be wildly exaggerated and often stray outside the bounds of rational thought. Jewcentricity is the author’s attempt to offer a reasoned corrective to this phenomenon and to set the record straight.

Jewcentricity has a four part structure. Garfinkle identifies and analyses the positive and negative “Jewcentricity” he sees manifested among Jews and non-Jews, highlighting, along the way, the various exaggerations that supposedly distort the truth about Jews and their interactions with others. These various exaggerations are said to bounce off and reinforce each other, with the author claiming that the “four forms of Jewcentricity across our two-by-two matrix need and feed one another.”[2]  While Jewcentricity is offered as a dispassionate survey of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews, it is, not surprisingly (given that Garfinkle is himself Jewish), centrally preoccupied with the evils of “anti-Semitism.”

Advertisement

---

For Garfinkle, “anti-Semitism” (or “negative gentile Jewcentricity” as he terms it) is not an easy term to define. “Not only is the subject fraught with emotion, but it is one that has been dissected and argued over by historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, philosophers, and armchair moralists for centuries. … The consensus among scholars is that anti-Semitism can be defined as ‘the irrational hatred of Jews.’” Garfinkle does admit that that such a definition presupposes the possibility of a “rational” hatred of Jews, noting that:

Jews can be pushy, clannish, arrogant, ostentatious and boastful to the point of producing irritation in others. That makes it possible to dislike Jews as individuals or as a group, even if disliking whole groups is not politically correct these days (or indicative of refined character in any days). It may be ignorant, mean-spirited, and small-minded, or it may just be a matter of taste. It may be all that and still not be irrational in the sense that psychiatrists use the term.[3]

Nowhere in his book does Garfinkle make the obvious and foundational point that “anti-Semitism” stems from conflicts of interests between Jews and non-Jews in a Darwinian world. The assertion by Jews of their ethnic interests (Semitism) inevitably leads to resentment and hostility from those whose interests are compromised as a result (so-called anti-Semitism). To admit this basic truth would be to admit that non-Jews (including Europeans) have interests that are legitimate and that the desire to resist those opposed to our interests is eminently rational. Yet, while admitting that disliking Jews may “not be irrational,” Garfinkle goes on to argue that “anti-Semitism is something different. It goes beyond mere dislike. It is a kind of disease of the mind.”[4]

Adam Garfinkle

This attribution of psychopathology to those critical of Jews has a long intellectual pedigree among Jewish intellectuals and activists. One is, for example, reminded of the collective Jewish response to Richard Wagner’s critique of Jewish influence on German art and culture in the mid-nineteenth century, where he was branded a “sexual psychopath” who had “chronic megalomania, paranoia, and moral derangement.” Garfinkle is quite willing to offer up the kind of spurious Freudian diagnoses of “anti-Semites” that were a Jewish stock in trade throughout the twentieth century. For example, he proposes that critics of Jews frequently “postulate Jewish conspiracies that are, in fact, mirror images of their own conspiratorial delusions.”[5]

Of particular concern to Jewish activists are individuals who, like Richard Wagner, are of high intellectual or social standing and also critical of Jews. Garfinkle notes that:

The anti-Jewish prejudices of creative individuals — T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, for example — are hurtful to Jews because intelligent people are supposed to know better. … The power of educated and well-regarded anti-Semites resides in their ability to elevate latent tendencies toward bigotry to the point of being society acceptable. Anti-Semitic leaders norm hatred; they are catalysts that join cultural bias to the impulse for scapegoating in troubled times.[6]

Garfinkle suffers from his own form of “Jewcentricity” (in truth Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism) in failing to note how the anti-White prejudices of leading Jewish intellectuals and producers of culture (e.g. the Frankfurt school intellectuals, Hollywood writers and directors) are hurtful to White people because intelligent people are supposed to know better. It seems that Jews (and their non-White and sexual minority proxies) have a monopoly on hurt feelings. He likewise fails to make the point that the power of educated and well-regarded Jewish intellectuals resides in their ability to norm hatred against Whites (negative Eurocentricity) and make latent tendencies toward anti-White hatred socially acceptable.

The “negative Jewcentricity” of non-Jews is especially galling, according to Garfinkle, because for eighteen hundred years Jews have been the helpless victims of non-Jewish (and particularly European and Christian) injustice, and never oppressors of others. Indeed the author approvingly quotes the “redoubtable Israel Zangwill” who claimed that the Jew is “the great misunderstood of history” and argues that:

Jews have been talented flotsam on the waves of history, usually managing not to sink and learning how to swim, but never controlling the currents or the weather. This is why the gentile purveyors of Jewcentricity are so annoying: they invert, utterly and completely, what has been most true about Jewish social and political life for the past eighteen hundred years — its helplessness. To construe a more or less successful response to a condition of helplessness as a plot to control the world is, well, crazy.[7]

Nowhere in his book does Garfinkle mention the many historical instances where Jews have dominated and ruthlessly exploited Europeans for their own benefit — often the cause of expulsions as a consequence. From Biblical times onwards Jews have invariably endeavored to dominate other peoples. In Europe in the Middle Ages Jews were seen as “pitiless creditors,” and the philosopher Immanuel Kant famously observed that Jews were “a nation of usurers … outwitting people amongst whom they find shelter. … They make the slogan ‘let the buyer beware’ their highest principle in dealing with us.”[8] But authors like Garfinkle, there is no need to delve into the reasons for particular historical instances where Jews have been hated.

So it is not surprising that the author of Jewcentricity is likewise silent on the vastly disproportionate and enthusiastic Jewish participation in the Bolshevik mass-murder of millions of eastern Europeans. To Garfinkle, “negative Jewcentricity” has nothing to do with Jewish behavior, but is the product of the irrationality of non-Jews who conjure wild anti-Semitic exaggerations and conspiracy theories out of their lurid imaginations.

Garfinkle characterizes any suggestion that hostility toward Jews stems from very real conflicts of interest as a manifestation of “postmodern anti-Semitism.” Surveying the supposedly long and lachrymose history of Europe’s persecution of Jews, he claims that, following on from the religious anti-Semitism of pre-Enlightenment Europe and the racially-based anti-Semitism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we have reached the “postmodern” stage of anti-Semitism.

The third stage is the postmodern, explicitly political stage in which we live today. The irrational hatred of Jews as a group does not identify religion or race alone as the source of Jewish “crimes” but focuses instead on material and political power; the Jews are evil not because they rejected and killed Christ, or because they have inferior “blood,” but because they conspire to steal power from others and live parasitically on established, “normal” communities for purposes of their own aggrandizement. They pose as people like any other, but they are not, and Zionism is the singularly deceptive and evil garb by means of which Jews plot to execute their avaricious deeds.[9]

So when criticism of Jewish behavior focuses on Jewish “material and political power,” it necessarily strays outside the boundaries of rational discourse and becomes “anti-Semitic.” It is, therefore “anti-Semitic” to point out, for instance, that Jews have enormous financial and political power relative to their numbers — an obviously factual statement. Such an “argument” presupposes that Jews in the United States and throughout the West have not obtained formidable financial and political power, and have not used this power to further Jewish interests. It also presupposes that Jews have never and do not today “pose as people like any other” in order to conceal their Jewish origins and loyalties.

These assertions are patently false, and are openly contradicted by Garfinkle himself in other parts of Jewcentricity. For example, in discussing the financial resources and political power of America’s Jewish activist organizations, he points out that:

Over the last forty or so years, the clout of organized American Jewry has risen meteorically. Professional Jews have been able to tap into large sums of money, talented executives, and growing and dedicated staffs to influence a vast array of public policy issues. They have grown fast, AIPAC being an excellent example. In the early 1950s it was a three-person office operating on a shoestring budget; twenty-five years later it had a staff of around 150 and a multimillion-dollar budget. Not only have Jewish American organizations amassed clout on matters relating to Israel, but Jewish organizational muscle has been flexed in the face of the Soviet Union and Communist Romania, on immigration and asylum policy, on trade policy, and on human-rights issues involving Haiti, Rwanda, and, more recently Darfur. Jewish “professional” political clout, augmented by a larger-than-proportional number of Jewish senators and representatives, has also influenced many domestic issues.[10]     

By his own definition, this factual statement by Garfinkle would be regarded as “anti-Semitic” — touching as it does on how “the clout of organized American Jewry” has “risen meteorically” through tapping “into large sums of money” to influence “a vast array of public policy issues.” Garfinkle casually mentions that Jewish activist organizations have flexed their political muscle “on immigration and asylum policy” without mentioning the transformative demographic consequences of this influence — in particular from the passing of the 1965 immigration laws in the United States and successfully lobbying for immigration reform in other Western nations (e.g. the ending of the White Australia policy in Australia). Jews have been and continue to be the intellectual and financial backbone of the multicultural Left throughout the West. They have effectively hijacked the demographic destiny of whole nations in their own ethnic interests, and Europeans are in real danger of losing demographic control of three continents as a result.

Likewise, Garfinkle fails to mention that Jewish activist organizations in Europe, by successfully lobbying for open borders and mass non-White immigration, are, to a great extent, responsible for the ongoing Islamization of Western Europe and the high levels of welfare dependency and criminality (including the child rape gangs) of the low-IQ Muslim immigrants who have entered Europe as a result. Paradoxically, given that he repeatedly denies that Judaism has any firm racial or ethnic basis, Garfinkle freely admits that these Jewish activist organizations are wholly concerned with advocating for policies that serve Jewish ethnic interests.

The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.

We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests — in the latter case, for example, against a trade agreement with Russia in 1905 because of Russian anti-Semitism. The American-Jewish Joint Distribution Committee came into being to aid Jewish war refugees after World War I. The United Jewish Appeal came into existence in 1938 to help Jews trapped in Europe.

In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added][12]

Garfinkle should have added that these organizations serve parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from and (particularly with regard to mass non-White immigration, multiculturalism, and American foreign policy in the Middle East) entirely contrary to the interests of the traditional White American majority, which implies that criticism of Jews by non-Jewish White Americans is entirely rational.

The above statement by Garfinkle is a tacit admission that Jewish activist organizations are contemporary manifestations of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy — they serve the interests of ethnic Jews regardless of religious affiliation or observance. Given the political power that has been exercised by these organizations in lobbying for policies contrary to the interests of White Americans, is it any wonder that politically-aware Whites (like those who regularly read TOO) are critical of organized Jewry.

Garfinkle makes the observation that “anti-Semitism” has been far less of a problem for Jews who have resided in nations and societies characterized by heightened individualism — with the United States being the conspicuous example:

Another factor affecting the nature of anti-Semitic manifestations is cultural in a deeper sense. Some societies value individualism more than communalism, some the other way around. In most Western societies, and in American society in particular, the ethos at large sees each individual as a free and autonomous agent, so conformist behavior is less frequent and extreme than in societies in which hierarchy and communal norms prevail. On the other hand, communally oriented societies tend to have stronger control mechanisms against antisocial behavior. The result is that individualistic societies tend to produce outlaws and one-off weirdos, while hierarchical or communal-oriented societies are better at producing mobs. Mobs are better suited for enabling anti-Semitic policies and attitudes. It is no accident that fascism set deeper roots in more communally oriented European societies — Germany, Italy, and Spain — than in the more individualistic ones like Britain, Holland and the Scandinavian countries.[13]      

Of course the defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance. Judaism is the prime historical example of how the rejection of individualism (especially in the sociobiological niche of the Diaspora) leads to group evolutionary success (i.e., genetic continuity across millennia). Garfinkle’s observation is quite correct and in it resides the origins of the Frankfurt School’s promotion of radical individualism as the epitome of psychological health for Europeans (see here, p. 165). The sane and well-adjusted White person was characterized by these Jewish intellectual activists as an individual who had broken free from the traditional Western shaming code, and who realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups (or “mobs” as Garfinkle describes them). This promotion of radical individualism among non-Jews was, of course, intended to undermine the group cohesion of Europeans and thereby weaken their capacity to compete effectively with Jews.

The fact that heightened individualism within a society is advantageous for a small outgroup like the Jews also explains the disproportionate Jewish intellectual and political participation in libertarian movements. Jews have, of course, played an even more prominent role as intellectuals and activists in socialist movements, which, while not promoting individualism, have sought to substitute European racial and ethnic collectivisms with a transracial class collectivism and humanitarianism which also serves Jewish interests. Garfinkle notes that Jewish prominence in the early days of socialist and communist movements was a response to “rising romantic nationalism” throughout Europe which was “often associated with racial-purity dogmas and heavily tinged with anti-Semitism.”[14] Thus early socialist movements were, in large part, a Jewish ethno-political response to rising European nationalisms and were centrally preoccupied in promoting the group evolutionary interests of Jews through suppressing “anti-Semitism.”

Garfinkle claims that much “negative Jewcentricity” is based on the incorrect assumption that Jews comprise a distinct race or ethnic group. Despite the existence of an extensive body of population genetic evidence to the contrary, he purports to reject the assumption that Jews comprise “a bloodline phenomenon.” He writes:

Jews are not a race, however, and not “just” a religion. As we have seen, Jews are a people formed around the core ideas of a religious civilization. But in light of the unusual transterritorial history of the Jews, it is not hard to see how others might be confused by a modern identity that has come to conflate religion and national identity, as in a kind of identity double helix, like few if any others. … “Religion” and “race” are modern categories: Judaism’s identity formula does not accord with taken-for-granted divisions between citizenship and ethnicity. … Jews are not a race, even though there is some genetic continuity among contemporary Jews, and Jews are not a religious group if by that phrase one means an entirely elective self-selected group of believers. Jews are a hybrid of the two, a people based on a religious civilization.[15]

This doublespeak is utterly refuted by population genetic studies that have clearly established that Jewish groups do comprise a distinct genetic cluster. The idea that Judaism is not a group evolutionary strategy (implicit in claims Judaism is solely or even primarily a religion) cannot be credibly sustained in the light of studies, such that by Atzmon et al. from 2010, which confirmed that Jews are a distinct genetic community. This study examined genetic markers spread across the entire genome, and showed that Jewish groups (Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi) share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships, and that while each Jewish group in the study (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek and Ashkenazi) had its own genetic signature, each was more closely related to the other Jewish groups than to their non-Jewish countrymen. Atzmon found that the Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in segments of 3 million DNA letters or longer were 10 times more likely to be identical among Jews than non-Jews, and that any two Ashkenazi Jewish participants in the study shared about as much DNA as fourth or fifth cousins.

It certainly is not hard to find intelligent Jews who are willing to concede the obvious racial nature of traditional Judaism, such as the late Jewish Canadian historian Norman Cantor who noted that: “Racism is itself a central doctrine in traditional Judaism and Jewish cultural history. The Hebrew Bible is blatantly racist, with all the talk about the seed of Abraham, the chosen people, and Israel as a light to the other nations. Orthodox Jews in their morning prayers still thank God daily that he did not make Jews ‘like the other peoples of the earth.’ If this isn’t racism, what is?”[16]

Garfinkle rejects this assessment, and contends, contrary to a welter of population genetic studies (although, to be fair, several of these came out after the publication of Jewcentricity), that Jews are not a race. Indeed he is morally outraged at any attempt to “construe modern Jewish nationalism to be a form of racism” indignantly labelling it an anti-Semitic “canard.”

Obviously, not all anti-Israel criticism qualifies as anti-Semitism, any more than all dislike of Jews qualifies as anti-Semitism. But the Zionism-is-racism canard, as well as the delegitimation rhetoric based on the “religion” canard [i.e. noting the lack of archeological evidence to support the Biblical account of Jewish history], are examples of anti-Semitism because they are never raised against any other country or people. If Zionism as a national movement of the Jewish people is inherently racist, then German nationalism, Japanese nationalism, and a dozen other ethnic-based nationalisms are racist, too. Indeed, bloodlines have played a far more obvious role in defining citizenship in these and other cases than it has in Israel.

Until fairly recently, German citizenship laws were such that Turks living in Germany for generations could not become citizens, while Volga Germans cold acquire instant German citizenship upon request by proving that at least one German grandparent was of German blood. In Japan, Koreans who have been resident in the country for even five, six, or seven generations are not allowed to become citizens. Yet no one who focuses energy on delegitimizing Israel on racist grounds ever talks about Germany or Japan.[17]

Few on our side of politics quibble with Israel’s desire to establish a Jewish ethnostate and to safeguard this through a racially-restrictive immigration policy. This is only natural. What we desperately resent is that the same people who affirm Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish state” also deny the moral legitimacy of Western nations following the same path through defining their national identities in racial or ethnic terms. Furthermore, it is an undeniable fact that Jews have been at the forefront of political efforts throughout the West to promote the de-Europeanization of Western nations through lobbying for mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism. Garfinkle also fails to mention that Jewish intellectual activism in the form of scientifically fraudulent Boasian notions of racial equality (doubtless in conjunction with actual Jewish lobbying) were among the key reasons why Germany abandoned its traditional blood-based citizenship laws.

The overarching proof that Judaism is not a blood phenomenon, according to Garfinkle, is right before the eyes of anyone who cares to look. “If Zionism and Israeli citizenship are based on a bloodline concept of nationalism, then it would follow that the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel today would form a fairly homogeneous population from a strict genetic perspective. The reverse is true, however; Israeli Jews make up one of the most genetically diverse populations on earth.”[18] Atzmon and the other geneticists who have conducted population genetic studies of Jews would beg to differ. Garfinkle, while acknowledging some genetic commonality among Jews, argues that because Judaism technically accepts converts, it has nothing to do with blood:

In their London Review of Books essay, Mearsheimer and Walt claim that Israeli citizenship rests “on the principal of blood kinship.” As we have seen, this misrepresentation is a staple of modern racialist anti-Semitism and all of the anti-Zionist covers for it, including the “Zionism is racism” canard of the United States General Assembly. And it is flatly false. To repeat: one cannot convert to become a German or a Japanese or a Kurd. Those nationalisms and many others are based on a principle of blood kinship. But anyone who has converted to Judaism according to Jewish law can claim citizenship under Israel’s “right of return,” and many have done so. It has nothing to do with blood.[19]

While Garfinkle’s argument has a surface validity, in practical terms it is false. He fails to mention that atheists of Jewish ancestry are fully entitled to Israeli citizenship. Moreover, while the Jewish acceptance of converts offers them a veneer of seeming group permeability, conversion is such a marginal phenomenon as to be irrelevant. Judaism has long made “conversion” to Judaism an onerous process involving very high barriers to entry (to borrow from the lexicon of economics). To give an example of just how marginal, and therefore irrelevant, the phenomenon of conversion to Judaism actually is, take the case of the United States. According to a 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center, Jews comprise 2.2 percent of the American population. Of this 2.2 percent only two percent are converts. In other words, non-Jewish converts to Judaism comprise just 0.0004 percent of the U.S. population. The percentage of this tiny population that is female and of child-bearing age is smaller still, and none have achieved leadership positions in the Jewish community. The percentage of females of child-bearing age that actually have “Jewish” children is even smaller, and the percentage of these converts whose offspring are accepted as authentic Jews in the broader Jewish community is smaller still. These figures for the United States would likely be replicated throughout the Western world.

The bottom line is that theoretical possibility of conversion to Judaism (while being of great and longstanding propaganda value to Jews) is such a marginal phenomenon as to be irrelevant. This truth of this assertion is reflected in the findings of the numerous population genetic studies which amply confirm that Judaism is indeed a bloodline phenomenon and does constitute a group evolutionary strategy. Of course, Judaism could still be a group evolutionary strategy even if Jews were not a genetically distinct group, providing that Jews believed that they were, and behaved accordingly — which is exactly what they did believe and behave like for centuries before modern population genetic studies confirmed what they had always assumed.

Go to Part 2.

[1] Adam Garfinkle, Jewcentricity: why the Jews are praised, blamed, and used to explain just about everything (Hoboken NJ: John Wiley, 2009), 1.

[2] Ibid. 219.

[3] Ibid. 53.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid. 209.

[6] Ibid. 57-58.

[7] Ibid. 112.

[8] Paul Lawrence Rose, Wagner, Race & Revolution (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 7.

[9] Garfinkle, Jewcentricity, 6.

[10] Ibid. 179-180.

[11] Ibid. 156.

[12] Ibid. 167-68.

[13] Ibid. 56.

[14] Ibid. 62.

[15] Ibid. 64 & 67.

[16] Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews (New York, HarperCollins, 1994), 336.

[17] Garfinkle, Jewcentricity, 65.

[18] Ibid. 67.

[19] Ibid. 211.

End of Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

Part 3