Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective, Part 2

Brenton Sanderson


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

Read more »


Observations - The Occidental Observer Blog
Mark Leibler: An exemplar of Jewish hypocrisy and self-deception

Finding examples of Jewish hypocrisy and double standards about ethnic interests is not exactly big news (see Jewish attitudes in Israel versus the Diaspora). The entire Jewish political spectrum in the Diaspora in the West energetically pursues policies intended to displace White people and their culture, while at the same time promoting the interests of Israel as an ethnostate.  There are differences in emphasis of course. The neocons are mainly focused on heavy-handed, overt promotion of Israel and less strident about White displacement. They sometimes  get off message on immigration when there are larger fish to fry. As Peter Brimelow wrote about Bill Kristol, “Kristol will return to immigration enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.” New president. Same message.

On the other hand, the mainstream Jewish community (more than 80% of Jews voted for Obama) is more openly dedicated to White displacement and sometimes engages in a bit of hand-wringing on some of Israel’s more egregious bouts of aggression  and racialism while nevertheless managing not to rock to the boat when it comes to total fealty of the US to the religious and ethnonationalist right that dominates Israeli politics.

Despite their banality, egregious examples of hypocrisy and double standards are nevertheless worth commenting on. And in the case of Mark Leibler,  it shows that these patterns are not confined to the US. (Here’s an article pointing out the same pattern in Australian MP Michael Danby.)  Read more »

Romney and Gingrich compete over who is more pro-immigration

If there is any doubt about how destructive the Republican Party is toward White America, tonight’s Florida debate should settle the issue.  The two front runners, Gingrich and Romney, had a heated exchange about immigration prompted when Wolf Blitzer, CNN’s resident AIPAC activist, asked Gingrich if Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the remaining candidates.  Gingrich eagerly agreed,  based on his (Gingrich’s) pro-amnesty stance and Romney’s opposition to illegal immigration. In the video below, Romney says that the charge that he is anti-immigrant is “repulsive,” and points out that his father was born in Mexico. He then expresses his support for expanded legal immigration. Romney loves immigrants as long as they’re legal. Must have more, because, after all, diversity is our greatest strength. (Here’s a  VDARE.com article from yesterday on Black attacks on Whites in the Whitopia of Portland, OR; note the response of clueless Whites.) Despite the fact that immigrants of all stripes will vote Democrat and, along with the rest of the non-White coalition, make the Republicans irrelevant in the very near future. Après moi le déluge. Let’s hope it’s an A3P deluge.

So the two Republicans supposedly trying to appeal to the angry White base of the Party by showing how conservative they are (just what are they conserving?) end up competing over who is more pro-immigration—not to mention their equally insane competition on who is more pro-Israel. (Newt is Sheldon Adelson’s boy, but Romney has actually gotten far more money from Jews than Gingrich; both have surrounded themselves with neocon foreign policy hawks eager to attack Iran).

Pathethic.  If nothing else, it shows the attitudes of those who really have the power in America today.

It’s really a competition over who is more sociopathic: The corpulent, corrupt, infinitely sleazy Gingrich, and the smooth, wealthy stuffed shirt darling of the Eastern Republican establishment. The winner to go up against the poster child of diversity and darling of the New York/Hollywood culture machine. American democracy, 2012 version.