Hypocrisy in Action: The Non-Response to Avigdor Lieberman’s speech on an Impending Jewish Demographic “Catastrophe”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

[i] Kevin 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), 311 & pp. 324-25

[ii] W.D. Rubinstein, Judaism in Australia (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995), 7.

[iii] Dan Goldberg “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 (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006), 152.

[iv] Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment (New York: Perennial, 2004), 404.

[v] Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (London & New York: Routledge, 1956/1991), 67.

[vi] MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, 313.

[vii] Ibid., 316.

[viii] Ibid., 320.





1 reply

Comments are closed.