Jewish Support for Multiculturalism

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 4 of 5

/111 Comments/in , , /by

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. Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 3 of 5

/88 Comments/in , , /by

 

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. Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 2 of 5

/65 Comments/in , , , /by

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. Read more

Paul Gottfried on Viktor Orban and Hungarian Nationalism

/37 Comments/in , /by

Did readers see the stunning admissions made by Jewish professor Paul Gottfried in a recent VDARE essay?  Weekly Counter-Currents writer Andrew Hamilton kindly drew my attention to it this week.

Gottfried is of Hungarian Jewish origin and speaks quite candidly about events there past and present. His article, Viktor Orban And The National Question In Hungary, tells a familiar story. Viktor Orban is the current prime minister of Hungary, and like many other citizens of formerly Communist countries in Eastern Europe, he does not buy into the guilt-inducing stories about World War II, nor does he accept the kind of multiculturalism now ravaging Western Europe and the Anglosphere.

Because he is a nationalist, and because Hungarians are White, this has excited the usual suspects — and Gottfried names them:

Hungarian artists and writers, and most notably Jewish ones, easily made their peace with the Soviets and their agents. It is not surprising that a very intelligent Hungarian Jewish Marxist of my acquaintance, Agnes Heller, has been livid with rage against the “Victator,” as Orban is now contemptuously called by his opponents.

One Green member of the European Parliament in particular, the famous lifetime leftist Daniel Cohn-Bendit, flies into rage when Orban’s name is mentioned. Describing the Hungarian head of state as an “authoritarian lunatic” may be the nicest thing that Cohn-Bendit has said about him.

Cohn-Bendit’s anger is spreading. As the Austrian member of the European Parliament Andreas Mölzer notes in Junge Freiheit, every day the European Union is looking for new measures by which to “quarantine” what it regards as the incipiently fascist regime in Budapest. Read more

Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”

/147 Comments/in , , , , , , , , /by

Jewish Eugenics, by John Glad. Washington, DC: Wooden Shore Publishers, 2011; 464pp. (Downloadable at either www.whatwemaybe or www.woodenshore.org. These sites also have Glad’s Future Human Evolution.)

John Glad begins Jewish Eugenics by noting that “much of what might be termed  ‘accepted eugenics narrative’ is in crass discordance with the historical facts” (p. 8). In other words, we are about to enter one of those academic minefields where “truth” is rigorously cleansed to make sure it is compatible with ethnic interests. Indeed, “writing books about Jews used to be a far easier undertaking than it is today, with Jewish anxieties over ‘anti-Semitism’ having been so elevated as to render dispassionate scholarly discourse nearly impossible” (p. 8).

I am not so sure that dispassionate scholarship is impossible, but it is surely the case that findings that diverge from the self-image desired by any ethnic group will surely be vigorously contested by academic activists or, more probably, consigned to oblivion. Dr. Glad assures me that in his case, it is the latter, writing of his frustration at the silence that has greeted his work. Welcome to the club.

As a university professor, Glad is quite attuned to the politics of having a good career. Critics of eugenics, like the notorious Ashley Montagu (a disciple of Franz Boas), get fat honoraria for delivering superficial, factually challenged lectures sponsored by numerous academic departments and programs. (Glad characterizes a lecture by Montagu as “an impressive demonstration of indoctrination” [p. 91].) On the other hand, those who defend eugenics “are subjected to academic shunning” (p. 91), their books are not used in classes and not purchased by academic libraries. They get no invitations to attend conferences or deliver lectures. Read more

American Rabbi: Europe must accept immigration swamping

/60 Comments/in , , /by

Thanks to Jewamongyou’s Blog for drawing my attention to a classic: In Paris, Muslim and Jewish leaders pledge to stand together against the rise of extreme-rightist parties, European Jewish Press 09/Mar/2011

PARIS (EJP)—Prominent Muslim and Jewish leaders from across Europe pledged to stand together against the rise of extreme-right xenophobic and racist parties that represent an escalating peril to ethnic and religious minorities across Europe, including Jews and Muslims.

These leaders made the pledge during a gathering in Paris of the “Coordinating Committee of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders.”

The first meeting of the Coordinating Committee was initiated by the New York-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU), the World Council for Muslim Inter-Faith Relations (WCMIR), and the World Jewish Congress (WJC)…

“If Europe wants to remain true to its ethical and spiritual foundations, it must embrace people from different cultures, religions and ways of life. If not, it will not only fail as a concept, it will lose its soul,” said FFEU President and World Jewish Congress Vice President Rabbi Marc Schneier. Read more

Courting the Jews on the European “Far Right”

/27 Comments/in , , , /by

The Guardian’s definition of “far right”, and mine, differ considerably, which is the reason why I have not rushed to its website to read a two-page article published a few of days ago about “the threat of the far right in Europe” which, I am told, made no mention of the BNP or the state of race relations in Britain.

Guardian caption: A Roma family leaves a camp in northern France. Far-right groups across Europe are nurturing an anti-immigrant backlash.

The Financial Times simultaneously published a similar one-page survey, but this included a brief post-script item about the failure of the BNP to mobilise the full potential of anti-immigration sentiment persisting amongst the British electorate. It begins as follows:

In a pub garden in Birkenhead, a blighted post-industrial suburb in England’s north-west, Nick Griffin told the Financial Times that his party had a “once in a lifetime” chance to escape its white supremacist roots and emerge as an alternative for millions scorned by the London elite.

Less than 18 months later – following this year’s disastrous national election campaign, a savage internal power struggle and a court battle with the country’s equality watchdog that threatens to bankrupt the party – his dream is over.

The impression I have gained in recent years is that the only “far right” parties in Europe who have been able (allowed) to flutter near to the flame of power are those that have been able to convince the Establishment, the media and Jewry that they are most definitely not anti-Jewish, not “racist”, not against all coloured immigration (but only against the immigration of Muslims!) and not against the multi-racial society (just so long as it doesn’t include Muslims!) The Jobbik Party in Hungary may be the only notable exception to this. Read more