War rages in Palestine and once again we are witness to the intractable reality that wherever they go in the world, Jews seem to bring conflict and chaos with them. Watching the destruction safely from afar, one wonders if there has ever been a Jewish population, diaspora or Israeli, minority or not, that has enjoyed a peaceful existence and the full acceptance of their neighbours, one not beset by animosity or the emergence of violence. The answers are far and few in between over the past 1000 years, but a viable candidate would have to be the Jewish community that took root in the eighteenth century in a country located about as far away from Europe as one could possibly go.

The nature of Jewish behaviour and in-group strategy and the resultant hostilities this engenders when it encounters gentile society have been discussed in extensive detail by writers at The Occidental Observer over the years. Whether it’s shaping immigration policy in the U.S. and launching destructive wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, promoting multiculturalism in the U.K. and Australia, or inflicting critical race theory on Ireland, the pattern of Jews aggressively promoting their own interests at the expense of the gentile majority is simply impossible to ignore.

In light of this, my familiarity with Australian history, in particular Australian Jewish history, has often given me pause. If racial nationalism is such a universal danger to Jewry, why is it that I have never encountered any critical responses by contemporary Anglo-Jewry to the foundation of the White Australia Policy. Have Jewish historians simply forgotten to investigate such an important topic? Can it be that the interests of Anglo-Jewry and the White majority were so well aligned that there was no need to undermine the majority in the first place?

As this essay will seek to lay out, the history of Jewry in Australia prior to the 1930s is one that gives even the most hardened White identitarians a reason to believe that co-existence between Jew and gentile, without the need for any kind of legal or political restrictions on Jewish behaviour, could actually be possible. If you are willing to forgive their occasional involvement in financial scandals or in anti-Catholic politicking, neither of which were behaviours exclusive to Jewry, Australian history seems to provide the perfect example of Jews peacefully reconciling themselves to an explicit White racial and cultural status quo, at least prior to 1933.

The resulting outcome of this seeming paradise of White Nationalism and Judaism exposes the fantasy, and instead reveals to us what eventually occurs when Jews abandon the culture of critique, make peace with racialism and live in harmony with a White supermajority.

The Goldene Medine

Of all their diasporas throughout history, the Anglo-Jewish community that existed in Australia between 1788 and 1933 may hold the distinction of the safest, most secure, and most accepted Jewish minority in a homogenous Christian society, a ‘Goldene Medine’ (Golden Land) which many a Jew in Europe dreamt of migrating to. Where the Jews of Europe fought for the eradication of legal discriminations during the nineteenth century, and campaigned for the equal rights promised by the Enlightenment, Jews were present in the Australian colonies from their very foundation and there was never any question that the rights owned by gentiles applied equally to Jews, all being British subjects one and the same. Fully emancipated, the most prominent fights over legal discriminations against Jews in Australia, if they could even be considered as such, were on utterly mundane topics such as state aid for the erection of religious buildings, Christian prayers in secular education, or the aversion to government funding for religious schools.

The security of the Anglo-Jewish community was owed to its status as a well-assimilated community that identified itself exclusively as ‘Englishmen of the Mosaic persuasion’ or ‘Australians of the Jewish Faith.’  Religious life and observance were uniformly based around the teachings of British Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler, who promoted the Anglicising of Judaism in order to adapt it to English cultural life and strengthen the position of Jews in a modern, emancipated world. In Australia, every effort was made to avoid the creation of enclaves and remove or minimise outward differentiation between Jew and non-Jew other than in religious practice, and even then, certain practices such as keeping Kosher were poorly maintained.

Anti-Judaism was rarely heard of in Australia—a prejudice of the Old World that had no function in a nation dedicated to freeing itself from the religious tensions of Europe. Examples of prejudicial incidents in Australia identified by Jewish academics tend to be limited to minor insults or aspersions to Jews as financially tricky. The latter took the form of the Yiddish-speaking pawnbroker or the Shakespearean ‘Shylock’ character, the scheming Jewish financier that still persisted in English cultural and literary memory. Anglo-Jewry were keen to distance themselves from both embarrassing stereotypes and gentile Australia generally made the distinction between foreign Jews abroad and “our Jews” in Australia who were of a far superior type.

As a result, Jewish loyalty to Australia as a British society and to the British Empire was utterly unquestioned, and Australia’s protestant-liberal elite operated free of tensions with the Anglo-Jewish community, sharing identical commitments to political liberalism and a hostility to Catholicism. Contrast this to the reality within the multi-ethnic empires of Europe such as Austria or Russia with significant Jewish populations, where Jews clashed with a solidly anti-liberal and Catholic/Orthodox establishment.

When it came to political radicalism, Australian Jewry was shielded from the developments that swept through the shtetls of Eastern Europe. Communism was abhorred by the primarily middle-class and upwardly mobile community, Jews being absent from any kind of leadership positions within the Communist Party of Australia until the post-World War II era. Zionism arrived almost dead in the water; an unpatriotic fringe movement criticised by virtually all of the Anglo-Jewish leadership for its insistence that Judaism was more than religion. As far as Australian Jewry was concerned, what was the need for a safe Jewish homeland if they already had Australia? In 1901, Theodore Herzl himself made a personal appeal to the Australian Jewish community, the only one thus far not represented at the Zionist congresses, to no avail.[1]

With the arrival of racialism in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the political desire to form a racially homogenous Australia, these realities resulted in the small, highly assimilated and accepted Anglo-Jewish community being identified as White. Judaism itself had yet to be racialized in Australia and was still conceived of by gentiles and its Australian adherents as solely a religion, not a race. It was therefore possible to be both part of the White race in Australia and part of the Hebrew faith, or conversely to be an Oriental Jew or an Asiatic Jew who was thus not White. Though the boundaries of Jewish Whiteness were loose and hard to define, no effort was made to publicly counter this identification, and it stood as a measure to symbolise their acceptance as Australians.

The Foundation of the Policy

As far as the historical record is concerned, there is no evidence of a single prominent member of the organised Jewish community opposing the foundation of the White Australia Policy during the formative period of 1901 to 1906. Whereas Jews in the United States agitated against the 1924 immigration law which sought to stem the flow of migrants and retain America’s traditional demographic makeup, and at the same time launched the offensive against racial science under Franz Boas[2] (events which would later have an impact on Australia), no opposition of any sort from Anglo-Jewry was evident towards the Immigration Restriction Act (1901), the Naturalization Act (1905) or the deportation of Chinese and Pacific Islanders that formed the basis of the White Australia Policy.

This can be strongly substantiated by the fact that modern Jewish academics and historians seemingly fail to point to any examples of Jewish resistance to the policy. Jewish history books and journal articles are lacking in all references to any pressure groups, deputations or lobbying during this period. An embarrassing reality for those so keen to present themselves as the ‘Light unto Nations’, one would readily assume that if such a figure or group existed, even if only minor, he or she would be dredged up from the historical record and loudly paraded as a visionary and exemplary Jewish figure, worthy of remembrance in the fight against racism and insular politics.

In fact, the White Australia Policy found one of its foremost defenders in arguably the most prominent and successful Jew of the Federation era, Isaac Isaacs. Whilst a Parliamentarian for the Protectionist Party, Issacs was a political ally of Prime Minister Edmund Barton and Attorney General Alfred Deakin of the first Government of Australia, which introduced the White Australia Policy. Isaacs would have been in a prime position to attempt to influence the Protectionist Party and Deakin to temper their policy and follow the line of the British government which feared repercussions of the strict racial barrier on their new alliance with Japan. Instead, Isaacs gave full support to the legislation and made one of the staunchest defences of the Australian racial mission in a speech to parliament:

I recognise to the fullest that here in Australia we have a white man’s war. It is a struggle for life; it is a struggle for that higher and fuller life that all progressive nations must feel and share in. It is that struggle for victory over adverse circumstances which is the pride and glory of all advancing civilizations. It is a white man’s war that we must face, and I would not suffer any black or tinted man to come in and block the path to progress. I would resist to the utmost, if it were necessary, any murky stream from disturbing the current of Australian life.[3]

Isaacs retired from parliament in 1906 to become a justice of the High Court and later became the first Australian-born Governor General—the Crown’s representative in Australia. It was a testament to the almost complete absence of anti-Jewish sentiment in Australia that it was his native-born status that was seen as controversial for the job, not his religious heritage. Despite Issacs’ towering achievements in Australian politics, his commitment to White Australia and his opposition to Zionism has now rendered him a reviled figure to the modern Jewish community.

Two other Jewish members of the federal parliament were present in the period 1901–1906, Elias Solomon and Vaiben L. Solomon, both members of the Free Trade Party from South Australia. Neither is recorded as opposing the relevant legislation and Vaiben L. Solomon campaigned for the restriction of Chinese immigration into South Australia during the 1890s.

Rabbi Cohen Speaks Out

Perhaps the only recorded instance of a leading member of the Anglo-Jewish community criticising the White Australia Policy prior to World War II can be found in 1912. This occurred with a revealing set of exchanges surrounding a speech given by Rabbi R. L. Cohen, Chief Minister of the Great Synagogue of Sydney from 1904 to 1934, at a meeting of the Jewish Literary and Debating Society of Sydney. Titled “The Jewish Attitude toward the White Australia Policy,” Rabbi Cohen, basing his argument in scripture and on the superiority of Jewish moral teaching compared with that of the Christian (which was, according to Cohen, based upon the haughty spirit of the Germanic races), argued that acceptance of the policy was ultimately incompatible with Jewish moral teaching to not despise the stranger. Cohen concluded that:

“…it was not expedient for Jews to consent to recognise difference between man and man, for history showed that wherever a distinction had been permitted by Jews to be recognised it had recoiled on their own heads and the Jew was in danger in such a case. Therefore their attitude on the White Australia policy should be one of caution and one not at all over-sympathetic.”[4]

Aaron Blashki, a prominent merchant and founder of the Sydney Jewish Aid Society, rounded out the discussion by stating he often felt ashamed of the policy when travelling overseas; however an editorial on the speech published in the Jewish Herald two weeks later remarked on the subsequent discussions by attendees, indicating a quorum of support for the White Australia Policy:

…the course of the debate in the Sydney society revealed, we are told a preponderance of opinion in favour of the political measures comprehended under the term “A White Australia.”… All the speakers readily admitted the ethical superiority of the Jewish doctrines governing the relations of man with man, but the majority of them seem to have considered that the particular circumstances of the Commonwealth rendered any attempt to practically, apply those doctrines injudicious.[5]

Rabbi Cohen, perhaps responding to the sentiments of his congregation, appeared to have a more moderated take on the subject in a sermon a decade later from 1924, also pointing the finger at recently arrived Jewish migrants who were less keen on assimilation:

Now, if there is a matter on which Australians are determined, it is to take heed, and profit by American mistakes, and avoid them here. Hence the White Australia Policy, and the resolution-to keep the local population if not still 98 per cent, British in origin, yet overwhelmingly so in sentiment, and entirely free from sectional segregations. The happy standing of the Australasian Jews, excelled nowhere, and scarcely rivalled anywhere, has been recently attributed by the Chief Rabbi to their continuing the attitude of pioneer settlers in co-operating with their neighbours of other creeds. But latterly I have regret ted to notice, among some of the recent arrivals, a lack of appreciation of these communal traditions, and an inclination to another spirit. … Any Ghetto isolation would inevitably raise the question of restricting immigration here as in America; and we should have no right to complain.[6]

Russian Refugees, Zangwill and Territorialism

The careful framing of the issues surrounding the immigration of Russian refugees and Jewish settlement projects also shows the deference paid to the White Australia Policy by local Jews and international activists. We now know that much of the claims of pogroms and atrocities against the Jews in Russia were fictitious and were used to cloak undesirable economic migrants as refugees (see Andrew Joyce’s three-part series), but this did not stop the emergence of significant international pressure groups for Jewish resettlement throughout the world that built upon the refugee narrative. The vast swathes of unoccupied land made Australia a prominent option for Jewish settlement, in particular for anti-Zionist groups such as the Jewish Territorial Organisation (ITO) that opposed Herzl’s insistence on Jewish settlement in Palestine and sought alternative solutions.

The prospect of large-scale Russian Jewish migration to Australia during the 1890s had aroused angst amongst mainstream Australia still reeling from an economic depression and such activists were keen to present the Russian Jews as White and an economic asset for Australia. Israel Zangwill, the co-founder of ITO, famous in America for his play The Melting Pot, framed the issue in a letter from 1907 in terms of the precariousness of Australia’s racial status in Asia:

I am quite aware that Australia will fight hard against giving away any territory or fostering our aims in any way, but Australia has to choose between a black population and a Jewish white one. Australia is waking up to her folly, and her possible future collapse. The Jews could possibly safeguard her future as white territory.[7]

Australia historically feared that the underdevelopment of its northern regions would otherwise invite foreign settlement or invasion. The prospect of a Jewish settlement in the region, later to crystallise in the failed Kimberly Scheme, was touted as a potential solution for defending these vast unoccupied territories and settling it with White migrants. None of these plans ever came to fruition, but it demonstrates that at the time Jewry was able to work within the political confines of White Australia.

Anglo-Ambivalence

Overall, Anglo-Jewish attitudes to the White Australia Policy can be described as conflicted, but erring to the side of being generally supportive. Whilst some may have recognised that the policy was not ideal for the Jews, this did not translate into outright hostility or political opposition, and the consensus seemed to be was that it was nonetheless worthy of support even if only for the sake of maintaining impeccable relations between Jew and Gentile in Australia. The purported incompatibility of the Jewish teaching of moral universalism claimed by many post-Enlightenment Jews (in contrast to the moral particularism of traditional  Jewish ethics) and racially restrictive immigration controls — substantively no different than similar claims made by Christian ministers who opposed the policy — was simply waved away.

Modern Jewish scholarship, where it does not outright ignore the discussion, seeks an excuse for the Jewish support for White Australia in all the usual places. Historian John Stratton blames anti-Semitism and claims that Australian Jewry, contrary to the widespread positive disposition expressed by most Australians towards them, actually existed in a precarious state due to the inherent ambiguity of the identification of Jews as White.  He contends that the Anglo-Jews, in the aftermath of the minor debate on the undesirability of Russian Jewish migration during the 1890s, consigned themselves to Whiteness under duress or out of fear for their survival:

From this time on the fear for Australia’s assimilated Jewry, caught in the ambivalence of their white/non-white status, was that any increased visibility for the Jews, any signs of racial/cultural difference, would mark them as a threat to the homogeneity of the nation.[8]

Using a handful of articles in the press that disparaged the character of Russian Jews (in particular The Bulletin[9]) and the angst over the prospect of mass migration of foreigners during an economic depression, Stratton invents a sweeping anti-Jewish sentiment during this period in order to absolve Jews of any agency for capitulating to racialism. We are left with the bizarre conclusion that anti-Semitism can not only be used to exclude Jews but can also lead to them being included.

Furthermore, it is difficult to see the acceptance of Whiteness by Anglo-Jewry as not being at least partially genuine. Whatever ambivalence may have existed amongst the elite, this did not translate well to the rank-and-file members of the congregation who were clearly quite comfortable with the status-quo. One would not have seen the levels of intermarriage between Jews and gentiles and the extent of assimilation that was occurring if support for the White Australia Policy and the public identification of themselves as only a religious group was nothing more than a cover to protect the Jewish people from the emergence of a destructive anti-Jewish force in Australian politics.

In a strategy of external deception of the outgroup combined with internal cohesion, like the conversos in Spain who continued to secretly practice Judaism after outwardly converting to Catholicism, one would expect the rates of endogamy to remain high.  Instead, intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles during this period was common enough to be utterly unremarkable, signalling a lack of perceived racial difference between the two communities and a genuine acceptance by one another as members of the same stock. At its peak in 1921, 29 percent of Jewish husbands in Australia had a non-Jewish wife and 16 percent of Jewish wives had a non-Jewish husband.[10] Rates of intermarriage were even higher in rural communities with a skewed Jewish male-to-female ratio. Rutland concludes that, far from any negative pressures from gentiles, “the drift away from Judaism in Australia can simply be seen as a result of social factors of free intermixing and a virtual absence of anti-semitism.”[11]

The Fall of the Jewish Paradise

“…during the 1920s Australian Jewry was not a viable community. It was not capable of reproducing itself, and without largescale Jewish immigration would have disappeared in the long run.[12]”

The above quote from Susan Rutland lays bare the costs incurred by Jews through their assimilation into Australia and their acceptance of White identity. Structural assimilation was successfully breaking down the cohesion of the ingroup, and all around the country, Jewish communal organisations were deteriorating and synagogues losing congregants. The extent of intermarriage and assimilation into gentile society by such a small population generally spelt death for the Anglo-Jewish community. Lacking any sudden course corrections, in a few generations there would be almost no Jews left in the country.

Anglo-Jewry was left scrambling for a solution that would not upset the status-quo. Even in the realm of immigration—perhaps their only viable measure for arresting this demographic decline, the position of Anglo-Jewry fell in line with the White majority and government policy, opposed to the large-scale entry of Jews and supportive of the federal government’s attempts to limit the flow of refugees from Europe prior to World War II.

Combined with their snobbish dismissal of the Ostjuden and their destructive political ideas, Anglo-Jewry understood intuitively that the mass entry of Eastern European and non-White Jews into the country threatened to break the stability of Anglo-Jewish identity and the accepted position of Jews in Australia. Sympathetic to concerns that Russian and Eastern European Jews were almost impossible to assimilate en-masse and would form enclaves and bring political strife to Australia, Anglo-Jewry in the end created their own shadow of the White Australia Policy.[13] This prioritised the entry of British Jews, supported immigration quotas and restrictions on the more problematic Eastern European Jews, and felt comfortable with the outright rejection of Jews who could not be classified racially as White—primarily Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East.

If combatting prejudice and anti-Semitism is a motivating force for adopting a ‘culture of critique’ and a radical criticism of gentile society, then a society where Jews benefit from full social equality and a complete acceptance by gentiles is cause for its abandonment. That acceptance comes at the price of assimilation, the end result of which is the eventual disappearance of Jewry, a price that no Jewish community can consciously accept. Seen from this perspective, Anglo-Jewish abandonment of Whiteness and their support for the White Australia Policy was inevitable if they wanted to survive as a separate entity.

A Declaration of War

In the end, the decision was taken out of their hands and salvation to the demographic crisis arrived on the back of the great calamity of the twentieth century. Change came, as so many other political and cultural changes in Australia eventually did, with the waves of Jewish migrants after World War II. The immigration quota system began to break down under sustained domestic and international pressure, in particular from protests from the newcomers known as the ‘Thirty-Niners’, the small trickle of Jewish migrants who managed to gain entry to Australia prior to 1939. The influx eventually saw a wholesale transformation of not just the demographic makeup of the Australian Jewish community, but also a transformation of its leadership structures through the displacement of the conservative Anglo-Jewish elite.

Restless and anxious from the events in Europe, Jewish refugees saw little appeal in behaving like the Anglo-Jews and making themselves seem as little Jewish as possible, forcing a fundamental re-assessment of Jewish identity in Australia. As far as they were concerned, Australia’s careful approach to the entry of Jewish refugees was nothing more than blatant anti-Semitism, a narrative that has persisted to this day. The strict racial barrier of White Australia was no longer a measure the Jewish community could accept, but rather a dangerous mechanism of intolerance that needed to be destroyed, with assimilationist policy merely finishing the job that Hitler started.

Extract from a pamphlet issued by the Australian Jewish Welfare Society to European refugees, encouraging them to assimilate as quickly as possible. Examples such as this were often pointed to by the refugees as evidence of the hostile opinion of Anglo-Jewry.

By this point, unambiguous public protests against the White Australia Policy were starting to emerge from the Jewish community, in particular within newspapers not under control of the Anglo-Jewish establishment. The Sydney Jewish News, founded in 1939 as a direct counter to the conservative Hebrew Standard which maintained the Anglo-Jewish line, is such an example. In a September 1949 edition, the Sydney Jewish News ran with the editorial “The Silence of the Rabbis”, criticising the rabbinical leadership on their refusal to speak against the Wartime Refugees Removal Act (1949)[14] and the intolerance cloaked in the White Australia Policy.[15] The migrant flow alleviated the threatened disappearance of Australian Jewry, but once migration rates had steadied and assimilatory trends reasserted themselves, it wasn’t long before these new Jewish leaders were again starting to worry about the long-term future of their community.

The End of Jewish Whiteness

The entrance of Walter Lippmann as a community leader in the 1960s bookends the transition that occurred within Australian Jewry. As a German Jew originally from a prosperous Hamburg-based family, had Lippman arrived in Australia in the early years of the twentieth century, he would have been classified as a highly-assimilable Jewish migrant who could be expected to effortlessly acclimatise to Anglo-Jewish life. In the aftermath of Hitler and World War II, this could no longer be the case. In an address given to a dinner in his honour in 1971, Lippmann enunciated the new mantra for the Jews of Australia to live by: I believe we are not Australians of the Jewish faith but part of the Jewish people living in Australia.^[16]

As arguably the architect of Australian multiculturalism, it was Lippmann’s unparalleled lobbying, networking, and activist ability that drove the concept far into the depths of the Australian political apparatus. His immense value and influence to the multiculturalist cause came not just from his position inside government bodies but from his community organisation skills where he initiated many of the key connections between future multicultural activists. His organisation, the Australian Jewish Welfare Relief Society (AJWRS), became the template for other ethnic multicultural advocacy groups formed by the Italian and Greek communities during the 1960s, Lippman practically teaching them how to organise and lobby the government on an ethnic basis. It was Lippmann above anyone else who shifted the discussion on cultural pluralism from a method to deal with uncooperative new migrants to an operating principle for the entire Australian society.

Lesser well known is the fact that Lippmann, who arrived in Australia in 1938, began his journey to multiculturalist crusader as a self-taught social scientist, keenly studying the trends in Jewish demography. Between 1966 and 1967, Lippmann carried out a major social survey on the state of the Jewish community in Melbourne, publishing his findings in a paper entitled “The Jewish Family in Melbourne.” The result worried Lippmann and he concluded that the Jewish community of Victoria was

a predominately immigrant community with a high degree of social and economic mobility. At the same time, it revealed a changing character of the community with an emerging Australian-born generation of a high educational level facing the dangers of decimation and possible gradual extinction through low birth rates and rising rates of intermarriage.[17]

Subsequent surveys conducted by Lippmann continued to bear out similar trends. Lippmann discovered that 80 percent of the descendants of the members of the Great Synagogue in Sydney from 80 years ago were no longer Jewish and his concern reached a fever pitch in 1971 when the census revealed that the number of Jews in Australia was again on the decline. One thing was certain to Lippmann and the now invigorated Jewish community, to ensure the long-term survival of the Jews in Australia, the policy of assimilation had to be dismantled and any kind of support for White Australia that was once entertained by Anglo-Jewry was utterly off the table.

Thus, Jews set themselves on a collision course with White Australia and its homogenous, mono-cultural identity. Either these new Jewish migrants would be forced to accept the government policy of assimilation and the racial status-quo carefully negotiated by their Anglo predecessors, and therefore begin down the same path towards dissipation, or Australia would submit to the will of the Jews and accept cultural pluralism, better known as multiculturalism. The end result of this confrontation is now plain to see.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Lopez, The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics: 1945-1975 (Melbourne University Press, 2000).
• Medding, From assimilation to group survival: A political and sociological study of an Australian Jewish community (F W Cheshire, 1969).
• Rutland, Edge of the Diaspora: Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, 2nd ed. (Brandl & Schlesinger, 1997)
  Rutland, The Jews in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
  Stratton, Coming Out Jewish: Constructing Ambivalent Identities (Routledge, 2000).

[1] Rutland, S 1997, Edge of the Diaspora: Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, 2^nd Edition, Brandl & Schlesinger, Rose Bay Australia, p.87.

[2] See Chapters 2 and 3 of The Culture of Critique

[3] Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 12 September 1901, retrieved from: https://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010912_REPS_1_4_c1/

[4] The Hebrew Standard of Australasia 1912, ‘JEWISH LITERARY & DEBATING SOCIETY OF SYDNEY. THE WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY’, Friday 16 August, p. 7, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/13433409

[5] The Jewish Herald 1912, Editorial, Friday 30 August, p.8-9, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/17606706?

[6] The Hebrew Standard of Australasia 1924, ‘Whom to Blame’, Friday August 15, p.2, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/129356428?

[7]The Hebrew Standard of Australasia 1907, ‘The I.C.O in Australia’, Friday 10 May, p.7, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/12623021?

[8] Stratton, J 1996, ‘The Colour of Jews: Jews, Race and the White Australia Policy’, Journal of Australian Studies, Vol.20 No.50-51, p.56

[9] As Windschuttle points out, left-wing academia in Australia has a bad habit of pointing to radical magazines such as The Bulletin as a kind of ‘voice of the nation’ which encapsulated the feelings of the majority. In reality, The Bulletin was a minor publication that hardly had a monopoly on public opinion – see Windschuttle, K 2004, The White Australia Policy: race and shame in the Australian history wars, Macleay Press, Sydney Australia.

[10] Rutland, Op. Cit., p.141

[11] Ibid., p.145

[12] Ibid., p.142

[13] Ibid., p.169

[14] The law, which allowed the government to deport non-Whites who arrived in Australia during the war, was designed to nullify a recent High Court decision which allowed an Indonesian refugee to remain in Australia.

[15] The Sydney Jewish News 1949, ‘The Silence of the Rabbis’, Friday 2 September, p.2, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/261691322

[16] Address by Walter Lippmann to the “Y” club dinner in his honour, re-published by the Australian Jewish News: ‘TRIBUTES TO MR LIPPMANN’, Australian Jewish News, 19 February 1971, p.7.

[17] Markus, A & Taft, M 2016, ‘Walter Lippmann, Transformative Leader,’ Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal, Vol. 23/1, p.93–110, retrieved from: https://collections.ajhs.com.au/Detail/objects/53983

Do you want ethnocentrism? I’ll give you ethnocentrism. Here’s a quote of note that is far less notorious than it should be:

“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”

That was what a rabbi called Yaacov Perrin said in the eulogy he delivered at the funeral of an Israeli doctor called Baruch Goldstein (1956–94). The rabbi was praising Dr Goldstein not for saving lives but for taking them — large numbers of them. On Purim Day 1994, Goldstein had entered a mosque and begun machine-gunning Arabs. He killed at least twenty-nine and injured many more, then was beaten to death by the survivors, as he’d surely known he must be.

Martyr with a machine-gun: the Judeo-fascist Baruch Goldstein (image from Wikipedia)

Whatever else you say about him, you have to admit that Goldstein had the courage of his fascist convictions. Like the Pakistani Muslim Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered a blasphemous politician and then calmly accepted trial and execution, he was a martyr with a machine-gun. And “fascist” is the right word for Goldstein’s ideas. He had been active in the Kach party, a genuinely fascist Jewish movement founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, whom he’d known as a boy growing up in New York. Kahane and Goldstein were both Brooklyn boys, but although they were born in America, they didn’t enter “the melting-pot” so cynically and successfully proclaimed by their fellow Zionist Israel Zangwill. Instead, like Zangwill himself, they were intensely ethnocentric Jews. As adults they emigrated to Israel and campaigned for a truly Zionist state free of all Arabs, all Muslims, and all Christians. Goldstein’s massacre was intended to advance that glorious vision.

A Judeo-fascist kisses Goldstein’s tombstone, which calls him a saint and says “He gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah and land” (image from the Jerusalem Post and Reuters)

Lots of other Jews supported his mass murder of Arabs. Goldstein’s grave, which bears the inscription “He gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah and land,” became a shrine for Judeo-fascists. Samuel Hacohen, a teacher in Jerusalem, said that “Baruch Goldstein was the greatest Jew alive, not in one way but in every way. … There are no innocent Arabs here, and thank God that one Jewish hero reminded us that it had become almost legal to kill Jews in the street. He is the only one who could do it, the only one who was 100 percent perfect. He was not crazy. … Killing isn’t nice, but sometimes it is very necessary.”

Fans of Goldstein in high places

But all that was in 1994 and mainstream Israeli politicians didn’t agree with the eulogies. They unequivocally condemned Goldstein and his fellow Judeo-fascists. This is how the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (1922–95) addressed them:

You are not part of the community of Israel. … You are not part of the national democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law. … We say to this horrible man and those like him: you are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism. (See Baruch Goldstein at Wikipedia)

Thirty years later, Rabin has been assassinated and some powerful Israeli politicians don’t merely refuse to condemn Goldstein’s ideas: they actually support them and regard Goldstein as a martyr. The current Israeli Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir (born 1976), had a portrait of Goldstein in his living room before he entered politics. Ben-Gvir heads a party called Otzma Yehudit, which means “Jewish Power” and is the “ideological descendant” of Meir Kahane’s Kach party. Jewish Power now wields significant influence in the Knesset. For its members and supporters, Baruch Goldstein is not a horrible man but a heroic man. The Jerusalem Post has reported that “10% of Israeli Jews think terrorist Baruch Goldstein is a “national hero’.” Like Rabbi Perrin, they think that “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”

Goldstein fan Itamar Ben-Gvir, current Israeli Minister for National Security (image from Wikipedia)

But as I noted at the beginning, that quote is far less notorious than it should be. It appears in the Wikipedia article devoted to Goldstein, but if you look at the Talk page for the article you’ll see that some Jewish editors tried hard to censor it from the article. Part of Jewish ethnocentrism involves concealing the extent and the intensity of Jewish ethnocentrism. And its nastiness. What Rabbi Perrin said in 1994 was a good example of that nastiness and so is what Stuart Seldowitz said in 2023. Seldowitz, who was director of the highly important National Security Council under Barack Obama, has been recorded harassing an Egyptian-Arab street-vendor in New York. Fingernails also appear in Seldowitz’s ethnocentric nastiness. He smirks and sneers as he tells the vendor:

The Mukhabarat [secret police] in Egypt will get your parents. Does your father like his fingernails? They’ll take them out one by one. (See video at Twitter)

The smirking and sneering Stuart Seldowitz #1

The smirking and sneering Stuart Seldowitz #2

The smirking and sneering Stuart Seldowitz #3

He then asks the vendor “Do you rape your daughter like Muhammad?” and tells him that some people “use the Quran as a toilet.” Seldowitz has a highly unpleasant face to go with his highly unpleasant mind. And minds like his — Jewish minds — have been in charge of American foreign policy for decades. The vendor repeatedly asks him to go, but he replies: “Why should I go? I’m an American. It’s a free country. Not like Egypt.” But his claim to be American is contradicted by something else he says: “If we killed 4,000 Palestinian children, it wasn’t enough.” Who is “we”? It’s Israel that is bombing the Gaza Strip and killing Palestinian children, not America.

Destroying America

And in spirit, at least, Seldowitz contradicts his own claim that “America is a free country.” He takes a photograph of the vendor and says that “my friends in immigration” will deport the vendor back to Egypt, where he’ll be arrested by the fingernail-removing Mukhabarat. Even if Seldowitz doesn’t have the power to do that, it’s obviously what he’d like to be able to do. Indeed, Seldowitz would obviously like to be able to arrest and torture his enemies in America. Jews like him were what Kevin McDonald has called “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” in the communist Soviet Union. They were Stalin’s willing torturers too. Seldowitz himself is undoubtedly leftist and fully in support of open borders for Muslims and other non-Whites. As he said after being criticized for harassing the vendor: “I don’t think I’m an Islamophobic guy. I’ve spoken up for equal treatment of Muslims on numerous occasions with numerous different people.”

But if he’s spoken up for Muslims, it’s because he thinks it’s good for Jews to have large numbers of Muslims in the West. As the late great Larry Auster wrote way back in 2004:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Front Page Magazine, 22^nd June, 2004)

But Auster missed another Jewish motive for opening the borders of Western nations to Muslims. The Muslim terrorism that inevitably followed has justified ever harsher laws against free speech and an ever more intrusive surveillance state. When Jewish propagandists claim that “Diversity is our strength,” they’re using the phrase in an Orwellian sense. The chaos and crime caused by Third-World migrants weakens White gentiles and strengthens Jewish power. Indeed, the war between Israel and Hamas has granted British Whites the richly comic sight of an ethnocentric Jew demanding arrests for thought-crime while using an image of George Orwell to proclaim his own virtue:

Orwell-fans at Harry’s Place demand that non-White Muslims be arrested for thought-crime

Harry’s Place is a supposedly Orwell-friendly anti-jihadist website run by a former Jewish Stalinist who used the nom de guerre of Harry Steele (“steel” is the English translation of Stalin). Mr Steele abandoned his Stalinism when he noticed the increasing threat posed by Islamism to Jewish interests. But his loudly proclaimed love of Orwell is humbug, because he’s obviously kept his belief in authoritarianism and a police state from his Stalinist days. It just that he now wants a police state run on behalf of Jews rather than the communist party.

The right kind of fascism

The Jews Harry Steele and Stuart Seldowitz are both no doubt implacably opposed to any ban on Muslim immigration into the West, let alone to deportation of Muslims currently residing here. They would call that kind of thing “fascism,” but what they would really mean is that it’s the wrong kind of fascism. Rather than keeping Muslims out, they want Muslims let in to cause trouble and justify a police-state in which Muslims are arrested and jailed if they act against Jewish interests. Remember that Muslim immigration vastly increased in America after the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, which were blamed on Muslims but may have taken place with the full knowledge and even direct participation of Israel.

9/11 was used to justify not just mass surveillance of Western populations, but also the detention and torture of large numbers of Muslims, some of whom were entirely innocent. However, when Muslims act against White interests, there is no stern action from the state. Jewish control of Western politics means not only that innocent Muslims are tortured but also that guilty Muslims remain free. But only if they’re guilty of crimes against Whites. When he was Labour MP for the Yorkshire constituency of Rotherham, the repulsive Denis MacShane worked tirelessly for Jews in far-off London while ignoring what Muslim rape-gangs were doing to White working-class women and girls in his own constituency.

Business as Jewsual

After he was jailed for fraud, the Jewish Chronicle saluted him as “one of the community’s greatest champions” and said that “we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace.” MacShane was supposedly in politics to champion the White working-class as part of the Labour party, but the Labour party long ago abandoned its founding principles and became an enemy of the White working-class. When Jeremy Corbyn was unexpectedly elected party-leader, he didn’t reverse that betrayal. But he did commit a horrible crime. He refused to make Jewish interests the first and overwhelming priority of the party. That’s why he was endlessly vilified by the mass media and eventually replaced as leader by the slippery lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, who is married to a Jew, has “family in Israel,” and runs Labour as it should be run: as a vehicle for Jewish interests.

Like the Conservative leader Rishi Sunak, Starmer is firmly behind Israel in its war with Hamas. After the aberration of Corbynism, British politics is back to business as Jewsual: working tirelessly for Jews and just as tirelessly against Whites. That’s why the so-called Conservative party entered power promising to cut immigration and has instead allowed immigration to increase massively. At the same time, it provides unlimited support to an Israeli government containing politicians who want Israel to be “free from the river to the sea.” Free of Arabs, Muslims and Christians, that is. Is that fascism? Yes, it is, but it’s the right kind of fascism: the Judeo-fascism for which Baruch Goldstein slaughtered Arabs and became a Jewish saint. Always remember: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” Many Jews have always thought the same about Whites. That’s why Jewish control of Western politics has been such a disaster.

‘In Dublin’s fair city’, runs the first line of the Irish folk song Molly Malone, ‘where the girls are so pretty’. Dublin lives up to that description, or at least it did. Since its prime, however, and victim as it now is to a nationwide political program in which its famously friendly people had no say, the city is evolving along darker lines, and the pace of change received an accelerant last week. At least one Dublin girl is unlikely to be as pretty as she was.

Events on Thursday, November 23 were depressingly familiar for two reasons. That afternoon, a man knifed three children and a woman outside a Dublin school. Rumors quickly spread that the attacker was Algerian which, in keeping with the modern world, was both true and not true.

A man arrested in connection with the attack was described by the authorities as ‘an Irish citizen who had been in the country 20 years’, which is the passport-and-paperwork definition. He is also originally from Algeria, which was the definition many ordinary Irish people were more interested in. At the time of writing, a five-year-old girl and a teacher are still in serious condition in hospital. The little girl had her throat cut, among other wounds. Had the man still been in his native Algeria, one assumes the little girl would not now be fighting for life.

Context is required. While this event would probably be unexceptional in some American cities, and not even that rare in London, this is Dublin, almost a byword for conviviality, easy relations even between strangers, and a popular tourist destination for those very reasons. I have visited three times (although not for many years) and could have vouched for an interpersonal warmth that is a come-hither tourist brochure all its own. However, the Dublin Tourist Board will have an increasingly tough task to entice visitors after last week.

Later that same evening, the unprovoked and bloody stranger attacks were the catalyst for rioting which, although modest by BLM standards in the USA, was shocking seen on the streets of Dublin. Police cars, a tram and a bus were burned out, fireworks were shot at the Garda (the Irish police force), and shops were looted. A migrant center was also torched, an action seized on by the media as evidence of something far more to be feared than a mere maniac with a knife: Nationalism.

With the terrible synchronicity often incorrectly called irony, the epicenter of the rioting was on Parnell Street, named for nineteenth-century Irish nationalist politician Charles Parnell. The stabbings themselves took place on Parnell Square East. Nationalism was a main undercurrent of these disturbances, although in a way that would have puzzled Parnell.

The response to the rioting from the politico-media complex was as immediate and forceful as any of the famous Irish popular uprisings. What is now commonly referred to as ‘the narrative’ – a word with its classical roots in ‘story-telling’ – was assembled rapidly even by media standards, and a televised speech was quickly and solemnly made by Ireland’s premier, and to say it implicitly but aggressively defended untrammeled immigration would be under-statement not natural to those affectionately known as Paddy. The Irish premier is called the Taoiseach (pronounced tea-schock) and the incumbent, Leo Varadkar, is half-caste, his father having been a Bombay-born Indian, his mother a white Dubliner.

This may seem incidental, but could also be a factor when it comes to organizing political priorities concerning immigration, and is certainly not rare for the British Isles. Britain’s Prime Minister is a Hindu, Scotland’s First Minister and the Mayor of London are both Muslims. Varadkar’s immigrant lineage instantiates a problem hard-wired into politicians from familial backgrounds outside their adopted nations. They believe that their own success proves incontrovertibly that immigration is good in itself. It must be, they think. Just look at me! Affirmative action, for many of the duskier members of the British political class, is just something that happens to other people.

Varadkar’s speech was shockingly skewed. In passing, he referred to the attack on a little girl then in intensive care, and the care assistant who bravely defended her, for 42 seconds compared with the 4min 20 he took denouncing the ‘far right’ that he held responsible for the subsequent rioting. One attack, he said, took place ‘on innocent children’, the other on ‘our society and the rule of law’. The ‘far right’ became the media trope immediately connected with the riotous evening, punctuating most headlines. I wrote here at The Occidental Observer about the chimera of the British far right. If it doesn’t exist, however, politicians are finding it expedient to invent it and act as though they wish ordinary folk to believe it does.

As always, the media echo ran to form, taking its lead from globalist mob-bosses. The ‘far-right’ were the main concern here, not a psychotic Algerian who had notably failed to integrate (integration being the Holy Grail of open-borders promoters, and equally mythical) after two decades. Many headlines featured the phrase ‘far-right’, without even the precautionary scare quotes, and a pre-fabricated narrative was simply flown in like a theater set, as Times Radio exemplifies. And stateside, whereas the US media portrayed the anarchistic fire dances of the BLM riots as though they were a provincial bar fight, the Dublin rioting was portrayed by CNN as though it were Dresden after the RAF bombed it in World War II. And this, the Irish were told, was the direct result of what Dublin Police Commissioner Drew Harris claimed as ‘far-right ideology’. His parroting of the official line, however, brought an interesting voice into play, one from which the media commissars were not expecting to hear.

Ireland — or Éire, to give its original Gaelic name — is known for its nationalistic heroes, both mythological and very real, and perhaps Conor McGregor sees himself in that legendary role. McGregor is a successful boxer and Mixed Martial Arts fighter much respected in Ireland, particularly among its fighting-age men, and his response to the Dublin riots on social media caused the Left to hit the canvas, floored by Tweets stating, as an example, that ‘Ireland is at war’, alongside criticism of the police commissioner noted above. There has been talk of McGregor running for office after he came out of his social media corner throwing punches. There is also a lot of chatter – or ‘blarney’, as the Irish call it – indicating that the police may be investigating McGregor for ‘hate speech’, of which more later.

Conor McGregor: We Are Not Losing Any More Women & Children to Twisted People Who Should Not Be in Ireland https://t.co/P56hN6THA1

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 24, 2023

The riotous response to the Dublin knife attack was not spontaneous combustion. This was a light touched to flammable material already piled high by two other recent crimes in Ireland. The murder of 23-year-old teacher Ashling Murphy last year, and the murder and beheading of two gay men also in 2022. Both committed by immigrants, these killings had already sickened a nation always grateful to have (mostly) avoided the violent horrors of Northern Ireland during The Troubles.

With these slayings in recent memory, the butchery of small children outside a school was just a little too rich for Irish blood, with results that the media reported along ideological lines becoming all too familiar. Initial speculation also showed another cardinal rule of media narration: If a foreigner commits a violent crime, it’s likely mental health issues. If an indigenous person commits a violent crime, it’s definitely far-right ideology.

People who are fearful for their communities and say as much are branded as far right, immigrants of whatever stripe enter as victims and saints as soon as they set foot on the Emerald Isle. And if an immigrant saint were needed for the narrative, surely the media could find one.

And it did!

The story had a twist the media were overjoyed to use. The knifeman was tackled by a number of passers-by, but the man who became a hero to the press overnight was a Brazilian immigrant working for a food-delivery company. I wouldn’t want to take anything away from him, as he stopped his bike when he saw the carnage unfolding, battered the attacker with his crash-helmet, and is obviously a brave man. But others were involved, already forgotten, and it is curious that an appeal set up for the Brazilian via Go Fund Me has so far raised more than one set up for the critically injured. The message is uncomplicated. Even if one immigrant tries to kill children with a large knife, the presence of another who helps stop that is worth more. Write that down, children.

Speaking of the knife attacks in Dublin and the resultant evening of anarchy, the president of political party Sinn Féin (forever linked inextricably with the IRA, or Irish Republican Army) said something so irresistibly Irish it was comic even amid the tragedy. “This the last thing you would expect to happen in Dublin on a Thursday afternoon”, she said, implying that it would have been just so Dublin on a Wednesday or a Friday, or possibly after Sunday mass. But the surprise element of the attacks has been put to good use by the Irish political class, a franchise of globalism as they so clearly are.

The Irish version of the deep state seems to have been instructed to use the Dublin attacks as an urgent catalyst for legislation which has in fact been coming for some time. This is validation for the hate-speech laws for which Ireland seems to have been chosen by the EU to road-test. Dublin incident even provided one of those. As PM Varadkar happily noted, “The bill would give the government more power to prosecute individuals who post “reckless” comments or memes that “incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons.”

The political imperative never to let a good crisis go to waste has been variously attributed, but the political class today may as well have it tattooed on their arms. Within 24 hours of the knifing of children in broad daylight outside a school in a peaceable city, the attendant political advantage had been picked up and booted like a rugby ball. Ireland’s Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022 is the harshest in Europe, and there is a sense that Ireland is being used, as scientists used to write in Latin, in laboratorio, just to test how things proceed, given the theory. But the bill has been easing its way through the Irish political process for a while, slinking by and trying not to attract attention. As with many of these Orwellian additions to legal systems that worked perfectly well before, there is a sense that the political class would like to hurry things along.

This is what is being proposed:

“Racism and xenophobia are direct violations of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles upon which the European Union is founded and which are common to the Member States.”

One of the punishable crimes relating to “xenophobia” is merely “the commission of an act referred to in point (a) by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material,” which can roughly apply to political pamphlets criticizing the influx of immigrants and refugees in Ireland.

But don’t worry. It’s for your own good: In June, Irish Green Party Sen. Pauline O’Reilly was panned for a speech defending the bill in which she admitted, “We are restricting freedom, but we’re doing it for the common good.”

Now there have even been suggestions that such legislation might be applied retrospectively. I had to have a second look at that. If I were a cartoon character, I would have rubbed my eyes. This is what it means:

You performed action x in 2014, when action x was not illegal.

A law has just been passed in 2023 making action x illegal.

You are under arrest for action x performed in 2014.

Is there not something tremendously wrong in this warping of the law to defy time itself? It is obvious who this archeologically applied legislation will be applied to, and they will include those on Parnell Street protesting the slaughter of innocents.

So, then. From Dublin’s fair city to a very unfair city indeed, at the risk of sounding childish. Everyone has heard a child complain – and may even have been that child — that a parental decision which has not gone their way is ‘not fair’. We recognize the charge of ‘unfairness’ as a childish response to minor disappointment, and we smile. What has happened to Dublin, however, is not fair in a far deeper sense than the small concerns of children, or ‘childer’, as the unreconstructed accent of older Irish people would say it.

It is not fair to the White Irish, who planted a beautiful, historical seed of a city through their own communitarian instincts and watched it blossom into one of the most popular tourist magnets in Europe, and at one time a beautiful place to live, vibrant with creativity rather than sullen Muslims and blacks. It is not fair to the very old and the very young, who are now just that little bit more frightened to walk familiar streets than they were. Even the Sky News’ report includes vox pop saying that Dublin city center is not now safe to walk at night. And it is certainly not fair to combined notions of race, nationhood, and sovereignty, which are not yesterday’s focus-group wheeze, but have grown by accretion and patriotic attention for centuries.

In what used to be called ‘olden times’, if a country was invaded, it not only had the right to defend itself and repel invaders, its men were commanded to do so by the monarch. Now, those voices of command issue from castles in different countries from that being invaded, and with different instructions. The enemy does not stand outside the gates now, but is active inside, voted in as they were by a populace they successfully duped. ‘Better a thousand enemies outside the house’, runs an Arab proverb, ‘than one inside’.

Legend has it that there are no snakes in Ireland due to their expulsion by St. Patrick in the fifth century, an early example of pest-control, perhaps. The Irish — the real Irish, not arrivistes granted Irish passports — are beginning to approve of his methods. But that apparent absence of venomous serpents on the Emerald Isle very much depends on where you look for them. I suggest starting with the nest of vipers which is the Irish political class.