Embrace of Diversity is “Morally Abhorrent” Say Jews

Diversity Macht Frei
June 13, 2018

For years Jews have been preaching diversity to the rest of us. Now a Jew has finally preached it to his own – and found himself immediately excoriated by fellow tribe members as “morally abhorrent”.

The Jew in question is Michael Chabon, apparently a famous Jewish novelist. I should probably feel guilty about not knowing that but somehow I just don’t. This title from his oeuvre does look interesting, though. Maybe I’ll throw that one a read.

Chablon gave a speech based on a simple principle: What’s good for the Goyim is good for the Chosen. But other Jews weren’t having it. Three Jewish professors immediately wrote an angry riposte.

Surpassing the widely held view that the intermarried, their children and their non-Jewish family members ought to be welcomed warmly by the Jewish community, Chabon took the next step — or shall we say, the next giant leap. He inveighed against inmarriage itself as a desirable aspiration, as a sacred Jewish norm and as an effective instrument of Jewish continuity.

His words bear repeating, much as it pains us to write them:

An endogamous marriage is a ghetto of two. … It draws a circle around the married couple, inscribes them – and any eventual children who come along – within a figurative wall of tradition, custom, shared history, and a common inheritance of chromosomes and culture.”

Chabon urged the HUC-JIR graduates and their parents to abandon advocacy for Jewish-Jewish marriage, rejecting the view that Jewish homes with a single group identity are critical to raising Jewishly committed and Judaically competent children.

Chabon extolled the virtues of outmarriage, declaring himself a devotee of “mongrels, syncretism, integrated neighborhoods, open borders, pastiche and collage,” and, above all, “miscegenation as the source of all greatness.”

It is important to recognize that Chabon’s call to abandon inmarriage is a symbol of his larger, more grandiose objective. Promoting intermarriage was the opening shot in a drive to dismantle Judaism and put an end to the ostensibly inherent and inevitable injustices he insists religion perpetuates.
Not only is Judaism responsible for religious prejudice around the world, it is also responsible for its own demise: If Judaism disappears from the earth, Chabon asserted, “the fault for that extinction will lie squarely with Judaism itself.”

Chabon seemed content, even disturbingly relaxed, imagining the end of Judaism.

“If Judaism should ever pass from the world,” he said, “it won’t be the first time in history … that a great and ancient religion lost its hold on the moral imaginations of is adherents.”


There is a plangent irony in seeing these professors attempt to explain why Chablon is wrong. Substitute “white people” for Jews and their words could have come from an Alt Right blog.

Chabon’s assault on the positive salience of Jewish difference is dangerous, morally abhorrent and factually incorrect on at least four verifiable counts.

We can all, like Chabon, love “pastiche and collage,” but distinctions are necessary to life and health, judgment and morality – to say nothing about science, families, communities and nations.

Finally, religious “syncretism,” which Chabon embraced, erodes ethnoreligious viability.

Chabon naively envisions a utopian world where through wholesale intermarriage of all races, nationalities and creeds, all of humanity will be homogenized into a single “mongrelized” blandness. In practice, since Jews are a minuscule minority worldwide, this prescription would yield the disappearance of Diaspora Jews and Judaism. Christian denominations would be untouched. Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam would be unperturbed. The world with all its divisiveness would hardly notice — but it would be a world without Jews.

For Jews, applying the Golden Rule in reverse – “Treat yourself as you treat others” – is a nightmarish prospect. And you can understand why.