Here is a partial transcript:
Luke: “Are Jews part of the West?”
Kevin: “A lot of Jews don’t identify with the West. From the genetic point of view, there’s substantial admixture but the key thing is psychological. I’ve got a couple of writers for The Occidental Observer who are Jewish [such as Marcus Alethia] and they identify with the West. I don’t think the mainstream Jewish community identifies with the West. If they did, they wouldn’t advocate for massive non-white immigration which will obliterate the West.”
Vivian: “What are your thoughts on Holocaust revisionism?”
Kevin: “I’ve never had sympathy for it. I’ve never seen anything in it that convinces me. I’ve never delved into it. It’s not important to me… Whether it actually happened, how many, it is not something you can go there anymore. It’s a third rail.”
Vivian: “What are your personal feelings towards Hitler?”
Kevin: “I think long-term he was a disaster. His only personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military goals in WWII. He thought of himself as a general and interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals. That was a disaster.”
“If you look at the old newsreels from the 1930s, the people loved Hitler. He developed a sense of a unified nation. That was an incredible accomplishment, it’s just unfortunate how they used it. The result of WWII has given us the triumph of the Left. It was critically important for the rise of Jewish influence and can’t be undone.”
Vivian: “What type of world would we have if the Axis had won [WWII]?”
Kevin: “…It would have been bad for the Jews in Europe. I don’t think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-whites. Europe would have remained a white Christian-based civilization.”
KC: “It makes me scratch my head about what I know and how I came to know it.”
Kevin: “Questions of Jewish influence are the last stop for many people. Organizations like American Renaissance, these people are into white identity and they take race seriously, and that is easy… People can see black failure and grasp that immigration is a disaster for white America. But when you get to Jewish influence, it is more difficult. You have to do some reading… I’ve said people shouldn’t even talk about Jews unless they have an IQ over 120 and read a lot.”
“You don’t have to sell this to the masses. Whenever I see someone who doesn’t have an IQ of 120 [discuss The Jewish Question], it gets so simplified. I don’t identify. It gives me the creeps. I don’t like to read it. I’d hate to think that I have anything to do with introducing people to that.”
“All people on the Alt Right who are leaders are aware of Jewish issues. Some won’t say it for tactical reasons, but they get it because I’ve talked to these people. They understand. There is an intellectual elite forming among whites that is conscious about Jewish issues. At the same time, nobody is talking about gas chambers. Instead, people talk about asserting their own interests and hoping there is a change in the Jewish community. Jews are flexible in their own attitudes. They will change if need be. Maybe they will start to see their interests as lying with the West rather than these Muslims that they are importing.”
KC: “If Jews become the last stand against empire, against globalism, against complete totalitarianism…”
“The argument isn’t over and hasn’t been won but we all move in this direction. The clearest example is the 1965 immigration act. There was no groundswell for it. And yet it happened and now it is the dogma in America. I don’t know how that happens. We didn’t even start the argument let alone finish it and now it is taboo to even revisit it.”
Kevin: “It is frustrating. That’s the case in every Western country. Immigration was never demanded from below. It was always the elites pushing this… In every case, there was big Jewish involvement. It was an assault on the American people.”
KC: “I have a couple of neo-con friends who refuse to accept the idea that different groups have different interests. They are attached to constitutionalism. I don’t have enough examples to demonstrate different group interests.”
Kevin: “Neocons are terrified that people will start saying that Israel and the United States have different interests, but if you talk to any reasonable foreign policy person, they will grant that no two countries have identical interests. Latinos want big government, strong welfare policies, easy immigration policies. That’s a conflict of interest with the white majority which pays more taxes and doesn’t benefit in the long run from this immigration. You could argue that Jews and non-Jews don’t have any conflicts of interests but they certainly perceive they do. Historically, Jews have been conditioned…around suffering and persecution at the hands of Christians and Europeans and they feel that they have conflicts of interest. They don’t identify with the West. They don’t identify as white European.”
“People feel safe if they can say it’s in the Constitution. Democracy. Human rights. Those freedoms in the Constitution are going to be thrown away if the wrong people get in charge of this country. If you get a non-white majority, they may gut the Constitution.”
KC: “The inculcation of white guilt depends upon a certain pride in the white person. I’m so bad that secretly I’m pretty good.”
Kevin: “There is a sense of how powerful whites are — holding sway over the world — and we have to straighten ourselves out because we’re responsible for everything.”
Luke: “Kevin, some people have boiled down your Jewish trilogy to this sentence: Jews are genetically driven to destroy gentiles. Is that a fair summary of your work?”
Kevin: “No. I wrote a book called, A Culture of Critique, because I believe strongly that culture is important. What we have done is create a culture in which Western peoples have been attacked. Jews are not genetically driven to that. A lot of it has to do with how Jews think of themselves in an historical context. Jews get this idea that they are persecuted by Christians, by Europeans, and if they got a more contextualized version of history, they might see both sides more and they might identify with Europeans rather than with these Muslim immigrants, African [immigrants] swarming into Europe now. I would like to see Jewish elites change course. Stop the policies they have been pursuing so successfully since WWII and start a new course in which they affirm the right of Western peoples to their own lands, their own culture, and their own identity. That’s a cultural shift. Jews can go any way. They are not automatically and inevitably engaged in hostility towards Europeans…but it is ingrained and hard to change and I don’t see it happening.”
Luke: “What do you think of Amy Chua’s ‘The Triple Package‘ theory?”
Kevin: “It applies to Jews most of all… It is probably truer of the immigrant Jewish generation… Jews saw the Protestant elite trying to keep them out… So they had a big chip on their shoulder and so they broke through on all that. There’s a sense that that has dissipated.”
“I haven’t emphasized insecurity in my writings at all. It is probably something that I should look into but I have talked about impulse control and intelligence.”
“When there’s an elite, you can’t break into that elite very easily and you can be excluded from that elite very easily. The Protestant elite did not like the Jewish interlopers so they drew up the bridges and tried to keep them out but it didn’t work in part because Jews could create their own economic institutions… They did an end run… Now we have a Jewish elite but we can’t even talk about them. In the 1950s, there were a lot of criticisms about the WASP elite in America but now if you criticize the Jewish elite, you’re a horrible person.”
Luke: “How much has your musical background helped your work on Jews by enabling you to spot the dissonance?”
Kevin: “I don’t know that it made any difference.”
KC: “There is a term for architecture known as the international style. It was largely Jewish influenced. Big square boxes with no adornments and no interesting characteristics other than just tall and pragmatic.”
The gradual rise of the Nazi regime in Weimar Germany in the 1930s, and the Nazis’ rejection of modern architecture, meant that an entire generation of avant-gardist architects, many of them Jews, were forced out of continental Europe. Some, such as Mendelsohn, found shelter in England, while a considerable number of the Jewish architects made their way to Palestine, and others to the USA. However, American anti-Communist politics after the war and Philip Johnson’s influential rejection of functionalism have tended to mask the fact that many of the important architects, including contributors to the original Weissenhof project, fled to the Soviet Union. This group also tended to be far more concerned with functionalism and its social agenda. Bruno Taut, Mart Stam, the second Bauhaus director Hannes Meyer, Ernst May and other important figures of the International Style went to the Soviet Union in 1930 to undertake huge, ambitious, idealistic urban planning projects, building entire cities from scratch. In 1936, when Stalin ordered them out of the country, many of these architects became stateless and sought refuge elsewhere; for example, Ernst May moved to Kenya…
In July 1994, UNESCO proclaimed the White City of Tel Aviv a World Heritage Site, describing the city as “a synthesis of outstanding significance of the various trends of the Modern Movement in architecture and town planning in the early part of the 20th century”. Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 by European Jewish settlers, who erected the first buildings on sand dunes outside the inhabited ancient Arab town of Jaffa. A large proportion of the buildings built in the International Style can be found in the area planned by Patrick Geddes, north of Tel Aviv’s main historical commercial center. Geddes laid out the streets and decided on block size and utilization. His plan was to create a garden city, but in a more compact form than in England. He did not prescribe an architectural style for the buildings in the new city, though he himself favoured architectural eclecticism. The impetus for large-scale construction in the new style came from the rapid influx of European Jewish immigrants (who grew in numbers from about 2,000 in 1914 to about 150,000 in 1937). In the 1930s, new architects and architectural ideas were to converge on Tel Aviv to satisfy a burgeoning, relatively prosperous population with European tastes.
By 1933 many Jewish architects who had studied at the German Bauhaus school, which was closed down on the orders of the Nazi Party, fled to the British Mandate of Palestine. But there were also other architects arriving from the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Poland, but had studied in avant-gardist schools in Moscow, France and Italy. The residential and public buildings were designed by these architects, who took advantage of the absence of established architectural conventions to put the principles of modern architecture into practice. The Bauhaus principles, with their emphasis on functionality and inexpensive building materials, were perceived as ideal in Tel Aviv. The architects fleeing Europe combined their Bauhaus or Functionalist ideas with the architectural ideals of Le Corbusier. Among notable architects were Erich Mendelsohn, who belonged to the Expressionist school and who was active in Jerusalem in the 1930s, Carl Rubin, who had worked in Mendelsohn’s office, Oskar Kaufmann, Jehuda Magidovitch, Dov Karmi, Zeev Rechter, Richard Kaufmann and Arieh Sharon.
A Modernist insult to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice
These metal girders are supposed to be a memorial to the war dead of NewZealand pic.twitter.com/jNRg2QaBhM
— ArchitecturalRevival (@Arch_Revival_) August 2, 2017
Kevin: “The most important strand of Jewish intellectual activity has been anti-nationalist against European nationalism of any kind so it makes sense that they would come up with an architecture that wasn’t linked to any people or place and was universal.”
“There is a sense that Jews have dominated the dialogue in all sides of an issue. I remember Wilhelm Marr writing in 1870 in Germany and he was complaining there was a cultural issue going on to do with the Catholic church but all the voices arguing in the media were Jewish. Not so much now with the rise of the alternative media. Twitter has been a godsend.”
“I get some respectful letters [from Jews]. I’ve never rejected Jewish dialogue or Jewish involvement, even on the Alt Right. I get criticized for that. I publish Jews…who believe that it is best for Jews to be on page with white Europeans. I’m happy to publish that. I’m in contact with Jewish college students. One is an Orthodox Jew. He asked me about the NPI Conference and he asked me where the meeting was because he wanted to make sure he could walk from his hotel to the meeting because he can’t drive on Saturday. These guys are strong Zionists. They don’t deny that white people have similar rights to be nationalistic and hold down certain territory.”
Luke: “I believe you began your evolutionary publishing with a paper on wolves. Was there anything you learned from studying wolves that you could apply to Jews?”
Kevin: “My adviser for my PhD was Benson Ginsburg, who was Jewish. He had the idea that wolves were a better model for human groups than monkeys because they were very group oriented. I went to his house and he was a strong Zionist. His daughter became a Zionist activist. I did get that feeling a little bit, partly through him, that wolves had a strong sense of in-group vs out-groups. Wolf packs will fight each other over territory. They are very loyal to their pack and they will sacrifice their own reproduction to stay in the pack… There is a sense of groupness there and maybe that’s where the whole thing came from.
“In evolutionary biology, it became a dogma that groups didn’t exist and weren’t important for evolution. I didn’t believe it and maybe it was partly because of wolves. I started to get on the idea that human groups weren’t all the same and I picked Jews as a group to study because there was so much written on them and they had this strong sense of group cohesion. I made the argument that Jewish group structure resulted in selection between groups.”
Luke: “Parasites occur in nature. Is it a useful category for thinking about how human groups relate?”
Kevin: “I don’t use the word ‘parasite’ much but you can make the analogy… I don’t think calling Jews ‘parasites’ in the contemporary United States makes any sense at all. For one thing, the Jewish community is diversified. The vast majority are not involved in financial exploitation. You can make certain analogies. One thing that struck me is that there are parasites that attack insects, worms, etc, and they get the animal to behave in a way for its own interests. It’s like they invade the animal’s brain and get the animal to behave in a way that is not in the animal’s interest but in the interests of the parasites. It is a striking analogy when you think about Jewish intellectual movements that I talk about in Culture of Critique that take over the nerve center of the brain of the West and program it in a way that is not in the interests of Europeans but in the interests of people who are doing this. The brains of the West have been hijacked and these Jewish intellectual movements have all been top down, all been elite, have involved few Jews but have had wide influence in academia and media and that has had dramatic effects on Western culture. I see these intellectual movements as parasitic in that sense.”
KC: “When I showed up to graduate school at age 23, all the incentives were to quote these French theorists — Foucault and Derrida. It was hard to resist that because you saw how easy your path would be if you would do that, even if you didn’t understand it or believe it.”
“I can see defending Swedish nationalism or German nationalism, but America seems like this amalgamation of people who’ve given up their ancient prejudices and manners. They’re effectively deracinated.”
Kevin: “There was a sense of American nationalism. America thought of itself as a white country.”
“The whole field of evolutionary psychology is built around the idea that individual differences are not important. Group differences are not important. That all we should be studying are these universal adaptations. My work, even though it got good reviews, it never took off. It’s a typical academic thing where you purge people whose ideas aren’t congruent with the mainstream.”
“[For professional pundits] you can go as far left as you like unless you oppose Israel and you can go as far right as the neo-conservatives.”
“Obama was very unpopular with the Israel Lobby in part because he was an honest leftist. He doesn’t resonate to the idea of any kind of nationalism, including Jewish nationalism. That only came out in his second term.”
“As someone who wants a white homeland, I have no problem with Israel as an idea, as a sense of nationalism and a Jewish state. The only problem is that the Jewish community in this country has acted in opposition to the idea that there should be any white states anywhere in the world and that is unforgivable. It’s a horrible disaster for us.”
“Nationalisms inevitably compete. The only rational aspect for what is happening in Europe right is the fear of what happened with National Socialism. That you had a disaster based ultimately on nationalism and so we have to get rid of nationalism. I think it is fine to have a European Union of those states and for European nations to lose some sovereignty for that but if you mix that with this migration program, it is suicide. The EU is a good idea that needs to be reformed.”
Luke: “What would happen to Jews if whites were educated in their ethnic interests and were educated in the long track record of large segments of the Jewish community in setting up a cultural agenda that is shaping gentile nations.”
Kevin: “I don’t think identifying as white is bound up with murderous hostility. Most whites don’t have the stomach for that and even if they became strongly identifying as whites… That’s strongly conditional on Jews changing their ways. I’d like see a change in the Jewish community. A mea culpa. Jews are very powerful. If they used their power to rectify the situation, we would be in a different space right now. It didn’t matter that Jews were an elite. It mattered that they had interests that they saw as opposed to our interests. The problem is the conflict of interests. That Jews think it is in their interest to have multicultural [gentile] states. It is not in our interest to have these diverse multicultural societies. Jews could change that. I am a firm believer in the ability of our higher brain centers to overcome our evolutionary tendencies from the past.”
Luke: “Why do you think the Alt Right is filled with so many petty feuds and destructive purity spiraling?”
Kevin: “It’s sad to see it. I hate it. I have avoided it to a great extent. I’ve tried to build bridges and not condemn people. I’ve tried to understand things that have happened and not vilify and not exclude. Sometimes the feuds get so extreme that you have to take sides. There are some people I don’t want to associate with. I don’t like people who have swastikas on their websites and identify with Nazism. It’s a non-starter in an American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people and give up the national socialist idea of the past, which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don’t think it was well lead. We have to get away from them. It’s bad PR. I try to make bridges where I can.”
Luke: “Which article did you publish that you hesitated over the most before publishing? I’m thinking about the one speculating that some Jews had fore-knowledge of 9/11?”
Kevin: “Yes, that’s the one. I do believe that there were Jews in America who were working with Mossad and keeping tabs on the terrorists but that it nowhere near where some of these people go. They have the idea that the whole thing was planned. That the building was wired with explosives. That there was active Jewish involvement in this thing and I don’t see evidence for that. I did publish one article that I probably regret.”
“I really enjoyed talking with you. My own interests now are writing a book on Europeans, who are more complicated than Jews. You have 2,000 years of history and trying to make sense of it from an evolutionary point of view is difficult. I’m making progress.
“This was a high level conversation. I think you guys are asking the right questions.”
Luke: “I find it interesting how much your own identity as a white American has been shaped by your research on Jews.”
Kevin: “It has been. When I started this, I was a Reagan Republican. But when I saw the intense group consciousness of Jews and started to see Jewish actions that I felt were against the interests of Europeans, I really changed. Writing those three books made me a white advocate. A lot of people came to this because they had some bad experiences with Jews or their father was an anti-Semite. None of that happened to me. It was all reading books.”
I finally watched KM’s video last night.
And the best passage in my view was precisely the one where he answers your question about Andrew Joyces description of Jewish behaviour as parasitical.
And when you mentioned the fact that parasites exist in nature, KM, to my great surprise, made exactly the same comparison I made when I commented on a post on your facebook, where I mentioned insects and other creatures who act as mentally controlling parasites. Kevin said the comparison was apt if you look at the larger picture and he himself mentioned the same mentally controlling creatures I had mentioned. I was floored to see he, obviously, had thought about the topic before.
Can I give you a few suggestions for possible topics for your next videos?
1- Knowing what we know about the Jewish Question, Is it worth it for Whites to keep Jews among them? 2 – The openly genocidal Book of Joshua: Is the Book of Joshua the practice while the Torah is the theory of what Judaism is all about? 3 – You Luke has interviewed people like Kevin Mac and Greg Johson. Would you interview a White nationalist that openly defended the genocide of Jews if you found one willing to speak on record and defend his views in a well argued way ? (This would be so surreal that I understand if you feel insulted by the simple suggestion of it.)
I suggested item 3 because after hearing Kevin MacDonald speaking on record and endorsing a comparison of the Jewish community to mind controlling parasites, it suddenly dawned on me that it would be fascinating to hear what a guy like, say, Alex Linder, would have to say about the Jews to a convert to Judaism like you. Because if even an affable guy like Kevin Mac thinks what he thinks about the Jews, then… what exactly the most articulate elements among the radical wing of White Nationalism thinks of the issue and what would they propose as a solution for it?
And considering that a dark, sinister, genocidal text like the Book of Joshua is held as sacred scripture to Jews, debating genocide from a White perspective should be something to be expected but obviously that’s not the case. If you want to push the envelope in terms of debating ideas, well, there you are.
Alex Linder is to Kevin MacDonald what the Torah is to the Book of Joshua: a conclusion to a premise.
The Torah is the premise of which the Book of Joshua is the conclusion — and that’s where we are at the moment.
All nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide. Jewish nationalism no more than other forms of nationalism.
Curt writes: “The Alt-Right is not an ideological strategy for obtaining power in a democratic polity – but the preparation for civil war.”
My notes for the show with Kevin MacDonald:
* My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love. Will you sit down and learn Torah with me, and learn love?
* There are a ton of heart-breaking emotional outbursts in the Torah, typical of Middle Eastern peoples to this day. This Torah portion begins with Moshe’s pleas to God to enter the Promised Land.
* Det. 4:1 “Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you.” The purpose of Torah law is to live long, conquer and prosper.
* Det. 4:6 “Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”
An additional purpose of Torah law is to make Jews look good before the goyim.
* Det. 6:1-2: “These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.”
Another reason to abide by the Torah is to live long.
* Det. 6:24: “The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Lord our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.”
Observe the Torah so that you shall prosper.
Judaism is realistic. Its promises for observing the Torah are rooted in this world results. Judaism makes peace with the natural emotions such as lust and ambition. One of the rewards promised to Abraham is that he will become famous.
* Det. 4:15: “But you shall greatly beware for your souls.”
The word “nefesh” aka “soul” means life in the Tanakh. The Hebrew Bible does not know of body-soul dualism. When the Torah says to beware for your souls, it means beware for your life in this world.
* Det. 4:25 “After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time—if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God and arousing his anger…”
Life for individuals is a spiral staircase alternating between states of dependency, feeling small in a big world, mastery and grandiosity. Nations are prey to similar cycles.
* The biggest difference between this parasha and life today as an Orthodox Jew is that this parasha reflects a much more alive relationship with God. The number of times I have had a genuine discussion about God with Jews over the past few years are very few. I can’t even think of one (except as a tool for recovery or as a tool for protecting Jews). Some Jews come to shul to talk to God but at least as many come to talk to their fellow Jews.
* Walking into shul is a completely different experience than walking into church. Churches are riven by theological and moral controversies (over politics, abortion, etc). When you go to shul, political and religious differences are set aside. You are all brothers and sisters because you belong to the same people and you have the same enemies (the Muslims and other anti-Semites).
* The Exodus eclipses the creation as the central motif of Judaism and it has been seized by revolutionary movements around the West to rebel against the existing order.
* Det. 7: 1-6: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
This doesn’t sound very multicultural.
* What is more important for your people — standing up for abstract principles or standing up for your people’s interests?
I suppose this is generally right, but these days we may need a few barbarians to win this thing.This struggle is not for the faint of heart https://t.co/tvFvgEILcA
— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) July 25, 2017
The survival and power of Whites R ultimate goals & are ultimate moral standard, but I'm not particularly squeamish about how we get there.
— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) July 28, 2017
We need 2 emulate Jews in having interests–not principles–in pursuing ultimate goals,e.g. opposite attitudes on migration 4 Israel vs West
— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) July 28, 2017
Well, it IS possible for Whites to emulate the Jews, Luke Ford. In fact it was already tried in the past — it was called NATIONAL SOCIALISM. You’ve read your Kevin MacDonald, Luke and therefore you’re familiar with the idea: according to him, NS was the most formidable opponent the Jewish evolutionary strategy ever faced for the simple fact that NS basically MIRRORS the Jewish social ethos of sympathy towards the group and hostility towards outgroups. I’m sure you’re sincere when you self-identify as a Jew and I’m sure you’re well-meaning when you post things like this (denouncing Jewish driven policies that have been disastrous for Whites and exhorting Whites to be more ethnocentric in the manner of the Jews), but… do you realize what the consequences for the Jews would be if most Whites became red-pilled and started operating under the same self-interested premises as the Jews and with the same emotional intensity and ruthless attitude? What would happen to the Jews if most Whites woke up to their ethnic interests and were duly educated on the very long track-record that large segments of the Jewish community have in helping to set up a political and cultural agenda that is wrecking their nations? Under the risk of sounding like a broken record, I look at and think about your self professed Judaism on the one hand and I look at and think about your Alt Right online activism on the other and my jaw drops. People like Abe Foxman and his ilk are utter scumbags who should be dealt with accordingly but to their credit they know, they can see where exactly the Alt Right leads. Smart as you are, you don’t seem to get it.
You’re an open supporter of Meir Kahane’s views on Israel as Arab-free country, Luke Ford and I myself agree that, objectively speaking, from a Jewish perspective, ideally, that would be the way to go if you’re really serious about the long-term interests of the country and of the Jewish people. Here’s an edition of 60 minutes where the stupid interviewer confronts him and makes the point that the policies he wanted to implement in Israel seemed to have come out of straight from the NS playbook. Obviously, the interviewer, in his ignorance, is inverting everything. It’s not that Kahane was copycatting the NS policies — actually, as KM accurately points out, it’s precisely the other way round. Well, from the perspective of White interests, Kahane was an evil, despicable man who used to rejoice in the war crimes committed by the Allies against the German civilians and I’m glad an Arab put a bullet on him. But the guy had balls and his views make perfect sense when you take into account where he was coming from. Now I ask you: if the real Kahane preached the expulsion of all Arabs from the Jewish homeland because of the intrinsic dangers they would always pose to the Jewish majority, plus their record of crimes against the Jews, what would a White version of Kahane (well-read in works like The Culture of Critique) preach in relation to the Jews? To my mind, to ask this question is to answer it. But again: You. Don’t. Seem. To. Get. It.
What percentage of your blog/Youtube/social media followers do you estimate to be red-pilled Jews, Luke Ford?
Questions for Kevin MacDonald:
* Jew: “You’ve mentioned in the past that you get Jews writing you emails and letters. What is the ratio of those who agree vs disagree and How often do you get Jewish people trying to debate your thesis and what are some of their most common arguments of those who disagree?”
* Did your music background enable you to spot the dissonance?
* Jewish friend: “Hearing the Jewish tone was more important to me than the actual arguments — it was that contempt for the goy that helped me see the connection of Jewish left and right.”
* What can we do to convince women to come to our side and reject today’s degeneracy among whites? Especially to have more children and start earlier.
* Jew: “What can and should individual red-pilled Jews be doing? Has the die been cast? Long-term, would there be an opportunity for remaining here? What could be the terms? With disfranchisement? Provided Jews gave up all tribal power and customs such as kosher/circumcision? Can red-pilled Jews effectively undermine the fear and loathing of the powerful Jewish core?”
* “Are the Asheknazi Jews — a heavily inbred extended family — affected by that inbreeding? Is that why it is so difficult to reason or argue with them?”
* On the one hand, evolution is the dominant paradigm of our time, all educated people seem to accept its truth, and on the other hand, an evolutionary analysis like yours on the Jews is rarely welcomed.
* What role did wolves play in your early evolutionary studies and how did that influence your research on Jews?
* For much of the world, the word “Jew” connotes dishonest in business. On the other hand, many Modern Orthodox Jews are members of professions with ethics codes such as doctors and lawyers, and I don’t see them getting in trouble at a much higher rate than other groups. So honesty depends on incentives. Is there something biological that forces Jews or other peoples to be dishonest or criminal?
* Many people find Jews rude. On the other hand, English Jews are the most polite Jews in the world. When I meet them, they are usually more polite than goyim. So many Jewish traits are flexible and affected by environment. The more generations Jews have lived in the West, the more Western they become.
* Are Jews part of the West? Or are they set against the West?
* Some of your readers claim that your work on the Jews leads inevitably in one direction — to the expulsion or genocide of Jews from the West. Is that accurate?
* I don’t read you as claiming that Jews are biologically driven to disrupt and destroy gentiles. Am I misreading you?
* I read your Jewish trilogy and I still think Judaism is awesome. It just needs a course correction among its elites away from promoting multiculturalism and open borders. Am I fooling myself?
* I fear that you have cracked the code for how Jews relate to non-Jews and that scares me.
* Almost every article on TOQ shows Jews playing a destructive role in the West. Is it as clear as that?
* You first studied wolves and then Jews. Any similarities between the two?
* What did you learn about yourself and your people from studying Jews?
* A lot of people on the Alt Right do not believe that you can successfully convert to Judaism. If you do not have Jewish DNA, can you successfully convert to Judaism and become integrated with the tribe?
* From the perspective of non-Muslims, Muslims are poisonous snakes. So if you find poisonous snakes in your bedroom, who do you hate? The snakes or the people who put them there? So too with Muslims. Who do we hate? The Muslims or the people who put them in our countries?
* With a bit of effort, one can oneself in the middle of any group and start to get a handle on how they see the world, and so you can start to identify why Jews, blacks, Muslims, whites, see the world the way they do.
* If you had a paid team of scholars to further your Jewish trilogy, and to challenge your findings, what would you like investigated?
* How have you managed to avoid feuding and purity spiraling? How severe are these problems on the Alt Right?
* When we say something is Jewish, do we mean what Judaism’s texts teach or do we mean what most Jews do?
* How important are Jewish texts in understanding Jews? Can we learn much about Jews by studying the Torah?
* Ask him what he thought about Amy Chua’s “The Triple Package” theory.
* Is there an over-arching Jewish culture? If so, what are its qualities?
* Was National Socialism a reaction to Judaism? Was it the white way of imitating Judaism’s group evolutionary strategy?
* Friend: “One of the big problems is that MacDonald is intelligent and sophisticated. He doesn’t really lump all Jews together the way that many anti-semites do.
The areas I would like to question him on are “don’t Jews break along different ideological and religious fault lines?” For instance from an ethnic perspective, you differentiate between Western and Central European Jews and distinguish them from Jews who originated in the eastern edge of the Austro Hungarian empire (Galicia) and the Russian Empire. Most of the secular and politically radical Jews trace their origins to Eastern Europe. Since neither Israel (or Zionism) not the holocaust, happened only in the 1940’s, to what extent did those events shape public opinion both about Jews and about how Jews decided to conduct themselves. So his culture of critique suggests there is some overarching “Jewish culture.” I realize that there are certain Talmudic tracts that suggest a Jew can take advantage of a non-Jew, that gentiles are less human than Jew, and that God created gentiles to serve Jews, but as someone who grew up in the 1950s, I was never exposed to any of these ideas either explicitly, implicitly, or by observing how other Jews conducted themselves. On some level I think that MacDonald believes this. The only thing I would say is that East Coast Jews who grew up in largely Jewish neighborhoods or towns, do think of Jews as being smarter than non-Jews.”
* Would the West be better off if all of its Jews decided to migrate to Israel?
* My neocon friends seem incapable of allowing for the possibility that different groups have different interests. What are some hard-to-ignore examples of different racial groups within America having competing interests? Examples that might snap my Neocon friends into awareness of the problem.
* How conscious, on average, are individuals of their own participation in working toward their group’s interest?
1. I’ve read Tacitus describing the Jews in terms that probably wouldn’t shock you as tribal, aloof–even “perverse and disgusting.” And I understand how they were a hassle from the Roman perspective. But I can also see how Jewishness operates as a last stand against empire’s totalizing energy. You’ve heard that empires go to Afghanistan to die… but I say it’s really Jerusalem. And I think maybe that’s a good thing…?
2. Why do we think these characteristics–consistent since Tacitus’s time–are genetic? Isn’t it possible they’re just a repeated pattern that arises in response to an empire–they way you give Michael Jordan the ball and isolate him if they’re playing man-to-man?
3. Regarding Jewish academics… Nina Baym’s influence… but I read that she was raised totally oblivious of Jewish traditions. So is this deconstructive anti-traditionalist approach really genetic & tribal, or is it just “high verbal IQ?”
4. There’s been a lot of YouTube commentary about the Frankfurt school, and your book provides thorough analysis of the Jewish participation in that movement. Aren’t there similarly disproportionate Jewish numbers in the Austrian school? Von Mises, Murray Rothbard. Also Milton Friedman among the monetarists… but this all seems to be in opposition to the Marxist stuff. How?
5. My neocon friends seem incapable of allowing for the possibility that different groups have different interests. What are some hard-to-ignore examples of different racial groups within America having competing interests? Examples that might snap my Neocon friends into awareness of the problem.
6. The memes seem to have been effective recently. Is that because they are visual, rather than verbal? Should we spend more time educating our kids with visuals–paintings, icons, sculptures? Or is the word inevitable as the access point to cultural significance and health?
7. Gentile-cohesion seems like an impossibility…
From the Youtube chat room during the show:
the.truth.will.livehave kevin turn his camera back on luke. i don’t want to interrupt
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?greetings, goys and non
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?Kevin MacDonald did nothing wrong
4trahasisShadilay my dudes. Holy sweetness Kevin MacDonald.
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?part of the reason the JQ is unknown in the U.S. is because of weak Christianity, especially post-Vatican II Catholicism
Luke FordAny Qs for KMAC?
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?@KMac what can we do to convince women to come to our side and reject today’s degeneracy among whites? especially to have more children and start earlier
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?@Casey Nostra Aetate is heretical. Those who don’t accept Christ are damned. But it’s run by Freemasonry now, so it’s watered down.
Mike Marschall@Pepe it’s easy – be the smartest, coolest, baddest mother fucker on the block and then assert yourself.
Yehoishophot Oliverleftists are very anti-Israel
Yehoishophot OliverPLO flags were waved at DNC convention
Yehoishophot Oliverall Democrats voted for Iran Deal
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?@Mike I know, be attractive. Don’t be unattractive. I was thinking on a societal scale.
Mike MarschallWomen don’t need to be strategized in order to be convinced of things – if we show them strength of conviction and make the clear connection between making tough decisions & seeing good outcomes
Michael Cavutoare these guys jewish?
Yehoishophot Olivermust not have been an Orthodox rabbi
Mike Marschallas opposed to making decisions based on feels
Mike MarschallKevin MacDonald isn’t
4trahasis@Michael Cavuto – Luke Ford is
Michael Cavutois casey?
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?Casey is a WASP
Mike Marschallbecause Israel is an escape hatch not a homeland
Yehoishophot OliverCasey, Jewish identity in exile comes from Torah
Mike MarschallJews will always see their interests as being in opposition to the interests of White Europeans – Jews also happen to be natural revolutionaries and have aggressive personalities
Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?read EMJ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
Mike MarschallThe problem is that you WILL be labeled a Nazi if you are Alt Right – it is PR you cannot shed
Kevin MacDonald devotes one chapter from the first book (A People That Shall Dwell Alone) of his Jewish trilogy to an evolutionary analysis of the Tanakh:
And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. . . . I am the LORD your God, who have set you apart from the peoples. (Lev. 20:23-24)
There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king’s laws; therefore it profiteth not the king to suffer them. (Esther 3:8)
This chapter has three purposes. The first is to show that the Tanakh (the Jewish term for what Christians refer to as the Old Testament) shows a strong concern for reproductive success and control of resources. The second purpose is to show that there is also a pronounced tendency toward idealizing endogamy and racial purity in these writings. Finally, it is argued that the ideology of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy for maintaining genetic and cultural segregation in a diaspora context is apparent in these writings.
THE GENERAL IMPORTANCE OF REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS AND THE CONTROL OF RESOURCES IN THE TANAKH I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. (Gen. 22:17) The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Prov. 22:7) Baron (1952a) notes that Judaism is often referred to as a “this-worldly” religion. While there is very little concern with an afterlife, “[b]oth early and later Judaism . . . continuously emphasized a firm belief in the survival of the group and in the ‘eternal’ life of the Jewish people down to, and beyond, the messianic age” (Baron 1952a, 9). Throughout the long history of Jewish writings, there is a strong emphasis on “the duty of marriage and the increase of family” (p. 12) and “a religious inclination toward aggrandizement of family and nation” (p. 31), as seen, for example, by numerous Biblical injunctions to “be fruitful and multiply” and injunctions to the effect that one will obtain reproductive success by following the precepts of Judaism. The descriptions of the patriarchs return “over and over again to accounts of theophanies associated with blessings and promises of territorial possession and descendants” (Fohrer 1968, 123). For example, God says to Abraham: “‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them.’ and He said unto him: ‘So shall thy seed be.’ And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:5-6). Conversely, the result of not following God’s word is to have diminished reproductive success: A portion of the extended curse directed at deserters in Deuteronomy states, “And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God. And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you” (Deut. 28:62-63).
This concern with reproductive success became a central aspect of historical Judaism. Baron (1952b, 210), writing of later antiquity, notes the “rabbis’ vigorous insistence upon procreation as the first commandment mentioned in the Bible . . . and their vehement injunctions against any waste of human semen.” Neuman (1969, II:53) makes a similar comment regarding Jews in pre-expulsion Spain, and Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 291) note the absolute obligation to marry and have children among the Ashkenazim in traditional Eastern European society, again based on the recognition that procreation is the first commandment of the Torah. “To be an old maid or a bachelor is not only a shame, but also a sin against the will of God, who has commanded every Jew to marry and beget offspring.” Having many children was viewed as a great blessing, while a woman with only two children viewed herself as childless. All of the Talmudic regulations regarding sexual behavior were aimed at maximizing the probability of conception (Zborowski & Herzog 1952, 312). Intercourse was prohibited during the woman’s menstrual period and for one week thereafter so that it would occur during the woman’s fertile period and at a time when the man had a high sperm count because of his abstinence. Friday evening was thought to be the most auspicious time because people were relaxed and festive during the Sabbath celebration. Moreover, “the main stream of the Law sanctified daily pursuits performed in a spirit of service to the family or nation . . . approval, and not mere tolerance of economic activity, finds numerous formulations in the teachings of the rabbis” (Baron 1952a, 9; see also Baron 1952b, 256ff). Similarly, Johnson (1987, 248) notes the equation of economic success and moral worth in the Tanakh, the Apocrypha, and the Talmuds. He also points out that the Talmuds contain detailed discussions of business problems, so that Jewish education combined practical economic and legal education with what is more commonly viewed as religious. Besides these general pronouncements regarding the importance of reproductive success and obtaining resources, there is good evidence for the importance of polygyny and sexual competition among males in the Tanakh.1 Evolutionary anthropologists (e.g., Betzig 1986; Dickemann 1979) have noted a strong tendency for wealthy males in stratified societies to accumulate large numbers of wives and concubines and to have large numbers of offspring, while males with lesser wealth were restricted to one wife or none at all. Such behavior conforms to the theoretical optimum for individually adaptive male behavior. On the basis of the presumptions of the law and the behavior of the leading personalities of the Tanakh, Epstein (1942) argues that polygyny is the primitive marriage form among the Israelites. Polygyny is assumed throughout the Tanakh (e.g., Exod. 21:10) and appears repeatedly in the behavior of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For example, Jacob fathers 12 sons by four different women–two wives and two concubines. While the early patriarchs engaged in the low-level polygyny made possible by their pastoral, nomadic life style, the settled agricultural society of Israel allowed for much greater differences in access to females and in reproductive
success. Gideon is said to have had 70 sons, Jair the Gileadite 30 sons, Ibzan of Bethlehem 30 sons and 30 daughters, and Abdon 40 sons. King David clearly had a large number of wives and concubines, and at least 16 children, although it is difficult to determine their numbers. At 2 Samuel 15:16 he is said to have left 10 of his concubines in Jerusalem, with no implication that this was the total number. King Solomon is the extreme example of this tendency for the wealthy and powerful to have large numbers of wives and children: “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). Solomon’s descendants also had very high reproductive success: Rehoboam is said to have had 18 wives, 60 concubines, 28 sons, and 60 daughters. Moreover, after the division of the kingdom, Rehoboam “dealt wisely, and dispersed of all his sons throughout all the lands of Judah and Benjamin, unto every fortified city; and he . . . sought for them many wives” (2 Chron. 11:23). Abijah, Rehoboam’s son, is said to have had 14 wives, 22 sons, and 16 daughters (2 Chron. 13:21). Reflecting the reproductive value of females, wives were considered legitimate spoils of war: Thus, King David obtains Saul’s wives after his victory ( 2 Sam. 12:8), and the Syrian king Benhadad states his demands as follows: “Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine” (1 Kings 20:3). Competition among the wives in a polygynous household is expected and found. Elkanah has two wives–Peninnah and Hannah, but only Penninah had children. As a result, Hannah received a lesser sacrifice during religious observances “and her rival vexed her sore, to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb” (1 Sam. 1:6). The key to status and happiness for a woman in a polygynous household was to have children.
The Importance of Consanguinity and Endogamy in the Tanakh And it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the alien mixture. (Neh. 13:3) There is an extremely strong concern for endogamy (i.e., marriage within the group) throughout the Tanakh. From an evolutionary perspective, endogamous marriage results in a relatively high average degree of genetic relatedness within the group as a whole, with implications for the expected degree of within-group cooperation and altruism (see Chapter 6). To the extent that a group prevents gene flow from outside the group, the fitness of individuals becomes increasingly correlated with the success of the entire group, and this is especially the case if the group has a high level of inbreeding to begin with. At the extreme, consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage with biological relatives) results in the offspring being closely related to parents and each other, again with theoretical
implications for familial and within-group solidarity. It is an extremely important thesis of this volume that Judaism has, at least until very recently,2 been immensely concerned with endogamy–what is often referred to as racial purity; moreover, Judaism has shown relatively pronounced tendencies toward consanguinity, especially in comparison with Western societies (see Chapter 8). Powerful tendencies toward consanguinity can be seen in the behavior of the patriarchs. Thus Abraham marries his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), and his brother Nahor marries his niece (Gen. 11:29).3 Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron, married his aunt (Num. 26:59). Moreover, Abraham sires Ishmael by the Egyptian slave Hagar, but he makes his covenant with Isaac, the son of his halfsister Sarah, clearly a far closer genetic relationship than with Ishmael. When Sarah wants to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, Abraham is distressed, but God tells Abraham that Sarah is right and that he should indeed favor Isaac over Ishmael.
From an evolutionary perspective, God and Sarah are correct. It is in Abraham’s interest to favor Isaac because Isaac shares more genes with him than does Ishmael. Later, it is stated that Abraham had six children by another woman, Keturah, and it is stated that ” Abraham gave all he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country” (Gen. 25:5-6). Thus, Abraham practiced the optimal evolutionary strategy of unigeniture, while favoring a child with a closer genetic relationship to one more distantly related. Clearly, his best strategy was to concentrate his resources in Isaac, who will then have sufficient resources to be polygynous himself, while allowing his other children to descend economically and hope for the best. Similarly, Isaac is given an Egyptian slave as a wife in his youth, but his heirs are his children by Rebekah, the daughter of his first-cousin Bethuel (whose mother, Milcah, had married her uncle, Nahor [Gen. 11:29]). 4 Abraham makes very clear his desire not to have Isaac marry a woman of the Canaanites, whom he was presently dwelling with, but rather to return “unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, even for Isaac” (Gen. 24:4). Esau, the elder son of Isaac, offends his parents by marrying two Hittite women: “And they were a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and to Rebekah” (Gen. 26:35). Later, realizing that Isaac and Rebekah disapprove of his marriages, Esau makes a consanguineous marriage by taking Mahalath, the daughter of Abraham’s son Ishmael,5 as an additional wife (Gen. 28:9). Rebekah clearly abhors the thought of Jacob also marrying a local woman and sends him to her relatives with the advice of marrying a first cousin “of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother” (Gen. 28:2). Jacob ends up marrying two of his first cousins, Rebekah and Leah. Although Esau was quite successful, the chronicler of Genesis ignores him to concentrate on the more consanguineous line of Jacob.6
The split between Esau and Jacob is theoretically significant. Because Jacob is denied any inheritance, he comes to marry his cousins without any bridewealth–quite unlike the situation where Abraham provided enormous bridewealth to the same group of kin in payment for Rebekah. As a result, Jacob must work many years and his relationship with his uncle Laban is filled with deception on both sides. When Jacob finally absconds with his family, Laban chases them, and they agree to remain separate.7 After this point, there are no further marriages with Laban’s branch of the family, and all of Jacob’s sons have no choice but to marry foreign women. The consanguineous link with the other branch of Abraham’s family is ended, and instead of concentrating the family within one highly inbred stem, Jacob’s 12 sons become the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel.8 The importance of endogamy, at least from the standpoint of later redactors, can be seen in the treatment of the conquered peoples whom the Israelites displace after the Exodus (see also Hartung 1992, n.d.). The policy described in the Books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua is to commit genocide rather than permitting intermarriage with the conquered peoples in the zone of settlement. The chronicler of Deuteronomy states as a general policy regarding the displaced peoples that the Israelites “shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son” (Deut. 7:3). As recorded in the Book of Joshua, this policy is then scrupulously followed when the Israelites cross the Jordan and eradicate the peoples there. Moreover, the emphasis on the need to exterminate other peoples in order to avoid intermarriage is repeated: “Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you; know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap unto you, and a scourge in your sides, and pricks in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you” (Josh. 23:12-13). These instructions are carried out: “So Joshua smote all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the Lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining; but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded” (Josh. 10:40). For peoples living outside the zone of settlement, the policy proposed in Deuteronomy is to kill only the males and to keep the women and children as spoils of war. However, although captured women can become wives, they have fewer rights than other wives: “[I]f thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will” (Deut. 21:14). Moses is said to have commanded the Israelites to kill not only every male Midianite (including children), but also all
non-virgin females. In light of a previous passage in which Moses condemns marriage between Israelites and Midianites (Num. 25:6), there is the suggestion that the captured females will be slaves and/or concubines for the Israelite males. Their children would presumably have lower status than the offspring of regular marriages, and, as pointed out by Patai and Patai (1989, 122), there is no mention of converting female slaves in the Tanakh. There are two post-settlement instances in the Tanakh where children of foreign concubines rise to positions of power within the Israelite community. Both of these instances are instructive in showing the generally low status of such individuals. In the Abimelech story, the mother is from Shechem, and Abimelech succeeds to his father’s inheritance only by killing his father’s 70 legitimate children with the help of his mother’s kinsmen, who are reminded of their blood relationship to Abimelech (“remember also that I am your bone and flesh” [Judg. 9:21]). In the Jephthah story, a very salient fact is that he is expelled from the household by his half-brothers because he is viewed as having no inheritance (presumably also the fate of Abimelech, had he not taken matters into his own hands). As a result Jephthah is forced to live with a group of “vain fellows” (Judg. 11:3) with whom he eventually achieved military success. Moreover, it is not even clear that Jephthah’s mother was a foreigner, since she is described only as a harlot. These stories hardly support the idea that the offspring of foreign concubines were readily absorbed into Israelite society. Further indication of the low status of the offspring of foreigners comes from the very negative attitudes toward Solomon’s many foreign wives. Solomon is cursed with the fragmentation of his kingdom after his death as a result of this practice (1 Kings 11:11; see also Neh. 13:26). Epstein (1942) notes that the offspring of Solomon’s foreign wives had a separate status within Israelite society below the pure Israelite stock even into rabbinic times.9 Sexual relationships with the women of the surrounding peoples are invoked as a major source of evil within Israelite society. Thus, Moses orders the execution of Israelite men who consort with Moabite women (Num. 25:1-13). The men are executed and God also sends a plague because of the offense. Later, the Israelites are said to be living among a variety of peoples, “and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods” (Judg. 3:6). As a result of these practices, the Israelites were said to be dominated by the Mesopotamians for eight years.10 The origination of the Samaritans as a separate Jewish sect was also the result of a general abhorrence of exogamy. When the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians and its elite were taken away, the remnant intermarried with the new settlers, creating a “mixed race” (Scherer  1979, 17). The intermarriage with aliens meant that “the Samaritans were not ethnically what they claimed to be” (Purvis 1989, 590), the Pharisees going so far as to refer to them as ketam (i.e., colonists from Mesopotamia). Their racial impurity was then “used to deny
the Samaritans their original Israelite heritage. From that point onwards, their claim to be part of the chosen people . . . was never again acknowledged by the Jews” (Johnson 1987, 71).11 The returning exiles rejected the offer of the Samaritans to help in rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 4:1-5), and intermarriage with the Samaritans was regarded with horror. Thus, Nehemiah comments on the marriage of the son of the high priest Eliashib to the daughter of the Samaritan Sanballat: “Therefore I chased him from me” (Neh. 13:28). The apotheosis of the abhorrence of exogamy appears in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah which recount events and attitudes in the early post-exilic period. The officials are said to complain that “‘the people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations. . . . For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands'” (Ezra 9:2). The use of the phrase “holy seed” is particularly striking–a rather unvarnished statement of the religious significance of genetic material and the religious obligation to keep that genetic material pure and untainted. The result was a vigorous campaign of what Purvis (1989, 595) refers to as “ethnic purification.” Nehemiah states, “In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God: ‘Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves” (Neh. 13:23-25). All who have intermarried are urged to confess their guilt and give up their foreign wives and children. Ezra provides a list of 107 men who renounced their foreign wives and their children by these women.12 These books also refer to genealogies that were used to deny access to the priesthood to some of the returnees from the Babylonian exile because there was a question regarding the racial purity of their marriages. The result was a hierarchy of purity of blood, at the top of which were those who could prove their status by providing genealogical records. This group married into priestly families, and its members were politically and socially dominant within the Jewish community. If doubt remained after genealogical investigation, the person could remain an Israelite, but was removed from the priesthood and no pure-blooded Israelite would intermarry with him. People with definitely impaired genealogies (including the offspring of mixed marriages) formed a third category. They married among themselves “and felt themselves fortunate if admitted to marriage with a Jewish family of doubtful record” (Epstein 1942, 164).13 The clear concern regarding intermarriage after the return from Babylon so evident in Ezra and Nehemiah may well be due to the fact that the returnees were
forced to live among foreigners to a much greater degree than when they had political power. Prior to the exile, the issue of separation from neighbors could be treated relatively casually, since there were natural political and geographical barriers to intermarriage and the offspring of foreign concubines could be easily relegated to a low status. However, after the exile, the maintenance of genetic and cultural separatism created enormous problems, since the Israelites could not have complete political control over their area of settlement in Palestine. “Prohibitions against intermarriage, occasionally recorded and apparently fairly well enforced before the Exile . . . became an urgent necessity for the preservation of the Jewish people in Exile” (Baron 1952a, 147). The apex of concern for family purity among the Jews occurred in the Babylonian captivity and thereafter: “Purity of family was valued in Babylonia as never in Palestine before or after. For centuries the Babylonian Jews kept careful records of all significant family events so that they might be able to prove at any time pure descent from priestly or other distinguished stock. As late as the Talmudic age genealogical accounts . . . are frequently referred to. They must have been composed on the basis of records often covering a whole millennium” (Baron 1952a, 125). Thus, the data are compatible with the hypothesis that the almost obsessive concern with endogamy really coincides with the difficulty of maintaining genetic barriers within an exilic (diaspora) context. Finally, as Neusner (1987, 37-38) emphasizes, it is important to note that Ezra was attempting to prevent intermarriage not only with foreign tribes like the Ammonites and Moabites, but even with the Israelites who had been left behind during the Babylonian exile. Although one can interpret this exclusion in purely ideological terms as a matter of the “cultic impurity” of these people who had been cut off from the aristocratic elite who had been exiled,14 an evolutionary perspective suggests that it was the intermarriage of these settlers with surrounding peoples that was really the issue that determined their exclusion. As Purvis (1989, 597-598) notes regarding the Samaritans, some at least had undoubtedly retained a high level of cultic purity. The problem was that the ethnic purity of the Samaritans and the other ‘am ha-ares (“people of the land”) was at best doubtful.15
After all, if doubts about religious practice had been the sole issue, it would have been easy to accept any individuals from any tribe (certainly including the non-exiled Israelites) into the cult if only they agreed to participate appropriately in the cult. One wonders why Ezra was so intent on forcing Israelites to abandon their alien wives and racially impure children if the only blemish on these individuals was cultic. Participation in cultic rituals without ethnic commonality is the basis for the ideology that conversion to Judaism would be possible at any stage in history. From the data described in Chapter 2, however, we know that Judaism has always retained its ethnic core, and we shall see in Chapter 4 that conversion to Judaism has always been problematic. In this sense, Ezra and Nehemiah are indeed the lawgivers to subsequent Judaism, and in fact Ezra has
often been viewed by the Jews as “a virtual second Moses” (McCullough 1975, 49; see also Ackroyd 1984, 147).16
THE EVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY OF THE TANAKH For Thou didst set them apart from among all the peoples of the earth. (1 Kings 8:53) For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be His own treasure, out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deut. 7:6; 14:2) The root of Judaism–and of anti-Semitism–is in the very essence of the Ten Commandments [“I am the Lord your God”; “You shall have no other gods before me”]. (Arthur Hertzberg 1993b, 69).
Israelite Monotheism as an Ideology of Separatism