THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE JEWISH RACE".

Can we please take this whole idea and Chuck it in the "Fuck It" Bucket?

"The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropometric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics — stature, weight, skin color, cephalic index, facial index, blood groups, etc."

-Raphael Patai, quoted by Arthur Koestler in The Thirteen Tribe (1976)

Hey Folks,

I’m an anti-Zionist and a harsh critic of the Israeli regime. I’m also an anti-racist.

If you’re an intelligent, thoughtful person, you will see no contradiction between these statements. If you are a brainwashed racist nationalist, you might think that I’m using the smokescreen of anti-racism to say racist things.

Well, if you think that, that’s nice. I don’t care.

The world has been tip-toeing around European Jews for too long. I hate to break it to the last of the Holocaust survivors, but the world’s had enough of Zionist bullshit. We’re not buying your lies, and we’re not afraid of getting in trouble with the B’nai Brith or the Jewish Defense League anymore. Times done changed.

Why, you ask? Um, actually it’s really simple. We now know that Zionists are the most racist people on the planet, therefore accusations of racism no longer land the way they used to. You don’t get to conduct an ethnic cleansing campaign and accuse your political opponents of racism at the same time. Reality don’t work that way. People just ain’t that brain-dead.

Let me explain something very simple to Israelis - the Holocaust does not give you carte blanche to steal other people’s land. It’s an insult to the victims of the Hoolocaust survivors to use their memories to justify atrocities. It’s sickening, disgusting, and unconscionable.

So, can you please knock it off already? No one’s buying it anymore. The only people you’re fooling is yourselves at this point.

Furthermore, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “THE JEWISH RACE”. This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a fact. There are many different ethnic groups that claim descent from the ancient Israelites.

Ever hear of the Lemba people, for instance?

How about the Menashe people of India?

The only thing that’s unique about the Zionists currently occupying Palestine is that they are united in their belief that they are unique. That and the fact that they have enough wealth and power to convince a lot of people to go along with their bullshit.

Recently, I wrote a pieced called The Most Cruel Hoax History has Ever Known, which is about the Khazarian Conversion, a historical event in which the Eastern European kingdom of Khazaria converted to Judaism.

Since then, I’ve continued to learn more about the controversy about whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are “real Jews” (whatever that means).

I’ve learned, for instance, that DNA tests are illegal in Israel, presumably because they would prove that Israel’s Jewish citizenry is a hodgepodge of different ethnic groups, and is not that closely related.

As far as I can tell, the Ashkenazi Jews who want to believe that Jews are a race simply don’t have a leg to stand on.

If you don’t believe me, and you need to hear from some Israelis, I suggest looking into the work of three brilliant researchers - Eran Elhaik, Shlomo Sand, and Gilad Atzmon.

Anyone who wishes to refute the argument that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazarian converts must engage with the arguments made by these three brilliant investigators.

Simply put, we can stick a fork in the lie that anti-Zionism has anything to do with protecting Jews from European racists. Indeed, European racists are the ones flying the Zionist kamikaze plane.

Zionism is an extreme from of fascist settler-colonialism based on a ethno-nationalistic mythos. It justifies its “right to exist” through the absurd lie that Eastern European Jews are entitled to Palestinian land because of the Bible. It’s just lies on top of lies of top of lies.

It’s time to stop being afraid of being accused of racism by racists. Fuck Zionism.

Yours truly,

Crow Qu’appelle

RACE & MYTH

by Arthur Koestler, excerpted from The Thirteenth Tribe (1976)

The Jews of our times fall into two main divisions: Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

The Sephardim are descendants of the Jews who since antiquity had lived in Spain (in Hebrew Sepharad) until they were expelled at the end of the fifteenth century and settled in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. They spoke a Spanish-Hebrew dialect, Ladino, and preserved their own traditions and religious rites. In the 1960s, the number of Sephardim was estimated at 500,000.

The Ashkenazim, at the same period, numbered about eleven million. Thus, in common parlance, Jew is practically synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew. But the term is misleading, for the Hebrew word Ashkenaz was, in medieval rabbinical literature, applied to Germany — thus contributing to the legend that modern Jewry originated on the Rhine. There is, however, no other term to refer to the non-Sephardic majority of contemporary Jewry.

For the sake of piquancy, it should be mentioned that the Ashkenaz of the Bible refers to a people living somewhere in the vicinity of Mount Ararat and Armenia. The name occurs in Genesis 10:3 and I Chronicles 1:6, as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth. Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) whom the Khazars, according to King Joseph, claimed as their ancestor. But worse was to come.

For Ashkenaz is also named in Jeremiah 51:27, where the prophet calls his people and their allies to rise and destroy Babylon: "Call thee upon the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz."

This passage was interpreted by the famous Saadia Gaon, spiritual leader of Oriental Jewry in the tenth century, as a prophecy relating to his own times: Babylon symbolized the Caliphate of Baghdad, and the Ashkenaz who were to attack it were either the Khazars themselves or some allied tribe. Accordingly, says Poliak, some learned Khazar Jews, who heard of the Gaon’s ingenious arguments, called themselves Ashkenazim when they emigrated to Poland. It does not prove anything, but it adds to the confusion.

Summing up a very old and bitter controversy in a laconic paragraph, Raphael Patai wrote:

"The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropometric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics — stature, weight, skin color, cephalic index, facial index, blood groups, etc."

This indeed is the accepted view today among anthropologists and historians. Moreover, there is general agreement that comparisons of cranial indices, blood types, etc., show a greater similarity between Jews and their Gentile host-nation than between Jews living in different countries.

Yet, paradoxically, the popular belief that Jews, or at least certain types of Jews, can be instantly recognized as such, must not be dismissed out of hand — for the simple reason that it has a factual basis in everyday existence. The anthropologists’ evidence seems to be at loggerheads with common observation.

However, before attempting to tackle the apparent contradiction, it will be useful to look at a few samples of the data on which the anthropologists’ denial of a Jewish race is based. To start with, here is a quotation from the excellent series of booklets on "The Race Question in Modern Science" published by UNESCO. The author, Professor Juan Comas, draws the following conclusion from the statistical material (his italics):

"Thus, despite the view usually held, the Jewish people is racially heterogeneous; its constant migrations and its relations — voluntary or otherwise — with the widest variety of nations and peoples have brought about such a degree of crossbreeding that the so-called people of Israel can produce examples of traits typical of every people. For proof, it will suffice to compare the rubicund, sturdy, heavily-built Rotterdam Jew with his co-religionist, say, in Salonika with gleaming eyes in a sickly face and skinny, high-strung physique. Hence, so far as our knowledge goes, we can assert that Jews as a whole display as great a degree of morphological disparity among themselves as could be found between members of two or more different races."

Next, we must glance at some of the physical characteristics which anthropologists use as criteria, and on which Comas’s conclusions are based.

One of the simplest — and as it turned out, most naive — of these criteria was bodily stature. In The Races of Europe, a monumental work published in 1900, William Ripley wrote: "The European Jews are all undersized; not only this, they are more often absolutely stunted." He was up to a point right at the time, and he produced ample statistics to prove it. But he was shrewd enough to surmise that this deficiency in height might somehow be influenced by environmental factors. Eleven years later, Maurice Fishberg published The Jews — A Study of Race and Environment, the first anthropological survey of its kind in English. It revealed the surprising fact that the children of East European Jewish immigrants to the USA grew to an average height of 167.9 cm compared to the 164.2 cm averaged by their parents — a gain of nearly an inch and a half in a single generation. Since then, it has become a commonplace that the descendants of immigrant populations — whether Jews, Italians or Japanese — are considerably taller than their parents, no doubt owing to their improved diet and other environmental factors.

Fishberg then collected statistics comparing the average height of Jews and Gentiles in Poland, Austria, Romania, Hungary, and so on. The result again was a surprise. In general, it was found that the stature of the Jews varied with the stature of the non-Jewish population among which they lived. They were relatively tall where the indigenous population is tall, and vice versa. Moreover, within the same nation, and even within the same town (Warsaw), the bodily height of Jews and Gentiles was found to vary according to the degree of prosperity of the district. All this does not mean that heredity has no influence on height; but it is overlaid and modified by environmental influences and is unfit as a criterion of race.

We may now turn to cranial measurements — which were once the great fashion among anthropologists, but are now considered rather outdated. Here we meet again with the same type of conclusion derived from the data:

"A comparison of the cephalic indices of Jewish and non-Jewish populations in various countries reveals a marked similarity between the Jewish and non-Jewish indices in many countries, while showing very wide variations when the cephalic indices of Jewish populations inhabiting different countries are compared. Thus one is driven to the conclusion that this feature, its plasticity notwithstanding, points to a racial diversity of the Jews."

This diversity, it should be noted, is most pronounced between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews. By and large, the Sephardim are dolichocephalic (long-headed), the Ashkenazim brachycephalic (broad-headed). Kutschera saw in this difference a further proof of the separate racial origin of Khazar-Ashkenazi and Semitic-Sephardi Jews. But we have just seen that the indices of short- or long-headedness are co-variant with the host-nations — which to some extent invalidates the argument.

The statistics relating to other physical features also speak against racial unity. Generally, Jews are dark-haired and dark-eyed. But how general is "generally", when, according to Comas, 49 percent of Polish Jews were light-haired, and 54 percent of Jewish schoolchildren in Austria had blue eyes? It is true that Virchow found "only" 32 percent of blond Jewish schoolchildren in Germany, whereas the proportion of blond Gentiles was larger; but that merely shows that the co-variance is not absolute — as one would expect.

The hardest evidence to date comes from classification by blood groups. A great amount of work has recently been done in this field, but it will be sufficient to quote a single example with a particularly sensitive indicator. In Patai’s words:

With regard to blood type, Jewish groups show considerable differences among themselves and marked similarities to the Gentile environment. The Hirzfield “biochemical index” can be used most conveniently to express this.

A few typical examples are: German Jews 2°74, German Gentiles 2°63; Rumanian Jews- 1:54, Rumanian Gentiles 1°55; Polish Jews 1:94, Polish Gentiles 1-55; Moroccan Jews 1:63, Moroccan Gentiles 1-63; Iraqi Jews 1-22, Iraqi Gentiles 1-37; Turkistan Jews 0-97, Turkistan Gentiles 0-99.

One might sum up this situation in two mathematical formulae:

1 Ga-—Ja < Ja—Ja- and:
2 Ga—Go & Ja—Jo

That is to say that, broadly speaking, the differences in respect to anthropological criteria between Gentiles (Gₐ) and Jews (Jₐ) in a given country (a) are smaller than the differences between Jews in different countries (a and b); and the differences between Gentiles in countries a and b are similar to the differences between Jews in a and b.

It seems appropriate to wind up this section with another quotation from Harry Shapiro’s contribution to the UNESCO series — ‘The Jewish People: A Biological History’:

“The wide range of variation between Jewish populations in their physical characteristics and the diversity of the gene frequencies of their blood groups render any unified racial classification for them a contradiction in terms. For although modern racial theory admits some degree of polymorphism or variation within a racial group, it does not permit distinctly different groups, measured by its own criteria of race, to be identified as one. To do so would make the biological purposes of racial classification futile and the whole procedure arbitrary and meaningless. Unfortunately, this subject is rarely wholly divorced from non-biological considerations, and despite the evidence, efforts continue to be made to somehow segregate the Jews as a distinct racial entity.”

How did this twin phenomenon — diversity in somatic features and conformity to the host-nation — come about? The geneticists’ obvious answer is: through miscegenation combined with selective pressures.

This, writes Fishberg, is indeed the crucial point in the anthropology of the Jews: are they of pure race, modified more or less by environmental influences, or are they a religious sect composed of racial elements acquired by proselytism and intermarriage during their migration in various parts of the world? And he leaves his readers in no doubt about the answer:

Beginning with Biblical evidence and traditions, it appears that even in the beginning of the formation of the tribe of Israel they were already composed of various racial elements ... We find in Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine at that time many races — the Amorites, who were blondes, dolichocephalic, and tall; the Hittites, a dark-complexioned race, probably of Mongoloid type; the Cushites, a negroid race; and many others. With all these the ancient Hebrews intermarried, as can be seen in many passages in the Bible.

The prophets may thunder against ‘marrying daughters of a strange god,’ yet the promiscuous Israelites were not deterred, and their leaders were foremost in giving a bad example. Even the first patriarch, Abraham, cohabited with Hagar, an Egyptian; Joseph married Asenath, who was not only Egyptian but the daughter of a priest; Moses married a Midianite, Zipporah; Samson, the Jewish hero, was a Philistine; King David’s mother was a Moabite, and he married a princess of Geshur; as for King Solomon (whose mother was a Hittite), ‘he loved many strange women, including the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites... And so the chronique scandaleuse goes on.

The Bible also makes it clear that the royal example was imitated by many, high and low. Besides, the biblical prohibition of marrying Gentiles exempted female captives in times of war — and there was no shortage of them. The Babylonian exile did not improve racial purity; even members of priestly families married Gentile women. In short, at the beginning of the Diaspora, the Israelites were already a thoroughly hybridized race. So, of course, were most historic nations, and the point would not need stressing if it were not for the persistent myth of the Biblical Tribe having preserved its racial purity throughout the ages.

Another important source of interbreeding was the vast numbers of people of the most varied races converted to Judaism. Witness to the proselytizing zeal of the Jews of earlier times are the black-skinned Falasha of Abyssinia, the Chinese Jews of Kai-Feng who look like Chinese, the Yemenite Jews with their dark olive complexion, the Jewish Berber tribes of the Sahara who look like Tuaregs, and so on, down to our prime example, the Khazars.

Nearer home, Jewish proselytizing reached its peak in the Roman Empire between the fall of the Jewish state and the rise of Christianity. Many patrician families in Italy were converted, but also the royal family which ruled the province of Adiabene. Philo speaks of numerous converts in Greece; Flavius Josephus relates that a large proportion of the population of Antioch was Judaized; St Paul met with proselytes on his travels more or less everywhere from Athens to Asia Minor. The fervour of proselytism, the Jewish historian Th. Reinach wrote, was indeed one of the most distinctive traits of Judaism during the Greco-Roman epoch - a trait which it never possessed in the same degree either before or since ... It cannot be doubted that Judaism in this way made numerous converts during two or three centuries ... The enormous growth of the Jewish nation in Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene cannot be accounted for without supposing an abundant infusion of Gentile blood. Proselytism swayed alike the upper and the lower classes of society.

The rise of Christianity slowed down the rate of miscegenation, and the ghetto put a temporary end to it; but before the ghetto-rules were strictly enforced in the sixteenth century, the process still went on. This is shown by the ever-repeated ecclesiastic interdictions of mixed marriages — e.g. by the Council of Toledo, 589; the Council of Rome, 743; the first and second Lateran Councils 1123 and 1139; or the edict of King Ladislav II of Hungary in 1092. That all these prohibitions were only partly effective is shown, for instance, by the report of the Hungarian Archbishop Robert von Grain to the Pope AD 1229, complaining that many Christian women are married to Jews, and that within a few years many thousands of Christians were lost in this way to the Church.

The only effective bar were the ghetto walls. When these crumbled, intermarriages started again. Their rate accelerated to such an extent that in Germany, between 1921 and 1925, out of every 100 marriages involving Jews, 42 were mixed.

As for the Sephardi, or ‘true’ Jews, their sojourn in Spain for more than a millennium left its indelible mark both on themselves and on their hosts. As Arnold Toynbee wrote:

“There is every reason to believe that in Spain and Portugal today there is a strong tincture of the blood of these Jewish converts in Iberian veins, especially in the upper and middle classes. Yet the most acute psychoanalyst would find it difficult, if samples of living upper- and middle-class Spanish and Portuguese were presented to him, to detect who had Jewish ancestors.”

The process worked both ways. After the massacres of 1391 and 1411 which swept the Peninsula, over 100,000 Jews — at a moderate estimate — accepted baptism. But a considerable proportion of them continued to practise Judaism in secret.

These crypto-Jews, the Marranos, prospered, rose to high positions at court and in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and intermarried with the aristocracy. After the expulsion of all unrepentant Jews from Spain (1492) and Portugal (1497) the Marranos were regarded with increasing suspicion; many were burned by the Inquisition, the majority emigrated in the sixteenth century to the countries around the Mediterranean, to Holland, England and France. Once in safety, they openly reverted to their faith and, together with the 1492-7 expellees, founded the new Sephardic communities in these countries.

Thus Toynbee’s remark about the hybrid ancestry of the upper strata of society in Spain also applies, mutatis mutandis, to the Sephardic communities of Western Europe. Spinoza’s parents were Portuguese Marranos, who emigrated to Amsterdam. The old Jewish families of England (who arrived here long before the nineteenth-twentieth century influx from the east), the Montefiores, Lousadas, Montagues, Avigdors, Sutros, Sassoons, etc. all came out of the Iberian mixing bowl, and can claim no purer racial origin than the Ashkenazis — or the Jews named Davis, Harris, Phillips or Hart.

One distressingly recurrent type of event was miscegenation by rape. That too has a long history starting in Palestine. We are told, for example, that a certain Juda ben Ezekial opposed his son marrying a woman who was not of ‘the seed of Abraham,’ whereupon his friend Ulla remarked: ‘How do we know for certain that we ourselves are not descended from the heathens who violated the maidens of Zion at the siege of Jerusalem?’ Rape and loot (the amount of the latter often fixed in advance) was considered a natural right of a conquering army.

There is an ancient tradition, recorded by Graetz, which attributes the origin of the earliest Jewish settlements in Germany to an episode reminiscent of the rape of the Sabine women. According to this tradition, a German unit, the Vangioni who fought with the Roman legions in Palestine,

‘had chosen from the vast horde of Jewish prisoners the most beautiful women, had brought them back to their stations on the shores of the Rhine and the Main, and had compelled them to minister to the satisfaction of their desires. The children thus begotten of Jewish and German parents were brought up by their mothers in the Jewish faith, their fathers not troubling themselves about them. It is these children who are said to have been the founders of the first Jewish communities between Worms and Mayence.’

In Eastern Europe rape was even more common. To quote Fishberg again:

“Such violent infusion of Gentile blood into the veins of the flock of Israel has been especially frequent in Slavonic countries. One of the favourite methods of the Cossacks to wring out money from the Jews was to take a large number of prisoners, knowing well that the Jews would ransom them. That the women thus ransomed were violated by these semi-savage tribes goes without saying. In fact, the ‘Council of the Four Lands’, at its session in the winter of 1650, had to take cognizance of the poor women and children born to them from Cossack husbands during captivity, and thus restore order in the family and social life of the Jews. Similar outrages were ... again perpetrated on Jewish women in Russia during the massacres in 1903-5.”

And yet — to return to the paradox — many people, who are neither racialists nor anti-Semites, are convinced that they are able to recognize a Jew at a single glance. How is this possible if Jews are such a hybrid lot as history and anthropology show them to be?

Part of the answer, I think, was given by Ernest Renan in 1883: ‘Il n’y a pas un type juif, il y a des types juifs.’ The type of Jew who can be recognized ‘at a glance’ is one particular type among many others. But only a small fraction of fourteen million Jews belong to that particular type, and those who appear to belong to it are by no means always Jews. One of the most prominent features — literally and metaphorically — which is said to characterize that particular type is the nose, variously described as Semitic, aquiline, hooked, or resembling the beak of an eagle (bec d'aigle). But, surprisingly, among 2,836 Jews in New York City, Fishberg found that only 14 per cent — i.e. one person in seven — had a hooked nose; while 57 per cent were straight-nosed, 20 per cent were snub-nosed and 6.5 per cent had ‘flat and broad noses.’

Other anthropologists came up with similar results regarding Semitic noses in Poland and the Ukraine. Moreover, among true Semites, such as pure-bred Bedouins, this form of nose does not seem to occur at all. On the other hand, it is very frequently met among the various Caucasian tribes, and also in Asia Minor. Among the indigenous races in this region, such as the Armenians, Georgians, Ossets, Lesghians, Assyrians, and also the Syrians, aquiline noses are the rule. Among the people living in Mediterranean countries of Europe, such as the Greeks, Italians, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, the aquiline nose is also more frequently encountered than among the Jews of Eastern Europe. The North American Indians also very often have “Jewish” noses.

Thus, the nose alone is not a very safe guide to identification. Only a minority — a particular type of Jew — seems to have a convex nose, and lots of other ethnic groups also have it. Yet intuition tells one that the anthropologists’ statistics must be somehow wrong. An ingenious way out of this conundrum was suggested by Beddoe and Jacobs, who maintained that the ‘Jewish nose’ need not be really convex in profile, and may yet give the impression of being ‘hooked,’ due to a peculiar ‘tucking up of the wings,’ an infolding of the nostrils.

To prove his point that it is this ‘nostrility’ which provides the illusion of beakedness, Jacobs invites his readers ‘to write a figure 6 with a long tail (figure 1); now remove the turn of the twist, as in figure 2, and much of the Jewishness disappears; and it vanishes entirely when we draw the lower continuation horizontally, as in figure 3’. Ripley, quoting Jacobs, comments:

‘Behold the transformation! The Jew has turned Roman beyond a doubt. What have we proved, then? That there is in reality such a phenomenon as a Jewish nose, even though it be differently constituted from our first assumption [the criterion of convexity].

But is there? Figure 1 could still represent an Italian, or Greek, or Spanish or Armenian, or Red Indian nose, ‘nostrility’ included. That it is a Jewish, and not a Red Indian, Armenian, etc. nose we deduce — at a glance — from the context of other features, including expression, comportment, dress. It is not a process of logical analysis, but rather in the nature of the psychologist’s Gestalt perception, the grasping of a configuration as a whole.

Similar considerations apply to each of the facial features considered to be typically Jewish — ‘sensuous lips’; dark, wavy or crinkly hair; melancholy, or cunning, or bulging or slit Mongol eyes, and so forth. Taken separately, they are common property of the most varied nations; put together, like an identi-kit, they combine into a prototype of — to say it once more — one particular type of Jew, of Eastern European origin, the type with which we are familiar. But our identi-kit would not fit the various other types of Jews, such as the Sephardim (including their very Anglicized descendants in Britain); nor the Slavonic type of Central Europe, nor the blond Teutonic, the slit-eyed Mongoloid, or the crinkly-haired Negroid types of Jews.

Nor can we be sure to recognize with certainty even this limited prototype. The collection of portraits published by Fishberg, or Ripley, can be used for a ‘believe it or not’ game if you cover the caption indicating whether the portrayed person is Jew or Gentile. The same game can be played on a café terrace anywhere near the shores of the Mediterranean. It will, of course, remain inconclusive because you cannot walk up to the experimental subject and inquire after his or her religion; but if you play the game in company, the amount of disagreement between the observers’ verdicts will be a surprise. Suggestibility also plays a part. “Did you know that Harold is Jewish?” “No, but now that you mention it, of course, I can see it.” “Did you know that (this or that) royal family has Jewish blood?” “No, but now that you mention it ..."

Hutchinson’s Races of Mankind has a picture of three Geishas with the caption: Japanese with Jewish physiognomy. Once you have read the caption, you feel: ‘But of course. How could I have missed it?’ And when you have played this game for some time, you begin to see Jewish features — or Khazar features — everywhere.

A further source of confusion is the extreme difficulty of separating hereditary characteristics from those shaped by the social background and other factors in the environment. We have come across this problem when discussing bodily stature as an alleged racial criterion; but the influence of social factors on physiognomy, conduct, speech, gesture, and costume works in subtler and more complex ways in assembling the Jewish identi-kit. Clothing (plus coiffure) is the most obvious of these factors. Fit out anybody with long corkscrew sidelocks, skull-cap, broad-rimmed black hat, and long black kaftan, and you recognize at a glance the orthodox Jewish type; whatever his nostrility, he will look Jewish.

There are other less drastic indicators among the sartorial preferences of certain types of Jews of certain social classes, combined with accents and mannerisms of speech, gesture, and social behavior.

It may be a welcome diversion to get away for a moment from the Jews, and listen to a French writer describing how his compatriots can tell an Englishman ‘at a glance’. Michel Leiris, apart from being an eminent writer, is Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Staff Member of the Musée de l’Homme:

“It is absurd to talk about an English ‘race’ or even to regard the English as being of the ‘Nordic’ race. In point of fact, history teaches that, like all the people of Europe, the English people has become what it is through successive contributions of different peoples. England is a Celtic country, partially colonized by successive waves of Saxons, Danes and Normans from France, with some addition of Roman stock from the age of Julius Caesar onwards. Moreover, while an Englishman can be identified by his way of dressing, or even by his behavior, it is impossible to tell that he is an Englishman merely from his physical appearance. Among the English, as among other Europeans, there are both fair people and dark, tall men and short, dolichocephalics and brachycephalics. It may be claimed that an Englishman can be readily identified from certain external characteristics which give him a ‘look’ of his own: restraint in gesture (unlike the conventional gesticulating southerner), gait and facial expression, all expressing what is usually included under the rather vague term of ‘phlegm’. However, anyone who made this claim would be likely to be found at fault in many instances, for by no means all the English have these characteristics, and even if they are the characteristics of the ‘typical Englishman’, the fact would still remain that these outward characteristics are not ‘physique’ in the true sense: bodily attitudes and motions and expressions of the face all come under the heading of behavior; and being habits determined by the subject’s social background, are cultural, not ‘natural’. Moreover, though loosely describable as ‘traits’, they typify not a whole nation, but a particular social group within it and thus cannot be included among the distinctive marks of race.”

However, when Leiris says that facial expressions are not ‘physique’ but ‘come under the heading of behavior’ he seems to overlook the fact that behavior can modify the features of individuals and thus leave its stamp on their ‘physique’. One only has to think of certain typical traits in the physiognomies of aging ham-actors, priests living in celibacy, career-soldiers, convicts serving long sentences, sailors, farmers, and so on. Their way of life affects not only their facial expression but also their physical features, thus giving the mistaken impression that these traits are of hereditary or ‘racial’ origin.

If I may add a personal observation — I frequently met on visits to the United States Central European friends of my youth who emigrated before World War Two and whom I had not seen for some thirty or forty years. Each time I was astonished to find that they not only dressed, spoke, ate, and behaved like Americans but had acquired an American physiognomy. I am unable to describe the change, except that it has something to do with a broadening of the jaw and a certain look in and around the eyes. (An anthropologist friend attributed the former to the increased use of the jaw musculature in American enunciation, and the look as a reflection of the rat-race and the resulting propensity for duodenal ulcers.) I was pleased to discover that this was not due to my imagination playing tricks — for Fishberg, writing in 1910, made a similar observation:

‘... The cast of countenance changes very easily under a change of social environment. I have noted such a rapid change among immigrants to the United States ... The new physiognomy is best noted when some of these immigrants return to their native homes ... This fact offers excellent proof that the social elements in which a man moves exercise a profound influence on his physical features.’

The proverbial melting pot seems to be producing an American physiognomy — a more or less standardized phenotype emerging from a wide variety of genotypes. Even the pure-bred Chinese and Japanese of the States seem to be affected by the process to some extent. At any rate, one can often recognize an American face ‘at a glance’, regardless of dress and speech, and regardless of its owner’s Italian, Polish, or German ancestry.

In any discussion of the biological and social inheritance of the Jews, the shadow of the ghetto must loom large. The Jews of Europe and America, and even of North Africa, are children of the ghetto, at no more than four or five generations removed. Whatever their geographical origin, within the ghetto walls they lived everywhere in more or less the same milieu, subjected for several centuries to the same formative, or deformative, influences. From the geneticist’s point of view, we can distinguish three such major influences: inbreeding, genetic drift, and selection.

Inbreeding may have played, at different periods, as large a part in Jewish racial history as its opposite, hybridization. From biblical times to the era of enforced segregation, and again in modern times, miscegenation was the dominant trend. In between, there stretched three to five centuries (according to country) of isolation and inbreeding — both in the strict sense of consanguineous marriages and in the broader sense of endogamy within a small, segregated group. Inbreeding carries the danger of bringing deleterious recessive genes together and allowing them to take effect. The high incidence of congenital idiocy among Jews has been known for a long time and was in all probability a result of protracted inbreeding — and not, as some anthropologists asserted, a Semitic racial peculiarity.

Mental and physical malformations are conspicuously frequent in remote Alpine villages, where most of the tombstones in the churchyard show one of half a dozen family names. There are no Cohens or Levys amongst them.

But inbreeding may also produce champion racehorses through favorable gene combinations. Perhaps it contributed to the production of both cretins and geniuses among the children of the ghetto. It reminds one of Chaim Weizmann’s dictum: “The Jews are like other people, only more so.” But genetics has little information to offer in this field.

Another process that may have profoundly affected the people in the ghetto is genetic drift (also known as the Sewall Wright effect). It refers to the loss of hereditary traits in small, isolated populations, either because none of its founding members happened to possess the corresponding genes, or because only a few possessed them but failed to transmit them to the next generation. Genetic drift can thus produce considerable transformations in the hereditary characteristics of small communities.

The selective pressures active within the ghetto walls must have been of an intensity rarely encountered in history. For one thing, since the Jews were debarred from agriculture they became completely urbanized, concentrated in towns or shtetls which became increasingly overcrowded. As a result, to quote Shapiro:

"the devastating epidemics that swept medieval cities and towns, would in the long run have been more selective on Jewish populations than on any others, leaving them with progressively greater immunity as time went on ... and their modern descendants would, therefore, represent the survivors of a rigorous and specific selective process."

This, he thinks, may account for the rarity of tuberculosis among Jews, and their relative longevity (amply illustrated by statistics collected by Fishberg).

The hostile pressures surrounding the ghetto ranged from cold contempt, to sporadic acts of violence, to organized pogroms. Several centuries of living in such conditions must have favored the survival of the glibbest, the most pliant, and mentally resilient; in a word, the ghetto type. Whether such psychological traits are based on hereditary dispositions on which the selective process operates, or are transmitted by social inheritance through childhood conditioning, is a question still hotly disputed among anthropologists. We do not even know to what extent a high IQ is attributable to heredity, and to what extent to milieu.

Take, for instance, the Jews’ once proverbial abstemiousness, which some authorities on alcoholism regarded as a racial trait. But one can just as well interpret it as another inheritance from the ghetto, the unconscious residue of living for centuries under precarious conditions which made it dangerous to lower one’s guard; the Jew with the yellow star on his back had to remain cautious and sober, while watching with amused contempt the antics of the ‘drunken goy’. Revulsion against alcohol and other forms of debauchery was instilled from parent to child in successive generations — until the memories of the ghetto faded, and with progressive assimilation, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the alcohol intake progressively increased. Thus, abstemiousness, like so many other Jewish characteristics, turned out to be, after all, a matter of social, and not biological, inheritance.

Lastly, there is yet another evolutionary process — sexual selection — which may have contributed to producing the traits that we have come to regard as typically Jewish. Ripley seems to have been the first to suggest this:

"The Jew is radically mixed in the line of racial descent; he is, on the other hand, the legitimate heir to all Judaism as a matter of choice... It affected every detail of their life. Why should it not also react upon their ideal of physical beauty? and why not influence their sexual preferences, as well as determine their choice in marriage? Its results thus became accentuated through heredity."

Ripley did not inquire into the ghetto’s ‘ideal of physical beauty’. But Fishberg did, and came up with an appealing suggestion: "To the strictly orthodox Jew in Eastern Europe, a strong muscular person is an Esau. The ideal of a son of Jacob was, during the centuries before the middle of the nineteenth century, ‘a silken young man’." This was a delicate, anaemic, willowy youth with a wistful expression, all brains and no brawn. But, he continues, "in Western Europe and America there is at present a strong tendency in the opposite direction. Many Jews are proud of the fact that they do not look like Jews. Considering this, it must be acknowledged that there is hardly a glowing future for the so-called ‘Jewish’ cast of countenance."

Least of all, we may add, among young Israelis.

---

In Part One of this book, I have attempted to trace the history of the Khazar Empire based on the scant existing sources. In Part Two, Chapters V-VII, I have compiled the historical evidence which indicates that the bulk of Eastern Jewry — and hence of world Jewry — is of Khazar-Turkish, rather than Semitic, origin.

In this last chapter, I have tried to show that the evidence from anthropology concurs with history in refuting the popular belief in a Jewish race descended from the biblical tribe. From the anthropologist’s point of view, two groups of facts militate against this belief: the wide diversity of Jews with regard to physical characteristics, and their similarity to the Gentile population amidst whom they live. Both are reflected in the statistics about bodily height, cranial index, blood-groups, hair and eye color, etc. Whichever of these anthropological criteria is taken as an indicator, it shows a greater similarity between Jews and their Gentile host-nation than between Jews living in different countries. To sum up this situation, I have suggested the formulae:

Ga — Ja < Ja — Jb; and Ga — Gb ≈ Ja — Jb.

The obvious biological explanation for both phenomena is miscegenation, which took different forms in different historical situations: intermarriage, large-scale proselytizing, and rape as a constant (legalized or tolerated) accompaniment of war and pogrom.

The belief that, notwithstanding the statistical data, there exists a recognizable Jewish type is based largely, but not entirely, on various misconceptions. It ignores the fact that features regarded as typically Jewish by comparison with Nordic people cease to appear so in a Mediterranean environment; it is unaware of the impact of the social environment on physique and countenance; and it confuses biological with social inheritance.

Nevertheless, there exist certain hereditary traits that characterize a certain type of contemporary Jew. In the light of modern population genetics, these can to a large degree be attributed to processes which operated for several centuries in the segregated conditions of the ghetto: inbreeding, genetic drift, and selective pressure. The last-mentioned operated in several ways: natural selection (e.g. through epidemics), sexual selection, and, more doubtfully, the selection of character-features favoring survival within the ghetto walls.

In addition to these, social heredity, through childhood conditioning, acted as a powerful formative and deformative factor. Each of these processes contributed to the emergence of the ghetto type. In the post-ghetto period, it became progressively diluted. As for the genetic composition and physical appearance of the pre-ghetto stock, we know next to nothing. In the view presented in this book, this ‘original stock’ was predominantly Turkish, mixed to an unknown extent with ancient Palestinian and other elements. Nor is it possible to tell which of the so-called typical features, such as the ‘Jewish nose’, is a product of sexual selection in the ghetto, or the manifestation of a particularly ‘persistent’ tribal gene. Since ‘nostrility’ is frequent among Caucasian peoples, and infrequent among the Semitic Bedouins, we have one more pointer to the dominant role played by the ‘thirteenth tribe’ in the biological history of the Jews.