The Jewish Question

[Travis]

Judaism is a religion ordained unto the 12 tribes of Israel. In this sense, it is the religion of a particular ethnicity. It began when Jacob receive his father Isaac's blessing instead of Esau (Genesis 25:29-34). This was the beginning of the nation of Israel.

What we have today are mere remnants of the 12 tribes of Israel scattered amongst the nations. Those who descend from the lineage of Judah/Juden (the leader of the 12 tribes) are said to be 'Jews'. However, what we see today is that there are many who claim to be "Jews" and are not, but are imposters (Revelation 3:9).

These people seek to undermine Judaism by infiltrating then sabotaging an identity that does not belong to them. They are fraudsters.

For more information on this co-opting of the rightful Israelites, read the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:24-30). It is very important to understand that just as there exists legitimate Hebrew Israelites, there are those who have positioned themselves within the Church in order to undermine and destroy from within (a common tactic of the enemy).

Unfortunately, this 'Synagogue of Satan' controls Zionism and the modern State of Israel. The problem is that many mistakenly blame the Jewish people for the problems caused by this seditious group of fraudsters.

[HansHill]

Whenever I see arguments of this kind, appeals to the fraudulent Jews, I have a question that I always ask. I have asked it before on this forum and I never seem to get a satisfying answer, maybe you have the answer.

A request to any / all of the "Fake Jew" theory proponents active on the board:

Dr MacDonald has famously written at length and at academic rigor, about the varying differences in mentality and behaviour between Jews and Gentiles. The MacDonald theory is falsifiable and successful in explaining, modeling and predicting Jewish behaviour, specifically ethnic ingroup preference. In addition, the MacDonald theory of antisemitism for example, assumes as part of its premise, fundamental differences between Jews and Gentiles, to explain the varying differences in the modes of behaviour between the two population, arising ultimately in conflict.

My request:

If "Jews" are simply "fake Jews" who are in turn simply Gentiles, please explain this observation in the context of Dr MacDonald's work - Is Dr MacDonald wrong? If so, why? What did he neglect? How do you know he neglected it, and what accounts for the discrepancy? Why specifically should anybody believe the Fake Jew theory over the MacDonald theory?

[Wahrheitssucher]

Whenever I see arguments of this kind, appeals to the fraudulent Jews, I have a question that I always ask. I have asked it before on this forum and I never seem to get a satisfying answer, maybe you have the answer.

A request to any / all of the "Fake Jew" theory proponents active on the board:

Dr MacDonald has famously written at length and at academic rigor, about the varying differences in mentality and behaviour between Jews and Gentiles. The MacDonald theory is falsifiable and successful in explaining, modeling and predicting Jewish behaviour, specifically ethnic ingroup preference. In addition, the MacDonald theory of antisemitism for example, assumes as part of its premise, fundamental differences between Jews and Gentiles, to explain the varying differences in the modes of behaviour between the two population, arising ultimately in conflict.

My request:

If "Jews" are simply "fake Jews" who are in turn simply Gentiles, please explain this observation in the context of Dr MacDonald's work - Is Dr MacDonald wrong? If so, why? What did he neglect? How do you know he neglected it, and what accounts for the discrepancy? Why specifically should anybody believe the Fake Jew theory over the MacDonald theory?

Q. Is Dr MacDonald wrong?
A. If your simplification and condensed summary of his research and conclusions is accurate, then: “Yes, he is wrong”.

Q. If so, why? (= ‘how is he wrong’).
A. Humans can be categorised by ethnic grouping based on Ancestral data and DNA.
Religious beliefs are abstract. They are not reducible to merely ethnic background or DNA.
Tribal loyalties can also be abstract.
Patriotic, nationalist loyalties are today mostly abstract.
People of European ethnicity who today self-identify as ‘Jews’ are self-deluded. Especially if they are athiest. They are not semites. The Palestinians and Arabs and the descendants of the Hebrew tribes are semites. Most people who identify as ashkenazi jews have little to zero semitic DNA.

Q. Why specifically should anybody believe the Fake Jew theory over the MacDonald theory?
Because the term ‘jew’ is much too imprecise.
It used to mean Hebrews of the Tribe of Judah and to Hebrews who lived in Judea.
Now it does not mean that. So — without reading his work and just going by your simplified condensation of it — the conclusions you are imputing to him are much to imprecise and rely on what appear to be false premises.

E.g. False premise: the idea that people can be classified in 2026 as either ‘jews’ or ‘gentiles’.
That I regard as antiquated nonsense.

P.S. The above is an answer just ‘shooting from the hip’, so to say.

[HansHill]

Thanks for taking a shot at it WS.

1) Yes just to clarify, obviously my summary of his work is condensed. his body of work on the JQ spans three large books and many academic papers. To summarise it in 2 paragraphs will obviously be aggressively concise.

2)

A. Humans can be categorised by ethnic grouping based on Ancestral data and DNA.
Religious beliefs are abstract. They are not reducible to merely ethnic background or DNA.
Tribal loyalties can also be abstract.

MacDonald's work focuses precisely on the part that you agree can be mapped. His work is evolutionary psychology, not theological. So this paragraph actually reads like you agree with MacDonald and his work, rather than disagree.

3)

Most people who identify as ashkenazi jews have little to zero semitic DNA.

We have been over this and similar before, here is a good summarizing post from Wetzelrad with direct passages from one of your studies:

I have not read this fully, and I will read it when I get the time, however on a surface level speedread this seems to jump out from the "Discussion" section:

Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, most likely through conversion.

Maternal ancestry.

Right, and this later sentence says the opposite for their paternal ancestry.

As might be expected from the autosomal picture, Y-chromosome studies generally show the opposite trend to mtDNA (with a predominantly Near Eastern source) with the exception of the large fraction of European ancestry seen in Ashkenazi Levites22.

Which basically means the female founders were more European and the male founders were more Middle Eastern. A very common finding.

4)

‘Jews’ are self-deluded

This is far too weak to be satisfactory. This suggests that 16 million gentiles in the world presently have been spoofed into becoming ethnocentric at their core. This can be easily tested: describe a mechanism whereby the remainder of gentiles can also be spoofed into becoming equally ethnocentric?

MacDonald's theory requires no such spoof, and this ethnocentrism is explained using rational, measurable, and tangible practices that gentiles do not practice.

5)

E.g. False premise: the idea that people can be classified in 2026 as either ‘jews’ or ‘gentiles’.
That I regard as antiquated nonsense.

Its not antiquated nonsense, its a perfectly relevant set of categories in the modern day in 2026, as it was in Germany in the 1930s, and again we can test this. You can walk into the Gaza strip right now, and every Jew knows exactly who is a Jew, and every Arab knows exactly who is an Arab. For this to be "antiquated nonsense" as you suggest, both sets of people would have no clue about each other.

Similarly in Germany in the 1930s, the Germans absolutely were not sitting around wondering "Eh, which ones are the Jews again?" They knew exactly who the Jews were. Ditto for the Russians in the 19th century. Similary, Alexander Solzhenitsyn knew exactly who he was writing about in his book "Two Hundred Years Together". So it seems that the label "Jew" works just fine as a functional categorical class when analysing the real world.

6)

Now it does not mean that. So — without reading his work and just going by your simplified condensation of it — the conclusions you are imputing to him are much to imprecise and rely on what appear to be false premises.

Fair enough, and yes i condensed this 80 year old man's lifetime work into two paragraphs so i think you'll excuse me for the condensing. But if my conclusions are incorrect, I would invite you to read his books and offer more precise interpretations? The main books of the series are:

1) A People That Shall Dwell Alone
2) Separation and Its Discontents
3) The Culture of Critique

For best results they should be read in this order.

[Wahrheitssucher]

E.g. False premise: the idea that people can be classified in 2026 as either ‘jews’ or ‘gentiles’.
That I regard as antiquated nonsense.

Its not antiquated nonsense, its a perfectly relevant set of categories in the modern day in 2026, as it was in Germany in the 1930s

They had a difficult time and had to use invented categories (e.g. degrees of ‘mischlinge’ status

…and again we can test this. You can walk into the Gaza strip right now, and every Jew knows exactly who is a Jew, and every Arab knows exactly who is an Arab.

I suggest to you that you are describing and mixing a.) the abstract self-identifications and b.) empirical DNA evidence. The Palestinians are genetically of ‘semitic origin’.
The Ashkenazi Jews are of genetically of ‘non-semitic, European origin’

For this to be "antiquated nonsense" as you suggest, both sets of people would have no clue about each other.

Yes. Both groups have little empirical understanding of their actual ethnic origins. See above.

Similarly in Germany in the 1930s, the Germans absolutely were not sitting around wondering "Eh, which ones are the Jews again?" They knew exactly who the Jews were.

Again you are mixing empirical distinctions with abstract tribal and religious loyalties.
You might as well argue that when there is violence at sports matches rival fans know who are their own group are and can distinguish them from fans of the opposing team. Yes, they can. But those loyalties and perceived differences are what I am calling abstract in terms of ethnicity and DNA evidence.

Ditto for the Russians in the 19th century. Similarly, Alexander Solzhenitsyn knew exactly who he was writing about in his book "Two Hundred Years Together". So it seems that the label "Jew" works just fine as a functional categorical class when analysing the real world.

I agree he knew, but… You are misunderstanding me. Solzhenitsyn was detailing the history of people who self-identify as belonging to an international but abstract tribal loyalty. That group of self-deluded people definitely exist!
And that international clique is definitely acting for their own perceived self-interests. But they are not descended from ancient Hebrew tribes.

We all belong to the same species of homo sapien.
Many distinctions which are artificial, traditional, unempirical and abstract should in my opinion have no place in a modern more-enlightened society.

‘Jew and gentile’ is in my opinion such a distinction. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m saying it is abstract, unempirical, destructive and a hangover from prejudicial, unenlightened, religiously-oxymoronic thinking.

[Hektor]

Judaism is a religion ordained unto the 12 tribes of Israel. In this sense, it is the religion of a particular ethnicity. It began when Jacob receives his father Isaac's blessing instead of Esau (Genesis 25:29-34). This was the beginning of the nation of Israel.
....

That's a bit of a misconception. Due to equivocation fallacies.

Judaism isn't the religion founded by Moses for the 12 tribes. That didn't really have a name, but was actually proto-Christian.

Judaism is actually what emerged as reaction to Christianity and due to the destruction of the temple. That's rabbinic Judaism and their source code is the Talmud, while they still will quote from the masoretic texts of the OT. Theiractual source for 'wisdom' is in the occult, which is accessed via the teachings of the Kabballah. So it's a - rather elaborate - source of mysticism and magic.

The common denominator of Jews is their rejection of Christ or having ancestors that did do so. That's why you can be an Atheist and be a Jew, or a Buddhist, New-Ager, etc. and a Jew. But you can't be a Christian or a Jew and they explicitly will reject that as well.

So the naive Protestant belief that Jews are just folks that were stuck in the Old Testament isn't exactly true, while they may respect the OT text to some degree, the source for their thought and basis for their thinking is a different one, which they are taught in their Talmud schools.

[HansHill]

Wahrheitssucher are you reading my posts before replying? I'm not certain that you are. I am dealing exclusively with the genetic and biological component, and I am treating religion and theology as secondary.

The Ashkenazi Jews are of genetically of ‘non-semitic, European origin’

I refer you again to the thread above if you can please take the time to read it. According to your own study that you posted in that thread, the very Jews you are talking about are noted to have ~60% middle east ancestry, with the remainder being European. To categrically assert that a population with ~60% ME ancestry are not Middle Eastern is astonishing. At best they are described as a genetic kline which has also been described in that thread.

MacDonald's work accounts for this neatly. From chapter 2 of APTSDA:

THE SEGREGATION OF THE JEWISH GENE POOL

The thesis that Judaism is an evolutionary strategy does not rely on the proposition that Jews represent a distinct race. The minimal requirement for the present theory of Judaism as a fairly closed group strategy is that there be genetic gradients between well-defined groups of Jews and gentiles within particular societies that are maintained by cultural practices. It is the genetic gradient and the coincident competition between significantly different gene pools that are of interest to the evolutionist. Clearly, such a proposal is compatible with some genetic admixture from the surrounding populations. However, an evolutionary perspective must also consider the hypothesis that widely dispersed Jewish populations have significantly more genetic commonality than local Jewish populations have with their gentile co-habitants, since this hypothesis is relevant to developing an evolutionary theory of the patterns of altruism and cooperation among widely scattered Jewish populations.

He then goes on, in a subsequent subchapter:

GENTILE REPRESENTATION IN THE JEWISH GENE POOL

We have seen that Jewish populations tend to resemble local populations to some extent genetically. Although these findings could be due to selection in the diaspora environment, they are also compatible with the possibility of some gene flow between populations. Indeed, it would be rather remarkable if there was no gene flow at all into the Jewish gene pool from gentile populations living in close proximity over several centuries. The data reviewed in Chapter 4 indicate that in fact there have been low levels of gentile proselytism to Judaism over the centuries, and Patai and Patai (1989) suggest that the rape of Jewish women by gentiles as well as the illicit affairs of Jewish women with gentile men may also have influenced the representation of gentile genes in the Jewish gene pool.

He then builds upon both points nicely as the book continues. For example, for Palestinians to have less European admixture makes perfect sense, because Palestinains did not migrate in the same volume and waves that the Jews did. We are simply pointing out the obvious here.

WS, this seems like a topic that you are deeply interested in so I am surprised that you haven't taken it upon yourself to at least read these works. I will leave a link below to the book I am citing, and you can review at your leisure.

https://annas-archive.gl/slow_download/ ... 317567/0/0

[Archie]

Judaism is a religion ordained unto the 12 tribes of Israel. In this sense, it is the religion of a particular ethnicity. It began when Jacob receive his father Isaac's blessing instead of Esau (Genesis 25:29-34). This was the beginning of the nation of Israel.

What we have today are mere remnants of the 12 tribes of Israel scattered amongst the nations. Those who descend from the lineage of Judah/Juden (the leader of the 12 tribes) are said to be 'Jews'. However, what we see today is that there are many who claim to be "Jews" and are not, but are imposters (Revelation 3:9).

I would not get too hung up on the legendary genealogy. Not to be dismissive if you have traditional views on this, but 12 tribes literally descended from 12 brothers? And that still being meaningful today in 2026? Nah. Population genetics doesn't work that way. Populations aren't perfectly endogamous like that. Most modern scholars interpret the patriarchal narratives as later literary constructs rather than literal history.

There were certainly two kingdoms, Israel (Northern) and Judah (Southern). Israel was "scattered" (read: lost their identity) with the Assyrian conquest. Those Northern people would have mixed in with other populations in the region (some probably became the kernel of the later Samaritan population). Modern Jews would have some continuity with Judah (the Southern Kingdom) but in the diaspora they picked up lots of ancestry from Europe and elsewhere. It seems they do still have a good amount of Middle Eastern DNA though.

These people seek to undermine Judaism by infiltrating then sabotaging an identity that does not belong to them. They are fraudsters.

For more information on this co-opting of the rightful Israelites, read the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13:24-30). It is very important to understand that just as there exists legitimate Hebrew Israelites, there are those who have positioned themselves within the Church in order to undermine and destroy from within (a common tactic of the enemy).

Unfortunately, this 'Synagogue of Satan' controls Zionism and the modern State of Israel. The problem is that many mistakenly blame the Jewish people for the problems caused by this seditious group of fraudsters.

Again, I don't think the distinction you are trying to make is meaningful. Absent divine intervention, there is no way to identify modern descendants of Judah, the son Jacob. Many scholars do not even think Judah existed, and even if he did we wouldn't have his DNA. And even if you we could test for his DNA, it wouldn't mean anything because that group of people would not be a coherent identity today.

For male lineage, it is sometimes possible to trace descendants through Y-DNA and/or surnames. The Levites were a priestly class. The surname Cohen is related to this tradition. But the Levite priesthood was related to Jewish temple practice which they no longer do. The second temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, and consequently modern Judaism is more based on the rabbinical tradition rather than the ancient temple cult.

[Wetzelrad]

Those who descend from the lineage of Judah/Juden (the leader of the 12 tribes) are said to be 'Jews'. However, what we see today is that there are many who claim to be "Jews" and are not, but are imposters (Revelation 3:9).

Isn't this a bit of a reach? You're saying that this one verse out of the Bible, removed from its context of two millenia ago, actually refers to some group of modern Jewish imposters that you struggle to identify? I don't think so.

Revelation 2:9 contextualizes who are "them which say they are Jews, and are not". They are the Jewish congregation of Smyrna, explicitly. They are called imposters because they reject Christ and harm his followers. I think Revelation 3:9 refers to the same phenomenon among Jews more broadly. They are imposters because they reject Christ. This aligns also with Paul who in Romans 2:28 redefines what a Jew is not as a consequence of one's birth but of one's heart.

From those three verses, and others, I conclude that the the word Jew was being used to refer to what we now call a Christian. A matter of considerable confusion since it is not consistently used that way and is no longer used that way.

These people seek to undermine Judaism by infiltrating then sabotaging an identity that does not belong to them. They are fraudsters.

I don't see any strong evidence to support this view, nor do I see why anyone should care. It is of no concern to a Christian or an atheist if Jews are having internal identity struggles. Why should it be our responsibility to defend the reputation of Jews? Regardless, the poor reputation of Jewry is longstanding, not owed to some new sect.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I don't see any strong evidence to support this view, nor do I see why anyone should care.

Yeah. Ok.
But you are the guy who suggested no-one should doubt official narratives — specifically the ‘official’ Kirk-killing narrative — and should be wary of considering any credible evidence if it leads to alternative conclusions that undermine the official narrative.

[Wetzelrad]

That doesn't reflect what I've written, but I do think the unofficial Kirk-killing narrative, such that it exists, is outrageous.

Returning to this topic: If Ashkenazi Jews are fake Jews, who are the real ones?

[Wahrheitssucher]

That doesn't reflect what I've written, but I do think the unofficial Kirk-killing narrative, such that it exists, is outrageous.

Returning to this topic: If Ashkenazi Jews are fake Jews, who are the real ones?

That you think the official narrative of the Kirk killing is sound and that all credible and logical refutation of it as “outrageous” demonstrates to me that on that topic you are a gullible dupe with little powers of independent thought or critical analysis. That doesn’t bode well for your ability to think independently on any topic. It suggests that you can only learn and regurgitate from sources you regard subserviently as being ‘authoritative’.
Sorry if that observation causes you any emotional turbulence. Just being rigorously frank with you as I respect you enough to think you might benefit from an honest evaluation.

Regarding your second point: I suggest to you that you are using the categorisation ‘jews’ imprecisely. It's a common fallacy.

The Hebrews were a nomadic people living in the Levant area in antiquity.
In what is called the ‘Patriarchal era’ of Abraham they were referred to by themselves and by others using that term ‘Hebrews’.
Abraham's grandson Jacob was renamed Israel. His descendants became known as the Israelites and became split into twelve tribes. According to their own texts, they were still called ‘Hebrews’ by outsiders (e.g. the Egyptians) but increasingly called themselves ‘Israelites’.
The term ‘Jew’ originally was ‘Judean’ = of the tribe of Judah and living in Judea.
The vast majority of people who today self-identify as being Ashkenazi ‘Jews’ do not have ancestors from Judea.

You presumably do know of the existence of groups categorised as Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi ‘Jews’?
Tracing their genuine ancestral origins is a controversial topic.
I have read Koestler’s ‘The thirteenth tribe’. I also purchased and attempted to read Prof. Shlomo Sand’s ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, but found it too dry. But I am familiar with his main argument as I read about a third of it, plus I’ve watched numerous videos of him summarising and defending the thesis of that book.

To answer your question: “who are the real Jews?” I would answer by saying ‘anyone who can empirically trace their ancestry to the ancient area of territory known as ‘Judea’. And ironically that appears to be some of the people now being persecuted and genocided as ‘Palestinians’. They appear to be the actual descendants of Jews from Judea who converted to Islam and Christianity starting about five centuries ago and during the Byzantine period.
DNA tests have shown that to be the reality, here.
Summary: Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Jordanians derive over 50% of their ancestry from ancient Bronze Age ‘Hebrew’ populations.

Q: are there any “real” descendants of the Ancient Hebrews?
Yes. The Samaritans: They trace their lineage back to the northern Israelite tribes (specifically Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi) who were not exiled by the Assyrians. A vey small community of around a thousand people who appear to be descendants of Samaritans live in occupied Palestine, primarily in Holon and Mount Gerizim near Nablus.