donis and of the Hasmoneans at the endrnof the Second Commonwealth all werernmarried to gentile wives.rnGeneralizations about prohibitionsrnagainst intermarriage derived from thernrestrictions imposed on the Kohanimrn(the Jewish priestly class) can be dangerous.rnAs explained in Leviticus and by thernpriestly historian Josephus, the priesthoodrnrepresented a “pure race” by virtuernof having kept itself from certain forms ofrnintermarriage. Among the forbiddenrnunions in question, however, were thosernbetween priests and widows or divorcees,rnwhile priestly families were expectedrn(and continue to be expected, especiallyrnamong Sephardim) to marry within theirrncaste. Exogamy for nonpriesdy Jews is anrnoverstepping of social boundaries. Moreover,rnthe most outspoken of the Jewishrnseparatists at the time of Jesus were thernEsscncs. According to Josephus’s Histon’rnof the Jews, no other Jewish sect, includingrnthe eventually triumphant Pharisees,rnwent so far to avoid contact with alienrnpeoples. But Essenes were also self-isolatedrnmonks, whose members shunnedrncontact with women as much as they didrnwith gentiles.rnMacDonald also infers too much fromrncurrent Jewish social behavior. Grantingrnthat present-day Jews and Jewish organizationsrndeny to host nations the ethnicrnsolidarit}’ they claim for themselves, whatrnhistorical gcneralizaHons can be drawnrnfrom that fact? MacDonald leaves thernimpression that Jews in exile have alwaysrnoperated in this fashion, but the gaps inrnhistorical evidence are too large to justifyrnthe inference. As he himself acknowledges,rnJews a diousand years ago viewedrnlife among gentiles as a penalfy for theirrnsins, a penalt}- which they would continuernto suffer until a national savior returnedrnthem to their ancestral land. Beforernthe last hvo centuries, Jews were inrnno position to dispossess gentiles, but coexistedrnwith them in a situation of disparity-.rnEven had they wanted to take over arnChristian societ)’, such a goal would havernseemed beyond reach. And given theirrnexclusion from professional and manyrncommercial activihcs, premodern Jewsrncould not successfully compete for resources.rnBut is the Jews’ present attemptrnat reconstructing gentile societies a recurrentrnaspect of Jewish-gentile relations?rnOr is MacDonald dealing with a uniquerncultural context, in which Jews and gentilesrnplay historically conditioned roles?rnOver the last hundred years or so, Jewsrnhave moved out of a traditional Talmudicrnsociefy to a.ssume commanding positionsrnin an increasingly secularized andrnmorally confused ChrisHan world; theyrnhave done so most dramatically in anglophonernsocieties, whose Protestantismrnrepresents Christianity in its least antisemihcrnform and whose prevalent politicalrntraditions are the most individualistic.rnErom these favorable circumstances, accordingrnto MacDonald, two developmentsrnhave emerged: Jews have maderndisproportionate contributions to science,rnthe professions, and commerce;rnthey have also contributed to the breakdownrnof traditional gentile culture.rnMacDonald has devoted an entirernvolume to the latter activity, treatingrnit as illustrating a Jewish double standard.rnWhile celebrating internationalism,rnsocially critical individualism, andrnantiseptically secular public squares,rnJews are forever making exceptions forrnthemselves. Those who fail to recognizernand exalt this exception earn the censurernof Jewish spokesmen, who condemnrnthem eiriier as anhsemites or as Jewishrnself-haters. MacDonald offers so manyrninstances of this double standard that hernbelabors the obvious as he reaches backrnto the late 19th century for examples ofrnJewish civic leaders taking stands simvdtaneouslyrnon behalf of a supposed Jewishrnright to ethnic cohesion and a heterogeneousrnAmerican nation. According tornMacDonald, this inconsistency was t)’picalrnof the relatively assimilated GermanrnJews in the United States, even before thernarrival of their Eastern European coreligionists.rnThe Jews’ current view of the UnitedrnStates as a culturally evolving “globalrndemocracy” goes back a long way in thernhistorv of American Jewish organizations.rnTheir preachments, far from having beenrninspired by the holocaust, were beingrnpropagated even before the Eastern EuropeanrnJewish immigration of the earlyrn20th centur)’. And the wedding of thesernviews to the justification of Jewish ethnicrnparHcularity, MacDonald convincinglyrndemonstrates, contributed to pluralistrnagendas drawn up in the early part of therncentim’. Gemian Jewish humanist and socialistrnHorace Kallen expressed botli a callrnfor political internationalism and thernhope that the United States would bernfilled with ethnic enclaves; MacDonaldrnspeculates that Kallen’s Jewish identityrnand his sense of marginal it}’ in a gentile societyrncontributed to his pluralist politics.rnMacDonald notes the overlap betweenrncontemporary Jewish polemicsrnagainst immigration restrictionists andrnthose produced by Jewish organizationsrnin the 1920’s. Well before mid-century,rnJews were savaging critics of liberal immigrationrnpolicies as “un-American” andrn”Nordic supremacists.” These invectives,rncoming from the opponents of thernMcCarran-Walter Act of 1952, had alsornbeen directed against supporters of thernnaturalization acts of the 1920’s. In bothrncases, public advocates for restriction emphasizedrncultural and economic, not biological,rnconsiderations in suggesting immigrationrnpolicy for the United States.rnMacDonald shows how persistent the issuernof open borders has been for his subjects.rnJews have combined intenentionrnon behalf of immigration and the demonizationrnof immigration restrictionistsrnwith the promotion of “diversify education.”rnThe Anti-Defamation League hasrnintroduced and sponsored “A World ofrnDifference Together,” a program forrnpublic education which it is now exportingrnto Germany, Russia, and SouthrnAfrica.rnMacDonald does not present such advocacyrnas the misguided humanitarianrndesign of those whose ancestors sufferedrndispersion and who are therefore receptivernto later strangers. Instead, he locatesrnJewish support for multicidturalism inrnthe context of an already venerable strategy:rn”de-ethnicizing” the once majorityrnpopulation while insisting on the right ofrnJews as righteous victims to persist as anrnethnic cluster. Although the interpretivernperspective seems correct, at least for thernUnited States, hvo questions neverthelessrngo begging. Was Jewish intervention decisivernfor the immigration revolution ofrnthe mid-60’s? If not, were other factorsrnand circumstances critical to the successrnof that revolution —in which Jewish bullyingrnand complaining played a secondaryrnrole? My guess from readingrnChilton Williamson, Peter Brimelow,rnand Lawrence Auster is that the reassessmentrnof immigration, especially from thernThird World, was part of a general culturalrnchange that beset Western societiesrnand was pushed by the managerial state.rnWhile Jews contributed to culturalrnchange and immigrationism energeticallyrnand disproportionately, they were farrnfrom constituting a sufficient cause. Inrncountries without a conspicuous Jewishrnpresence (say, Scandinavia and Germany),rntire same general cultural-politicalrntrends can be observed.rnTwo obser’ations are in order regard-rn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn