By Scott Stinson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this age of brain-dead media programmed zombies, would it still be
possible for the facts to speak? If so, there is something worth saying about
the modern "Jewish" race, not written by anti-semites, but by Jews
themselves - and where else but in The Jewish Encyclopedia! Please excuse me for
being so abrupt, but I had to get your attention. You see, this article is worth
reading because it has some facts that you need to know about the authenticity
of today's Jewish race. The question that must be asked as well as answered is
simple: Are the modern Jews really the descendants of the ancient people of
Israel? The source of our information is also quite simple: The Jewish
Encyclopedia. Hopefully we will not find any anti-Semitism in the writings of
these Jewish scholars. However, the reader should be forewarned. Their articles
were written long before the age of mass-media social engineering and do not
contain any of the familiar buzz-words common to today's new views. In other
words, brace yourself for a factual scientific analysis of the racial origins of
the modern Jews. Oh, and should you decide to verify any of these facts, you
will find them in your local library in the 1901-1905 edition of The Jewish
Encyclopedia. So, please, do read on.
At the turn of the last century there was great interest stirring in the
science of anthropology. In the wake of this, Jewish scholarship turned its
watchful eye upon itself and began to examine the racial claims that modern Jews
make to the ancestral heritage of ancient Israel. The results were startling.
The religious community found itself completely alienated by its scientific
counterpart. The scientific method was coming face to face with religious
traditions and there was a great unsettling in the land. The facts were telling
a different story than what had been heard for centuries in the local synagogue.
In his article on Purity of Race, Joseph Jacobs relates something of the dilemma
that was gripping the Jewish community at this time. He writes: "The
question whether the Jews of today are in the main descended from the Jews of
Bible times, and from them alone, is still undecided" (Jew. Enc. X (1905),
283). What a startling statement to come from a Jewish scholar and to be printed
in The Jewish Encyclopedia! However, scholarship must have its reasons. Let us
look further to see what the scientific community had discovered that would
warrant such a radical and perplexing statement.
In his article on Purity of Race, Jacobs gives several important facts that
were forcing anthropologists of his day to reconsider the modern Jew's racial
claims to be Biblical Israel. In the study of craniometry which involves the
measurements of the skull, the evidence was clearly mounting against the modern
Jews. After extensive samples were taken from a broad spectrum of Jewish groups
world-wide. The conclusion was evident. Jacobs writes; "They are
predominantly brachycephalic, or broad-headed, while the Semites of Arabic
origin are invariably dolichocephalic, or long-headed" (Jew. Enc. X (1905),
284). Simply put, all known Semites have historically been long-headed, but the
modern Jews were predominantly round-headed! While Jacobs avoids drawing any
personal conclusions, he relates a prevailing view of his time: "Some
anthropologist are inclined to associate the racial origins of the Jews, not
with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the Armenians and
Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and curved noses they appear to have
inherited" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 284). The findings of some anthropologist
were leading them to conclude that the modern Jews were not in fact Semites at
all. but rather descendants of the ancient Hittites. Jacobs however was
personally hesitant to confess that the Jews were not the Jews, simply because
of the profound implications it imposed. He also wrote the article on
Anthropology and there declared: "Much turns upon the preliminary question
whether contemporary Jews are of the same race as those mentioned in the
Bible" (Jew. Enc. I (1901), 619). Jacobs obviously realized the
implications of the data he was receiving. It suggested the revolutionary idea
that the Jews were not in fact the Jews. He again presented the anthropological
evidence the cranial measurements of the modern Jews, stating: "Their
skulls are mainly brachycephalic; that is, the breadth is generally over 80 per
cent of the length. This has been used as an argument against the purity of ra!
ce, as most Semites - like the Arabs and Syrians - are dolichocephalic, or
long-headed" (Jew, Enc. I (1901), 619). Jacobs avoids any personal
conclusions. He was the former president of The Jewish Historical Society of
England and obviously could not bring himself to break with the great strength
of the "Jewish" tradition.
But Jacobs was not the only Jewish scholar of his day that was attempting to
come to terms with the startling discoveries of his time. After all, it was the
talk of the Jewish community. The haunting question persisted, Were the Jews
really the Jews? In his article on Craniometry, Jewish scholar Maurice Fishberg
provides a more comprehensive treatment of the "Jewish" cranial
findings that were turning the Jewish world upside down. Moreover, Fishberg was
a licensed medical Doctor and a medical examiner in New York City. He was
clearly an expert in his field and eminently qualified to comment on the data at
hand. Unlike Jacobs who was tied to the Jewish historical society, Fishberg
presents the facts much more objectively. Forthwith, he declares: "As is at
present accepted by nearly all anthropologists, the shape of the head is the
most stable characteristic of a given race" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). The
article by Fishberg is thoroughly educational as well as informative. His
scientific frame of reference is immediately evident. He includes numerous
charts and statistics, a complete inventory of all the cranial data collected on
the Jews to date. Fishberg also gives an understanding of some of the basic
concepts and terminology. He writes: "The cephalic index is expressed by
multiplying the width of the head by 100 and dividing the product by the length
...The broader or rounder the head is, the higher its cephalic index, and vice
versa. When the cephalic index is above 80 anthropologist term it 'brachycephalic';
between 75 and 80, 'mesocephalic'; and less than 75, 'dolichocephalic"'
(Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 333). Dr. Fishberg then proceeds to present all the Jewish
cranial findings in classical scientific form. He writes: "Appended is a
table of nearly 3,000 Jewish heads, from various countries, measured during the
last twenty years" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 333). In the table that follows,
there is not one Jewish head that has a cephalic index below 80, and they are
taken from a wide variety of countries sp!
read throughout Europe, Russia, and Asia Minor. Fishberg comments on the
data: "On an examination of the figures in this table a remarkable
uniformity of the cephalic index of the modern Jews will be noticed....nearly 90
per cent are between 81.5 and 83 ...Another remarkable fact is the striking
absence of the dolichocephalic type, which is characteristic of all the other
modern Semitic races" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 334). Dr. Fishberg also
presents a large graphic chart which shows the cephalic indexes of the Jews by
percentage. This chart peaks upward at the cephalic index measurement of 82,
indicating the average Jewish mean. Fishberg comments on the overall percentage
factor: "What is worthy of notice is the small percentage of dolichocephaly
- only 1.58 percent - and the large preponderance of brachycephaly, 76.48 per
cent" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 334). The Jewish medical examiner also confirms
the representative nature of his findings. He states: "The cephalic indexes
from which this curve was obtained were those of Jews in various parts of the
world" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902L 331). Fishberg then provides a table of
cephalic indexes by gender which shows little significant difference. He writes:
"There appears no perceptible difference between the cephalic index of Jews
and that of Jewesses" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). Finally, Fishberg
addresses the most obvious and confronting problem with his findings,
specifically how they relate to the racial claims of the modern Jews. He writes:
"The most important problem suggested by a study of craniometrical results
concerning Jews is the relation of the type head of the modern Jews to that of
the ancient Hebrews and to the modern Semitic skulls. The pure Semitic skull is
dolichocephalic, as may be seen from a study of the heads of modern Arabs,
Abyssinians, Syrians .... The only way the type of the head may change is by
intermixture with other races. If the ancient Hebrews were of the same stock as
the modern non-Jewish Semites, and if the modern Jews are their de!
scendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head would be expected among
the Jews. As has been seen, all results of craniometry prove that the Jews are
brachycephalic, and that the dolichocephalic form is only found among them in
less than two percent of the cases" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). Fishberg
presents an excellent summary of the problem. If the modern Jews are descendants
of the ancient Hebrews and are supposed to be Semites, then dolichocephalic
skulls would be expected. However, the exact opposite is true. The Jews are
predominantly round-headed. Fishberg provides some other cranial data, but draws
no further conclusions. The factual data he presents, however, is some of the
most incriminating evidence to have ever been collected against the racial
claims of the modern Jews.
Like the shape of the skull, the shape and configuration of the nose is
another important racial index that was recognized by anthropologist at the turn
of the century. It is also another clear sign against the modern Jew's racial
claims to be Biblical Israel. It turns out that the so called "Jewish
nose" is not Jewish at all, but rather comes from the ancient Hittites, as
do also their round skulls. Dr. Fishberg is also the author of the article on
the Nose. On the importance of this area as a racial index, the Jewish medical
examiner writes: "The relation of the breadth of the nose to its length,
known as the `nasal index,' has been considered one of the best means of
distinguishing the various races of mankind" (Jew. Enc. IX (1905), 339).
Fishberg proceeds to present a table of the nasal indexes of the modern Jews.
Their marked similarity to one another and peculiarity to others again
predominates in this table. Joseph Jacobs, in his article on Anthropology, also
mentioned the peculiarity of the Jewish nose, stating: "The nose is
generally the characteristic feature of the Jews, who have, on the average, the
longest (77 ram) and narrowest (34 mm)" (Jew. Enc. I (1901), 619). In
attempting to address this peculiarity, Fishberg presents some of the current
thinking circulating among the anthropologist of his day. He writes: "Some
authors show that this form of nose is not characteristically Semitic, became
the modern non-Jewish Semites, particularly such as are supposed to have
maintained themselves in a pure state, as the bedouin Arabs, do not possess this
characteristic nose at all Their noses are as a rule short, straight, and often
'snub' or concave. Luschan holds that the hook-nose is by no means
characteristic of the Semites, and contends that the number of arched noses that
are found among the Jews is due to ancient intermixture with the Hittites in
Asia Minor. He shows that other races also, as the Armenian, for instance, who
have a good portion of Hittite blood in their veins, have hook-noses" (!
Jew. Enc. IX (1905), 338). Thus, the notorious "Jewish" hook-nose
is another clear sign to the true racial origins of the modern Jews.
According to all the racial indicators recognized by leading anthropologist
at the turn of the century, the modern Jews have more in common with the ancient
Hittites, than with the ancient Israelites. In another early publication written
about the same time, this statement is found in the article on the Hittites:
"The human type is always brachycephalic [round-headed], with brow receding
sharply and long nose making almost one line with the sloping forehead. In the
sculptures of the Commagene and the Tyana districts, the nose has a long curving
tip, of very Jewish appearance" (Enc. Brit. XIII (1910), 537). It should be
evidently now that the round-headed hook-nosed Jews of today have a definite
racial connection with the ancient Hittites, remembering or course what Joseph
Jacobs wrote: "Some anthropologists are inclined to associate the racial
origins of the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with
the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and cuffed noses
they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X (1903), 264). Moreover, a
portrait of one of these Hittites taken from a sculptural relief found on the
tomb of an Egyptian Pharaoh clearly reveals what looks like a typical modern Jew
(Jew. Enc. VI (1904), 427). The resemblance is so startling it is uncanny! In
light of this, and all the other scientific evidence, confirmed and verified, it
should be enough to convince any rational person that the modern Jews are
standing on very shaky ground in their racial claims to be descendants of
Biblical Israel. If you don't believe me just read The Jewish Encyclopedia,
remembering of course that there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. After all,
the Hittites were not Semites at all. hittites.htm
By Warrant of Rev. 2:9
New York Times Reveals that European-Descended Jews are Counterfeits and have
no Blood line to Abraham
The fact that most of those who call themselves Jews are not Jews (Rev. 2:9)
and have no claim to the lands of Palestine because they have no genetic
relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can no longer be suppressed. The October
29, 1996 N.Y. Times, in an article entitled, "Scholars Debate Origins of
Yiddish and the Migrations of Jews," states:
"Arching over these questions is the central mystery of just where the
Jews of Eastern Europe came from. Many historians believe that there were not
nearly enough Jews in Western Europe to account for the huge population that
later flourished in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and nearby areas.
"By reconstructing the Yiddish mother tongue, linguists hope to plot the
migration of the Jews and their language with a precision never possible before.
"It has even been suggested, on the basis of linguistic evidence, that
the Jews of Eastern Europe were not predominantly part of the diaspora from the
Middle East, but were members of another ethnic group that adopted Judaism.
"...One linguist has recently argued that Yiddish began as a Slavic
language that was 'relexified,' with most of its vocabulary replaced with German
words.
"...Even more troublesome are demographic studies indicating that during
the Middle Ages there were no more than 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Western Europe.
These figures are hard to reconcile with other studies showing that by the 17th
century there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.
"...Some scholars believe the roots of Yiddish, and even the Ashkenazic
people themselves, lie much farther east. In his 1976 book, The Thirteenth
Tribe, Arthur Koestler made the startling suggestion, never taken seriously by
linguists, that the Eastern European Jews were not really Semitic -- that they
were largely descended from the Turkish Khazars, who converted en masse to
Judaism in medieval times.
"More recently, Koestler's controversial thesis has been revived and
expanded in a 1993 book, The Ashkenazic 'Jews': A Slavo-Turkic People in Search
of a Jewish Identity (Slavica Publishers), by Dr. Paul Wexler, a Tel Aviv
University linguist.
"Wexler uses a reconstruction of Yiddish to argue that it began as a
Slavic language whose vocabulary was largely replaced with German words. Going
even further, he contends that the Ashkenazic Jews are predominantly converted
Slavs and Turks who merged with a tiny population of Palestinian Jews from the
Diaspora."
(Emphasis supplied).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History