Subject:

������� Who Are The Modern Jews?

�� Date:

������� Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:11:55 ‑0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

�� From:

������� "Wilma" <[email protected]>

���� To:

������� "Willie Martin" <[email protected]>

����������������������������� �� WHO ARE THE MODERN JEWS?

�������������������������������������� 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 race, 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 spread 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 descendants, 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

� http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/

____________________________________________________

���� IncrediMail ‑ Email has finally evolved ‑ Click Here