Watchman Willie Martin Archive


        Who Are The Modern Jews?


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


        "Wilma" <[email protected]>


        "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


     IncrediMail ‑ Email has finally evolved ‑ Click Here

Reference Materials