Anti-Semitism
Arnold Kennedy
The New Zealand Jewish chronicle of Sept.1995 on page 15 quotes historian Robert Wistrich who says, "It dates back to 1879, the invention of a German journalist and writer who wanted to signify that anti-Semitism was not the same as traditional religious hatred of Jews, and therefore coined a phrase which had a racial connotation”.
The word, “anti-Semitism” was first printed as late as 1880 according to the 1901 Jewish Encyclopaedia: Vol 1 P.641. The word is used as a cover-up by those claiming to be Israelites or Shemites, “but who are not”-[Rev 2:9]. These are who are known and identified as International Jewry today; they themselves state that they are Edom, as has been shown.
To be anti-Semitic rightly means being against the descendants of Shem, the son of Noah. Biblical Israel are Shemites. Historically and biblically, there are peoples known as "Jews" who are not Shemites, and some of these others descend from the other two sons of Noah, Japheth and Ham. They are not Israelites, but neither are some other Shemites.
Today we find a push for world government by these particular people, as usual through the socialist platform: ”Jewish Encyclopaedia Vol 11:P418. “Jews have been prominently identified with the modern Socialist movement from its very inception
We also find evidenced the Communist ideal surfacing again in the United Nations Conventions. Very soon after the Communist revolution in Russia, the Jewish Chronicle of April 4: 1919 said: “There is much in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism are at many points consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”.
The Encyclopedia Judaica [1971], Vol 16:1032 says: “The modern term Zionism first appeared in the 19th Century...as the establishment of an organization”.
Communism sought to eliminate all opposition to its control and objectives and we find a similar operation emerging today against those who would contravene the U.N. Conventions. Communism, Zionism and United Nations have a dominating “Jewish” content. We will soon see more cries of anti-Semitism world-wide against those who oppose Edom in their war of extermination against Biblical Israel and Christianity.
NON-ISRAELITE “JEWS”. There are Jews of many racial origins.
1. THE ASHKENAZIM JEWS.
Some claim a link between Edom and the Khazars, but apart from that there is more than one identity calling themselves “Jews”; all of these have no claim to the name ‘Israel’. Regarding the Ashkenazim Jews who speak Yiddish, most dictionaries and encyclopedia define Ashkenazim in words like “after ‘Ashkenaz’, the second son of Gomer”. This confirms Scripture concerning the sons of Noah, [Shem, Japheth and Ham], and their offspring: Gen 10: 1-3 “...the sons of Japheth, Gomer, ....the sons of Gomer, Ashkenaz”. The Khazars themselves claimed descent from Japheth, and from their adoption of Judaism, they became known as Jews. But, they did not descend from Shem, and therefore they are not Semitic in origin. To relate the term “Anti-Semitism” to Jews of this origin is nonsense and part of the great deception! Eastern European Jews of this origin have no Israelite connection. Anti-Semitism could not apply to them! These people are the majority in the State of Israel.
2. THE SEPHARDIM JEWS.
The American People’s Encyclopaedia, [1925] indicates that these descended from Edomites who were cast out from Palestine by Prince Titus is AD 70. From thence they spread to North Africa and to Spain converting Berber Tribes and others to Judaism. There were Cardinals and Popes who were Sephardim Jews. They have no simple blood line, being Edomites diluted with Syrian, Canaanite, Phoenician and North African blood.
3. THE SEPHARDIM / ASHKENAZIM JEWISH MIXTURE.
It is impossible to determine the degree of intermarriage between these two groups of non-Israelites, but there is evidence that this has been common.
4. THE ETHIOPIAN DESCENDANTS OF HAM
[The Falashas]. These are known as “Jews” because of acceptance of Judaism. The Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “The history of the Falashas speaks of their Hamitic origin”.
5. BABYLONIAN JEWS.
Those in the days of Mordecai and Esther, many who obviously were not of Judah took up Judaism - “And many of the people of the land became Jews”-[Ester 8:17].
6. PROSELYTES TO JUDAISM
These are people from other Semitic and non-Semitic origins, being known as Jews because of religious spirit and belief. To add to the confusion, we have the Arabs who come from the line of Shem through Abraham. To be anti-Arab is then to be anti-Semitic also. Anyone who wants to call this mixture “Israel” is not speaking about the true Israel of God as defined in the Bible. If we have another Israel we then have another gospel. The argument often raised is to infer that Arabs are not now Semitic and that racial admixture has rendered them so. But the same people will insist that Jews of such racial mixture are a single race when they are not. They want it both ways.
The territorial term “Ioudaios” is wrongly accepted as the racial term “Ioudas” when reading the New Testament is the root of the understanding problem. The use of the territorial term is not a measure of race, although some true Israelites were amongst the proselytes to Judaism in Judea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians have been duped
Preachers like Jerry Falwell and the free-will, Pro-Israel church people have been duped by their pastors and radio preachers to believe that the Jews are God's chosen people. That term was started by a Presbyterian Laymen in 1956 (Read Prophecy and Politics by Grace Halsell) and it is not a biblical statement or fact. The problem is that if someone opposes a Jew on anything whether they are saved or not, is labeled Anti-Semitic and quite frankly I am sick of seeing doltish Christians defend the enemies of Christ (and all unsaved are) against other Christians. The greatest source of lies and deceit are found in prophecy books written by preachers who are so entwined with Zionist politics and the Zionist Lobby that they have completely lost their ability to discern truth. Yet, Christians buy these Hollywood-style scripts by the millions and then interpret the Bible according to them.
What is a Political Semite?
The political definition of a Semite is one who is a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. It is one who is a descendant of these people. They are a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.
Did you notice the number of groups? Four not One! These four groups make up the Semitic peoples of the earth. I have already checked the following out in two dictionaries. The term Anti-Semitic is used only of those who dislike or hate Jews, or as a weapon against whoever the Jews don't like. Hey, wait a minute, there are four groups who are considered Semitic. If I hate the Arabs it is not Anti-Semitism but if I hate the Jews it is? Someone is selling the literary world a bill of goods in the dictionaries. If the Semitic people are comprised of four groups, then any hate toward any group needs to be classified as Anti-Semitism. Therefore, if the Jews hate the Arabs, then they are being Anti-Semitic, if the Phoenicians hate the Akkadians, it is Anti-Semitism. Eclectic definitions of Anti-Semitism must not be tolerated in favor of one race. It is obvious then that the term Anti-Semitism has been fostered on the non-thinking public as only alluding to the Jews which makes the modern definition a well-planned deception.
The other well-planned deception is that if you oppose Israel, you oppose God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hebrews 1:1-2 says that in the last days God spoke to us through His Son, not the nation of Israel. Mention the name of Jesus Christ in Israel and you will get arrested or killed. Any Christian who supports Israel is supporting the enemies of Christ, whether by ignorance or not. I am not calling for the elimination of Israel, perish the thought because there are many of God's elect in Israel but that nation should not be looked upon as special in God's sight because nowhere in the Bible is it set apart as a special nation in the latter days (post-ascension era). God is dealing with His elect, the Israel of God, throughout the whole world and no longer with one nation as He did in the pre-Bethlehem days. His eyes are on the church, the TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD.
"Anti-semite" (or "self-hating Jew") is a label used to slur anyone who disagrees with Zionism, who speaks the Truth about the Jewish religion and aspects of history that Jewish leadership would rather you not know about, or who dares to offer social criticism of the Jewish community in any way. As soon as one is labeled an "anti-semite," he is out of the game, a bigot, a Nazi, a fascist, a hater, a nutter. His ideas can be written off, he will never hold political office or be taken seriously again by "decent people." That slur, though, is usually hurled by one who, ironically, is the true hater and bigot (not that there are not true racially-motivated anti-semites out there in the world, to be sure). Writer Joe Sobran sums it up by saying: "An 'anti-semite' in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply can't bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term 'anti-semitism' doesn't stand for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual ostracisms." (National Review, March 16, l992).
Have a problem with Eretz Israel's policies? You're an "anti-semite."
Know what is contained in Jewish "holy" books and dare to even mention their true contents? You're an anti-semite.
Dare to compare the 20,000,000 Christians dead at the hands of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union to those Jews murdered in the Third Reich? Actually believe that Jewish people haven't cornered the market on suffering? You're an anti-semite.
Speak the truth that Jews speak among themselves concerning Jewish power over the media and America's political system and culture? Not only are you an anti-semite, you're a paranoid one who probably has an SS Uniform in your closet.
Accusing one of being "anti-semitic" who speaks the Truth about Zionism, the Jewish religion, and Jewish history conflates a reasoned commitment to Truth and basic morality with irrational psychopathology or "racism." That is the trick.
World Organized Jewry Main Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
World Organized Jewry Main Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of the word Jew
It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe, hath not a Iewe eyes?"
In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel by John reference to the inscription on the Cross,"Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.
The available original manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively: "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "low", "Iewe", "Ieue", "Iue", "Ive", "lew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".
With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.
As you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it. The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.
World Organized Jewry Main Menu