AUDIO

Studies in Jewish Supremacism
Narrated by Dr. David Duke

What Is Jewish Supremacism? Download
Are the Jews A Race? Download
Are the Jews a Distinct Race? Download
Will Intermarriage End Jewish Supremacism? Download


Text Abstracts:

What is Jewish Supremacism?
Quote:
The definition of White supremacism from the Random House unabridged Webster's Dictionary denotes it as "belief in superiority over other races and retaining of control in all relationships." Let's take the definition and apply it specifically to the term Jewish Supremacism.

Jewish Supremacism – The belief, theory, or doctrine that the Jewish people are superior to all others and should retain control in all relationships.

As to the first part of the definition, this book assembles powerful evidence that the leading Jews of the world have a belief, theory or doctrine that they are superior to all other peoples. I will also clearly demonstrate that they seek control in all relationships with other peoples.

David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, often called the "George Washington of Israel," said specifically that he believed in the "moral and intellectual superiority" of the Jewish people. That sentiment is commonly found in the writings of Jewish leaders throughout the world. Imagine the outcry if the President of the United States or head of state of any modern European nation pronounced that he believes in the moral and intellectual superiority of the White race! The Jewish dominated world media have so shielded Jewish Supremacists from criticism that their most famous leaders can say such things without fear of repercussion.

There was no outrage expressed by the world press when Ben Gurion made his remark, nor did any protest ensue from his supremacist prophecy quoted in Look magazine in 1962; a prediction that Israel would one day sit atop a one world government.

"In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of allcontinents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind."

It also seemed cruelly ironic to his Palestinian victims that there was little outcry when the admitted terrorist Menachem Begin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Begin brags in his book, The Revolt, about the massacre of over two hundred men, women, and children at Dier Yassin. The world hunts down suspected Nazi war criminals but gives a blood-stained Jewish one…the Nobel Peace Prize! That one event should tell us a great deal about who is really supreme in the modern world.

The other necessary part of the definition of supremacism denotes having control over other races. I will argue that Jewish Supremacists seek to control the nations in which they dwell. They make concerted efforts to dominate the two critical factors of control in the modern world, mass media and government. This book provides documented evidence of their incredible power in these sectors. This extreme concentration of power exists not only in the United States, but in most of the major nations of the world including Canada, Britain, Russia, France, Brazil and many more. It is a universal pattern suggesting that it is by design rather than accident.
Are The Jews A Race?
Quote:
Studies in Jewish Supremacism: A Series Edited and Posted by Dave Cooper
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=473

Are Jews a Race?…What They Themselves Say!

An excerpt from Dr. David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism.

One of the first things I discovered is that while Gentiles who call the Jews a “race” are condemned, Jewish leaders have for centuries routinely called themselves a race. The leader of American Jewry in the 1930s, Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, said it succinctly in this dramatic statement,
“Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”
Right up to the present day, there are many statements illustrating how Jewish leaders matter-of-factly view themselves not just as a religion, but as an identifiable race, genetically distinguishable from other peoples.

Nahum Goldman, one of the leading Jews of the 20th Century and former president of the World Zionist Organization, said it very bluntly:
…The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of dishonesty.
The former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to Jewish group in southern California said:
“If Israel had not come into existence after World War II then I am certain the Jewish race wouldn’t have survived…I stand before you and say you muststrengthen your commitment to Israel.”
An editorial entitled “Some Other Race” in the New York weekly Forward (A very prestigious Jewish publication) urges Jews to list themselves on the U.S. Government census form as a race. It goes on to suggest:
“… On question eight [of the form, which asks about race], you might consider doing what more than one member of our redaktzia [editorial staff] has done: checking the box ’some other race’ and writing in the word ‘Jew’.”
Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of the $210 million “Birthright Israel,” an organization specifically committed to preventing intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, expressed the need to preserve the Jewish genetic character as expressed in the Jewish DNA.

Bronfman is brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress. He said,
“…you’re losing a lot — losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”
Imagine for a moment if President George Bush would speak to a group of White college students and tell them how great it is for them know that others in the world share their White DNA, and that they should not lose it by intermarrying with other races. Bush could live to 100 years old and still never live down a remark like that!

During his campaign for President in 2000, Bush spoke before dozens of Jewish organizations and Synagogues that oppose intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. The media only had praise for those appearances. In contrast, Bush faced universal criticism by the Jewish media by simply speaking at a conservative Christian university (Bob Jones University) that quietly opposes racial intermarriage. After the media unleashed a storm of criticism, Bush had to quickly apologize and then passionately condemn Bob Jones University for its position. Of course, within a few days, Bush was again speaking before many Jewish groups that stridently oppose intermarriage, yet no one in the media dared object to these appearances, or to even point out this blatant double standard.

Dr. David Duke, Jewish Supremacism, Ch. 2, "The Roots of Jewish Supremacism."
Are the Jews A Distinct Race?
Quote:
Studies in Jewish Supremacism: A Series Edited and Posted by Dave Cooper
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=476

Are Jews a Distinct and Homogenous Race?

An excerpt from Dr. David Duke’s My Awakening.
One researcher summed up the overall genetic differences by saying that there was probably at least three times more genetic difference between an average Jew in France and his Gentile Frenchman neighbor than between an average French Jew and a Jew living in Russia or the Middle East.
…the same group who chronically preach to us that there are no great differences between Blacks and Whites, boldly assert that the Jewish people are genetically homogenous!

Over many generations the external resemblance to Gentiles could increase while the parts of the brain that affect behavioral tendencies and abilities could be unaffected.

–Dr. David Duke, My Awakening

Just as two species of animals occupying a particular geographic area naturally develop a group evolutionary strategy to compete for resources, so human groups can do the same - even in the civilized societies. They can develop certain behavioral traits that give them competitive advantage and greater reproductive success. In human societies, when genetically distinct groups interact, they can assimilate and lose their genetic distinction, or they can develop ethnocentric ideologies and behavior that favor the distinct characteristics of their own gene pool. An ethnocentric group could even develop a religion that rationalizes its evolutionary response to other groups.

I wondered if the Jews had become genetically distanced from the other peoples of Europe and, if so, how deep the divide was. Had their supremacist and ethnocentric tendencies become ingrained in their genetic code, or were they simply a result of the cultural attitude of their religion and the separate societies they created? Did genetic impulses create the ideology of Judaism that reinforced and intensified the Jewish genotype? Years later, in the 1990s, the same Jewish-dominated anthropology that rejected the importance of European racial consciousness and sense of identity has reasserted Jewishness and the “Jewish identity.” In “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology,” in The American Anthropologist, Jewish writer Gelya Frank celebrates American Boasian antiracist anthropology as “Jewish history.” She points out that the central Jewish role was intentionally whitewashed for fear that Gentiles would realize that Jews had a radical agenda.
There has always been a lively, if sometimes hushed, in-house discourse about American anthropology’s Jewish origins and their meaning. The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian Anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations have been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline…

This essay brings together strands of these various discourses on Jews in anthropology for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially ones concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism….

There has also been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the discipline of anthropology and individual anthropologists, either because Jews were considered dangerous due to their presumed racial differences or because they were associated with radical causes. - Gelya Frank

Now, with the political and cultural victory of racial pluralism over European solidarity, Frank discloses that Jewish anthropologists are reasserting their Jewish ethnicity and group identity.
Any number of scholars are reasserting Jewishness in the academy, simultaneously attempting to discover and define what Jewish identity can mean in that most universalist of institutions. Some relevant examples from the long and growing list of sources, in addition to several already cited, include: Behar 1996; Boyarian 1992, 1996; Eilberg-Schwartz 1990, 1992, 1994; H. Goldberg 1987, 1995; Kleebatt 1996; Nochilin and Garb 1995; Prell 1989, 1990, 1996; Robin-Dorsky and Fisher Fishkin 1996; and Schneider 1995.

The reappearance of Jewish difference(s) raises the stakes for Jewish anthropologists engaged in multiculturalist discourses.
The article floored me. The same Jewish-driven anthropology establishment that tells Europeans there is really no such thing as race and that racial identity is silly at best and a moral evil at worst, quietly promotes Jewish “differences” and ” genetic identity.”

When I first looked into the issue of Jewish genetic relatedness, I did not have the benefit of Frank’s article. At that time, I thought that the best way to investigate the issue was to see how similar the geographically separated Jewish populations are to each other and to the Gentile populations among whom they live. Do Jews differ from the other Europeans the same way that, say, an Englishman differs from a Frenchman or a German from a Russian? Or are they altogether different from all European subraces?

Substantial work had been done on the issue, much of it from Jewish researchers who were busily studying their own people’s genetic makeup. Over the years, they enlightened me on this subject in much the same way that I had gained an interesting perspective on Jewish history from Jewish chroniclers.

The first thing I found was information on the set of genetically borne diseases that occur almost exclusively in the Jewish community, such as Tay-Sachs disease. Their presence certainly indicated a genetic variance specific to the Jewish population and illustrated a genetic difference from the Gentiles. Soon I found scientific papers dealing precisely with the issues I sought.

Genetic researchers Sachs and Bat-Miriam discovered amazing similarity between the Jewish populations of nine countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Europe. Conversely, they found sharp differences between Jews and non-Jews from those same countries.

In studying blood group data, Mourant, Kopec, and Domaniewska-Sobczak wrote in a book called The Genetics of the Jews that
it may be said that, in general, blood group data … support the relative homogeneity of the main historical Jewish communities.
Now, here we have mainstream Jewish anthropologists and geneticists, the same group who chronically preach to us that there are no great differences between Blacks and Whites, boldly assert that the Jewish people are genetically homogenous! Their assessment is that although there are some differences between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim (the two main ethnic divisions among Jews), essentially Jews are a single people who have little genetic resemblance to the European populations among whom they dwell.
* In blood group data, two major studies, one in 1977 by BonnĂ©-Tamir, Ashbel, and Kenett and one by Karlin, Kenett, and BonnĂ©-Tamir in 1979, found when using fourteen polymorphic loci, no significant difference in Jewish populations from Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Poland. They estimated that the genetic distance between Gentiles and Jews living in the same area is three to five times greater than for Jews living in the different nations studied. In the 1977 study, the researchers state “not much admixture has taken place between Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so.”

* Mille and Kobyliansky discovered in studies of dermatologlyphic data that Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews) are much more similar to Shephardim (Middle-Eastern and European Jews) than they are to the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans.


* Kobyliansky and Livsh its in using cluster analysis on 25 morphological characteristics, estimated that Jews in Russia were six times more distant from Russians than Russians were from Germans. They also found the Jews to be completely separate from the twenty-four other ethnic groups studied in Russia, Germany, and Poland.

* Another study compared modern Jews and those of 3,000-yearold Jewish skeletons discovered in the Middle East. Sofaer, Smith, and Kaye studied dental morphology from Morocco, Kurdish Iraq, and Eastern European countries. They found more likeness between the widely scattered Jewish populations than for the Gentile groups living near them. The ancient Jewish skeletal group turned out to be far more similar to the three Jewish populations than for every nonJewish group studied except for one, an Arab Druse group from the 11th century.
One researcher summed up the overall genetic differences by saying that there was probably at least three times more genetic difference between an average Jew in France and his Gentile Frenchman neighbor than between an average French Jew and a Jew living in Russia or the Middle East.

The Jewish studies amazed me. I would not have guessed that Jews were that genetically different from all Europeans. I knew a few Jews who were indistinguishable from the potpourri of other European-Americans. From their appearance, it seemed impossible that they were three times more different from us than from their fellows in remote regions of the world. The research proved that a wide genetic difference existed, but I wondered why their appearance did not seem all that radically different.

Fritz Lenz suggested back in the 1930s that Jewish resemblance to the European populations did not mean that their genes were similar. He suggested that their similar external resemblance could have emerged from the natural selection of genes within the Jewish gene pool. These genes could simply be a small cluster of genes that lay dormant in the Jewish pool or that were introduced by limited genetic mixture with Gentiles, and which then were selectively favored by the social environment. Genes that caused a greater corporeal resemblance to that of the Gentile host could have favorable results in acceptance, wealth, and social advancement and thus on reproductive success.

By a somewhat similar process, distinct species of butterflies, not closely related, come to resemble one another without narrowing their genetic distance. Only a small set of genes influencing appearance within the Jewish population could thus be favored, causing a greater similarity of appearance to the Gentile population while not narrowing their overall genetic alienation from their host population. Over many generations the external resemblance to Gentiles could increase while the parts of the brain that affect behavioral tendencies and abilities could be unaffected.

According to evolutionary genetics, it is possible that Jews have come to more resemble their hosts in their external appearance while at the same time becoming even more distant in their mental and behavioral characteristics. Whatever the questions of physical appearance, there seemed little doubt that Jews are indeed very different from Europeans and that they had maintained that genetic difference for a very long time.

I also ran across a number of popular sources arguing that high Jewish-Gentile intermarriage would end that genetic distinctiveness from European Gentiles. As in so many other matters dealing with the Jews, there is a wealth of information on the issue indicating that the underlying reality is very different from popular perceptions.

–Dr. David Duke, My Awakening, ch. 25, “Jewish Evolutionary Strategy and Claims of Jewish Superiority.”
Will Intermarriage End Jewish Ethnocentrism?
Quote:
Studies in Jewish Supremacism: A Series Edited and Posted by Dave Cooper
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=474

Will Intermarriage End Jewish Ethnocentrism?

An excerpt from Dr. David Duke’s, My Awakening.

It is often said that the high rates of intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, especially in the United States, will diminish ethnocentrism and cause assimilation of the Jewish population into the Gentile gene pool. The highly publicized and popularly promoted book The Myth of the Jewish Race by Ralph and Jennifer Patai makes that contention. They suggested that Jewish intermarriage has steadily increased since the Enlightenment.

It is true that many Jewish groups and leaders have raised a great commotion about the dangers of intermarriage. Major Jewish publications often have articles and even ads decrying intermarriage and imploring Jews to marry only other Jews. Steve M. Cohen writes the following in The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality:
Vigorous effort by organized Jewry to try to halt or reverse recent demographic changes … to get large numbers of Jews to change their family-related decisions - that is, to marry young, marry each other, stay married, and have many children.
Pinches Stolper cites the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America promoting only strong pure Jewish marriages. In describing the threat of a beautiful Gentile girl living just a few houses away, he asserts:
Intermarriage is a tragedy the Jewish people cannot tolerate. The person who marries out of the faith has turned his or her back on the Jewish people. Our tradition regards such a person as spiritually dead, and the family sits shiva [observes a period of mourning] for him or her.

Such marriages rarely work, even when accompanied by a socalled conversion to Judaism, and certainly can never work when the Jewish partner is seriously concerned with his or her Jewishness. For the families involved, the result is heartbreak and tragedy, and for the children, a life of frustration, conflict, and strain.
David Landau shows that Jewish fundamentalism is rapidly increasing in the Diaspora. He quotes one of the opponents of a mild change in Reform law allowing tracing of genealogy through the father rather than the mother as “one of the most evil crimes, almost akin to Hitler. It destroyed the integrity of the Jewish People.”

Rising fundamentalism has also meant a rise in birthrates among the most committed Jews. In an essay in the book The Jewish Family: Myths And Reality, Cohen notes that through high birthrates and by “using insulating mechanisms, the Hasidim have achieved a high degree of success in offsetting the assimilative tendencies of the larger society.”

Therefore, it can be seen that organized Jewry has made a concerted effort to encourage endogamy among Jews. Orthodox groups are certainly the most extremely opposed to intermarriage, but even the newspapers and magazines published by Reform groups strongly discourage it. The Jewish researcher Ellman comments in the journal Jewish Social Studies that the only ethnic or religious community in the United States that continues to attempt to limit and discourage conversions and intermarriage is the organized Jewish community. But Ellman - along with a number of other authors who are strongly opposed to intermarriage - also believe that the seemingly high rates of intermarriage are no real threat to the Jewish heritage. He suggests that it strengthens the traditional Jewish culture and genotype by eliminating those Jews who have assimilationist tendencies.

Ellman points out that intermarriage has little effect on the core of Judaism. He points out that intermarriage is far more frequent for second and subsequent marriages in which the couples are unlikely to have children. He also cites the much higher rates of divorce in intermarriage. More than 90 percent of intermarriages results in nonconversion and thus the intermarried do not become part of the Jewish community. Only a small percentage of children of intermarriage are raised as Jews, and more than 90 percent of them do not marry Jews. Ellman also reports that Jews of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to marry other Jews, thus the community will continue to be dominated by a pure Jewish elite core while lower-class Jews, who do not represent the desired traits of ethnic solidarity, are much more likely to marry outside and leave the community.

Barry Kosmin and other Jewish researchers, in Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, found that 91 percent of intermarriages were made up of nonconversionary couples, that only 28 percent of the children of such couples were raised as Jews, and that even this small minority’s descendants would not be likely to marry Jews.

Not only are intermarried Jews far more prone to leave the Jewish circle, evidence suggests that they often encounter hostility in Jewish society. Jewish authors such as Michael Meyer and C. Waxman cite “tacit rejection” of the mixed couples. All these factors indicate that mixed marriages have little effect on the Jewish gene pool other than affecting the overall number of Jews.

Higher rates of intermarriage will probably have the long-term effect of strengthening traditional Jewish genetic characteristics. Jewish elements prone to assimilation are being removed while at the same time there is a resurgence in Jewish orthodoxy and high birthrate among the most committed of the Jewish elements such as the Hasidim. Additionally, religious Jews in Israel are almost all Orthodox, and there is almost no intermarriage in the world nexus of Jewry — the nation of Israel.

Perhaps the best way to describe the Jewish community is how the distinguished Jewish writer Daniel Elazar does in Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics in American Jewry. He proposes a model of concentric circles. The inner circle is a hard core of about 5 to 8 percent who lead what he calls “fully Jewish lives.” Next are 10 to 12 percent of Jews whom he calls “participants.” They are often employed in “Jewish civil service,” working tirelessly for Jewish causes. Third, he identifies 25 to 30 percent of Jews whom he calls “contributors and consumers.” These make regular contributions to Jewish causes and make use of the Jewish community for things such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. Elazar calls his last group the “peripherals and repudiators.” They make no contributions to Jewish causes, but sometimes the inner circles pull them in to participation or they are peeled off, leaving the Jewish core at the center and the whole of Jewry more committed than ever.

Because of copious publicity of high rates of Jewish intermarriage, some Gentiles may come to believe that Jews are becoming less ethnocentric. But in reality the opposite is true. Those Jews left at the core are less disposed to assimilation. At the same time, the out-marrying Jews who are amenable to Gentile values also serve an important role in causing Gentiles to believe the Jewish group is more similar to them than it actually is.

More importantly, some Jewish researchers see a degree of intermarriage as having a functional value in Gentile environments. Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog say that it serves as a bridge to the Gentile community, but one that does not threaten the Jewish core.
The peripheral area which serves as a bridge to the surrounding cultures fills several functions. It is an avenue to invasion, a buffer and a source of renewed vigor. Each impact that chips at the outer edge may serve simultaneously to strengthen the core.
Lieberman and Weinfeld, in their article “Demographic Trends and Jewish Survival,” view relatively high levels of intermarriage as a successful strategy in securing greater support from the Gentile comunity for their political and social goals such as political support for Israel.
The successful exercise of influence is best achieved in a community with a large subset of members interacting with politicians and opinion leaders. Through intermarried Jews themselves, and certainly through their social networks involving Jewish family and friends who may be closer to the core of the community, Jewish concerns, interests, and sensibilities can be articulated before a wider, more influential audience. In a recent interview, Presidential aide Robert Lipshutz traced the origin of Jimmy Carter’s concern for Israel to his close friendship with a first cousin, an Orthodox Jew (Carter’s aunt married a Jewish man, and their two children were raised as Jews). Intermarrying Jews, while perhaps diluting the community in one sense, perform compensating strategic functions in another.
Obviously, if intermarried Jews serve as a “bridge to the Gentile community,” those who are outside of the Jewish community but are conscious of Jewish blood will often have warm feelings toward that heritage and be well disposed to Jewish interests. They will also express less solidarity with European issues and interests.

Far from solving the Jewish-Gentile conflict, intermarriage only tends to reinforce the core Jewish genotype and nurture more extreme political and cultural solidarity. By sending their allies into our culture and body politic, they are better able to secure Jewish interests. Among Gentiles intermarriage has the opposite effect. Because they are absorbed almost wholly into our society, our own solidarity is weakened while giving the appearance that the Jewish community is less impenetrable and ethnocentric. There is no real threat to the Jewish genotype; if anything it becomes more “Jewish” each generation.

Once I learned that Jews had a different genetic heritage than Europeans and that this difference was intensifying, I wanted to understand what that could mean in terms of Jewish behavior and evolutionary strategy.

–Dr. David Duke, My Awakening, ch. 25, “Jewish Evolutionary Strategy and Claims of Jewish Superiority.”

====================

But, you might object, there has been intermarriage. Yes, indeed there has, and to such an extent that many Jews today whose ancestors have spent countless generations among the peoples of Europe look, at least to an untrained eye, as White as any European. And Jewish families residing in China look to us quite Oriental, though I am told that to Eastern eyes they are still distinct. But nevertheless, despite and in some ways because of this intermixture, the Chosen People myth has been and still is a powerful force which has preserved the essence of Jewish uniqueness. To understand how this seeming contradiction can be, you have to understand the basic scientific fact that behavioral tendencies, character, and personality are largely genetic, and are passed on from generation to generation with mathematical precision according to the characteristics of the parents, and their parents, and so on back into the mists of time.

The essence of Jewishness is not in their distinctive appearance, which some Jews have largely lost over the centuries, nor in their peculiar modes of dress or diet or expression; which many non-religious Jews have abandoned anyway without in any way relinquishing their Jewishness. No, the essence of Jewishness is the special "us versus them" mentality which is formalized in their Chosen People myth and which was necessary for their survival as a tiny group among the teeming masses of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, and America. For thousands of years, the Jews were subjected to a rigorous process of genetic selection. Those Jews in whom this "us versus them" mentality, this intense ethnocentrism or racism, was weak or absent were the most likely to intermarry and the least likely to raise their offspring as Jews or induce their spouses to undergo the difficult and officially discouraged conversion process. Thus the genetic material of these less "racist" Jews was lost to Jewry. Thus, over the centuries, those Jews who remained in the fold were those who possessed these special mental qualities in the highest degree. These qualities became intensified over the years since only those who possessed them most intensely were the progenitors of the following generations of the people who called themselves Jews.

The fact that there has been a definitely observable drift of White genetic material into the gene pool of European and American Jews does not substantially change the situation as I have illustrated it. When intermarriage occurred despite the opposition of the conservative and religious elements, and the offspring were raised as Jews, a similar selection process took place among them. Those to whom the Chosen People myth and the attitudes and practices that accompany it were incongenial or repugnant escaped into the wider Gentile world, and did not contribute their genes to the Jewish people. Those who had inherited the special mentality that characterizes the Jewish mode of life became part of the Jewish people, and the parents of Jewish children, even though they often brought with them such non-Jewish characteristics as straight fine hair, light coloration, and straight or upturned noses. Looking at this situation from a purely biological perspective, this acquisition of some of the physical characteristics of their host peoples might have been a survival advantage to the Jews, since it blurred the distinction between themselves and their hosts, at least to the hosts, and the Gentile's consciousness of their foreignness had always been a danger to them. In fact, it was and still remains their greatest fear. They call it anti-Semitism. The term is really a poor one, since it is never applied toward those who dislike Arabs, who are relatively pure Semites; but always to those who criticize Jews, who today are only partly Semitic and who have themselves probably killed more Semites than any other people.

The Oldest Story, Kevin Strom
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...5&postcount=10