Studies in Jewish Supremacism: A Series Edited and Posted by Dave Cooper

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.

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.”