Haile Selassie I was the last emperor of Ethiopia.  He was the 225^th representative of the dynasty of Solomon.

 They called the emperor the "King of Kings":

  "Haile Selassie is the King of Kings, Lord of the Powerful and the Lion who roars from the Tribe of Judah."

      And there is a Rumanian legend about the Israelite rulers.  It records an invasion - we don't know when - of armed Israelites of this country as a  fact.   The legend reports that in pagan times, Judaic princes also ruled the Austrian provinces.  An Austrian chronicle, compiled by a Viennese chronicler in the years of the reign of Albert III (1350-1395), contains a list of fewer than twenty-two such Jewish rulers who passed on the government to their own sons.

    In this list are not only their names, but also both the years of reign and the place of their burial:  "Sennan, ruled 45 years, buried at the Stubentor, in Vienna; Zippan, ruled 43 years, buried in Tulln." . . .  The legend is repeated, with some variations, in the Latin chronicles of Austria by Henricus Gundelfingus of 1474 and in a number of other chronicles.

    A link with the Israelite ancestors of the kings of France is traced indirectly. During the French revolution, an enraged crowd mutilated 28 statues of Israelite kings that adorned Notre-Dame.  They were perceived as the direct predecessors of the overthrown dynasty (according to Fomenko and Nosovskiy).

    At the same time it is striking that a phenomenon on such a scale - the appearance in one country or another of huge groups of immigrant Israelites -is not reflected in any kind of reliable sources.  That is, there are fully enough accounts of the persecutions and pogroms, but the facts of a forced or voluntary arrival of large masses of foreign peoples to any kind of country is not recorded anywhere.  On can say without any exaggeration  that not one written account of the arrival of the Jews exists besides the legendary trip of Moses.

     How then do historians explain the wide distribution of Jews among other peoples?  In all sorts of ways.

     Some say that it is connected with the evangelistic activity of their clergymen. Those who are extremely poorly acquainted with Judaism, a closed religion that does not have a missionary tradition, adhere to such an opinion.

   Others hold to the hypothesis of the commercial origin of the distribution of the Jews. They always were excellent merchants, they reached wherever they wanted with their goods, settled in various countries and created their own communities. This hypothesis also does not stand up to critical analysis either.  Trade in the Middle Ages, and even more so in the centuries previous to them, was intimately connected with seafaring.   Here, for some reason,  the historians are silent about the brave Jewish captains.  There aren't any.

   While studying the specifically Judaic professional character in Medieval Europe, not a commercial, but a financial character is discovered. The Jews are money-lenders, bankers, wholesalers.  How was such a specialization able to facilitate the unprecedented  phenomenon of Jewish ubiquity ?  

   Any story about the history of one or another Jewish community today begins with the words, "according to legend," "it is thought that," or "there is a tradition that."  That is, there is a complete absence of reliable fact concerning the arrival of the Jews.

 We shall examine the official history of a Jewish community in Sweden.

    We shall note an important fact reflected in this table which is characteristic of the history of all European communities of Jews.   Well verified, non-legendary reports of  Jews begin only in the 17th century, in which connection the Jews always turn out to be in the immediate circle of each country's rulers.   

    Reports of Jewish refugees and settlers in Sweden fully are absent until 1600.

But as early as 1681, the solemn Baptism of 12 Jews took place in the presence of the king and queen ; tremendous significance was attached to this event.  And this is at a time when no one was interested in the fate of thousands upon thousands of people who belonged to any other religion, including Christianity.

       As is seen from the table, in the 18th century a whole series of laws is published which regulate relations with the Jews. In fact, their necessity for the country is recognized.  Such laws can be evaluated as evidencing a compromise by equals in strength.

     The Jews do not have their own anthropology.  The genetic unity of the Jewish population with the native population of this or that country does not elicit curiosity.  On a genetic basis, it is not possible to distinguish the Ethiopian Jew from the Ethiopian, the Bukharan Jew from the Tajik, the Swedish Jew from the Swede, and so forth.

     Let us examine some results, on the basis of which anthropologists challenge the existence of a "Jewish race."  In the brochure, "The Race Question in Modern Science" (UNESCO), Professor Juan Comas comes to this conclusion:

    "Contrary to widely accepted opinion, Jews in the racial plan are heterogeneous; that fact, that they constantly have migrated and come in contact - voluntarily or in some other way - with other peoples and nations, has led to such a mixing of bloods that the so-called People of Israel generate features typical for every people.  Compare the stocky, heavyweight Jew from Rotterdam with his coreligionist, let's say, from Thessalonica, with shining eyes on a pale face, thin, . . .  We can maintain that the Jews on the whole possess the sort of morphological varieties that one can discover between two or more races."

     Adding to the examples of Professor Juan Comas, one can say that Moroccan Jews, who consider themselves the direct descendants of the Moors and true Sephards, are in no way distinguished from the overall mass of Moslem Moroccans; the Yemeni Jews, with dark skin and short stature, also are indistinguishable from the Yemenis.  The Egyptian, Iraqi and Iranian Jews, in appearance, are pure-blood Arabs and Persians.  

     One can divide the Jewish population in Russia into 2 parts.  The Polish and Rumanian immigrants of the 19-20^th centuries introduced Polish and Rumanian features.   As a result, they were noticeable among the Russian and southern Ukrainians.  The enclaves of Russian Jews, not remembering their own immigration, are  anthropologically indistinguishable from the Slavs around them.

Another social phenomenon which is connected with Jewry is anti-Semitism, which,  in and of itself,  is inexplicable from the point of view of traditional history and  sociological phenomena.  It is everywhere. Its manifestations are found even in those countries such as Korea or Mongolia, where the Jews never were in the past.   Everywhere the words "Hebrew" or "Jew" evoke vigilance, anxious alarm, and the expectation of something bad.

One can find only weakly corroborated assertions that the first manifestations of anti-Semitism are found in the 4^th century B.C. in Alexandria.  The pattern of  such manifestations continues in subsequent centuries, mainly in  laws prohibiting the building of synagogues.  But it is interesting that the nature of the accusations against the Jews changes from century to century, and only after the 16^th century becomes uniform.

This concerns, for example, one of the fundamental accusations in the address of Jewry -   "blood libel."  The custom of the circumcision of Jewish infants is assumed to be the basis for the accusations of sucking the blood from Christian children. But only in the 13^th century A.D. did they accuse the first Jew of this crime in England.

       Why only in the 13^th?  Why before this time did no one anywhere write anything about this sinister, supposedly ancient custom of the Jews?  It would be more natural to suppose that, before the 13^th century, the European Jews simply didn't have the custom of circumcision, and for that reason no one wrote about it. I.e., there was no doing this to accuse.

     The universality of anti-Semitism and its influence on people stumps researchers. Prominent men of letters, historians, philosophers and even businessmen (Henry Ford) have taken up this topic. They have held  different views of the Jews, often diametrically opposed. They have brought in as evidence whole libraries of works. Nonetheless, the problem up to now has not been cleared up, and on the basis of the traditional history it hardly can be cleared up.

     Many contemporary researchers see the motivation behind anti-Semitism in xenophobia.  Indeed, xenophobia, which means in translation from the Greek, "fear of foreigners," lies as the basis of many nationalistic views.  However, while analyzing xenophobic aggression in relation to other national minorities, we see that in the case of  the Jews, a whole series of the strongest emotions, which border upon paranoia, strongly distinguish anti-Semitism from simple xenophobia.  Here are some differences:

 - An anti-Semite, in contrast to a xenophobe, traces the presence of the Jewish ancestors all the way to the fourth and greater generations, which perfectly characterizes the level of the phobia;

 - Xenophobes usually assess an ethnic minority at which his xenophobia is aimed, extremely lowly, often comparing it with animals and disparaging its capabilities in every way possible.  But no one considers the Jews as "dull."

 - Almost all the characteristics ascribed to the Jews relate by convention to the "diabolic": crafty, greedy, blood sucking, sly cheats (although anti-gypsy xenophobia in this case is remotely similar);

 - In contrast to other national minorities, the Jews are not distinguished externally from the indigenous population and freely speak the language of the indigenous residents; however, this does not diminish the tension of rejection, but most likely - augments it.  

     The foregoing would allow one to conclude that anti-Semitism does not have any relationship to xenophobia.

     Other investigators see the reasons in religious intolerance.  This explanation is even more unfounded.

      A large percentage of contemporary, anti-semitically inclined people in general are not religious, and this although contemporary Islam and Christianity base themselves on the Jewish foudation.

     Concealed social self-reproach, which is congruent with the irreligious nature of anti-Semitism, is one of the interesting features of Judophobia. The individual ascribes to the Jews genetic abnormalities which are peculiar to a proper physiological type, prevalent in a given habitat.  This fixes his consciousness on a definite type of Jew, and  Jews with  different racial features are viewed as not real (psycho-fixation.).    

     For example, Uzbek and Tajik Judophobes, while describing a Bukharan Jew, absolutely have in mind an Asiatic Jew.  European Jews (Ashkenazi) are not recognized by them as real,and are considered simply people who, for some reason, have adopted Judaism.   Something similar is observed in European anti-Semites: the Russian-speaking often are fixed on the freckles, squint and red hair, the German-speaking on the slightly hooked large nose. At the same time, the Asiatic and African Jews are not considered "native" and are not the subject of negative emotions.  That is, the irreligious nature of the antagonism is present.

     The extent of the deficiencies and vices ascribed to the Jews is limitless.  There is hardly a single social vice which would not be used as an accusation.  In the presence of such social emotions, the fact that the Jews do not have their own anthropological type,and until recently have not had a language, is very strange.  Israeli historians explain this by a millennium of dispersion that does not address the main question: "And what in particular do the anti-Semites hate? ". It is necessary here to anticipate the first hypothesis : anti-Semites hate most of all the word JEW.

     Individual Jews are subject to ostracism only because, by misfortune, they have ended up under the identification of this fateful aggravation.  

     The process of deflection is well described in psychoanalysis, when unfavorable memories, especially childhood, can become suppressed and elude the memory so profoundly that it becomes very difficult to deliberately recall stressful events. However, the details of an unpleasant memory - smells, names, shapes - can remind one of the stress and, as reminders of it, evoke a cascade of negative emotions.

     In social psychology, when a memory is shared by millions of individuals, strangely enough, something similar can occur.  Political will suppresses the "unnecessary" history everywhere. Allow us to assume that the word "JEW" also is a reminder.  It reminds one of the fact that, in particular,  it is displaced into an unconscious area of  social memory.

     Speaking generally, the displacement of social memory occurs always in the presence of one or another idealization of the past, never mind of the personal or the social.   In the creation of the ideal, the inevitable negative facets of reality are suppressed and the replaced memory "rises to the surface" with a signature concept (since the absence of the object causes the symbol).

     Let us cite an example.  A description of the second world war in American history textbooks "swallows" the role of the USSR in the victory over Fascist Germany - which is politically profoundly well-founded, since society does not want to be even somehow connected to the Communists.

     While idealizing their own role in the victory and in many other things, Western society gets in exchange the negative signature symbol "Russians," which never loses its meaning, although the USSR has not existed already for nearly 15 years.

      I did not cite this example for nothing.  The real history of the Second World War is so well known, and its American idealization has such an extremely conventional form, that the only one who is mistaken is the one who wants to be mistaken. In the case of the "Jewish phenomenon," normal explanations of this phenomenon's social anomalies simply do not exist within the framework of the traditional history, and, therefore, the worldwide social consciousness is overburdened by mystical suppositions.

     Let us ask ourselves the question, what in particular does the substituted symbol "JEW" conceal behind itself?  Is it , even in a general sense, possible to make out a real picture?  You see, if there is a displaced form, that is, a form which has substituted for a negative memory, then that means there also is an idealized version of history somewhere  in which everything is represented ideally, that is "as everyone likes it."   Where is it?

     Most likely, one has to assume that the forms of the ancient Roman Empire, on which Europe's self-identification relies (and in the Russian tradition, for example, the form of Ivan the Terrible), also is an idealized side of reality, and behind the super-symbol "JEW" something that had to be forgotten, lost, and suppressed is hidden.  

(Much already has been written about the idealization of the ancient Roman Empire by the revisionists of the various schools, but allow us to add a few considerations of a social nature. It makes one apprehensive that the Romans practically did not have their own ideology, and this in a state that was permanently at war!  Just how did they recognize in the spiritual sense their fellows, and distinguish these from strangers ? Religious societies as an identification of "ours - not ours" use religious markers, for example, "Christian - non-Christian." National groups and communities build upon the recognition of "ours - foreign" by right of birth, for example, Mexican-Gringo, Jew-Goyan.  But here the gods of the Romans do not distinguish the Romans themselves from other peoples. Thus, Jupiter knows nothing about the barbarians.  The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about the Teutons, does not praise Rome and in general does not compare the Romans and the Teutons, although logically he should have done it.

The material and political reality of the ancient Latins virtually is not reflected in their spiritual life. More precisely, in that spiritual life, which they ascribe to them. )

     Most likely, before pulling our suppressed memory to the surface, it is worth touching on one more social paradox of the "chosen people" - their fantastic ability to be financiers.

Probably no other ethnic community in the whole history of mankind has exhibited such an unusual capability.

     The finances of all Europe were turned over, for whatever mysterious reason, to non-believers - to aliens ; to refugees.

Karl Marx was one of the first to notice this:  "The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of a merchant, generally of a man of means.  Money is the jealous god of Israel, in the face of which there is not supposed to be any other god," having forgotten, by the way, to explain why.  

     It is necessary to say that traditional history's explanation that it was impossible for Christians in the early Middle Ages to be involved with finances, and, therefore, that financial activity was assigned to the Jews, could have happened in only one case - if the Christians were not the masters in their own countries.  

    Not only did Christiandom, but also the world of the Orient in the 9-10^th centuries A.D. trusted the Jews infinitely. Consider here a story from Spain in 929, and of Abd ar-Rahman III.   Jewry prospered during his rule and that of his heir, Al-Hakam.  Hasdai ben Saprut, an adviser to caliphs, was at the same time a leader of Spanish Judaism.

When Benjamin of Tudela comes to Iraq at the end of the 12^th century, he reports about dozens of settlements (yeshivas) and about thousands of Jews.  He also reports that by this period, the caliphate was still very powerful and the Jews experienced the highest veneration.   (He quotes, moreover, the Old Testament: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."  Genesis.  49:10)

     Here there is a basis to assume that all Europe and Asia at some brief moment in  history were under the heel of conquerors who had spread the publican collectors of duties - the JEWS - over all the conquered territory.

What problems does this assumption solve?

- The global distribution and ubiquity of the Jews;

- Their financial power and the prohibition against any other category of the population to perform financial operations (early Middle Ages);

- The rise of anti-Judaism as an original form of protest against the conquerors and their servants - the publicans;

- The rise of Jewry as a special social group, which absorbed into itself elements from dozens of tribes and nationalities,  subsuming these within a unity of faith and a profession.

    The word Judaeus itself is considered an ethnonym, from the name Judaca.  A link with the Latin Judaeus (Jew) - Judices (judges) is not acknowledged. They translate judex as jus dic, where the first word is "law" and the second is a root with the meaning "to speak."

   Traditional linguists declare that there is no word in Latin which, in composition, would give dae.  However, it is not considered that this could have been formed through Semitic influence, since in all Semitic languages the pentultimate stressed syllable with the consonant "khey" (which sounds like "khaye" at the end of a word) is very popular.  From  their habitual stress on the second syllable, the Semites clash with the unusual stressed ex in judex, which would naturally become the customary aec.   

     By the way, the vowel a in dae appears because of the inability to write this guttural sound in Latin.