Stupid reasoning. I cannot add anything that you already exhibit in abundance; it is already there. I can only point out its existence.

There is no race called "Asiatic." This term was invented specifically to ostracize Caucasian peoples who were perceived as inimical to or inferior to the largely Anglo-Saxon people who sought to distinguish themselves from other Caucasian groups. Actually, your argument is drawn directly from British physician William Lawrence, who likewise confabulated the Fins and Laplanders right out of the Caucasian category, handwaving them away without evidence as 'Asiatics' and subsequently corrected by Thomas Huxley. The exact same material you are citing was subsequently invoked by German eugenicists. You are cherrypicking a specific moment in racialist history that was rapidly debunked by other racialists. Modern genetic analyses, for what they are worth, establish the majority of what we call 'Jewish people' today as firmly Caucasian. This is a scientific reality. If you are a Caucasian, you are in the same racial group as the vast and overwhelming majority of Jewish people, albeit probably much more mixed than they are. I do have a brother so I know how vitriolic these sibling rivalries can be; as they say, "familiarity breeds contempt." It is your close familial link that has you so at odds with one another.

Semites, like the other peoples of the Mesopotamian region, are Caucasioid. In fact, 'Semite' refers to a linguistic group, not a genetic lineage. Semites are functionally indistinguishable from the other Caucasians of the region. 'Semite' is an academic term with a specific usage, and you have deviated from that usage here.

There is neither a Satan nor a Christ so I'll let you say whatever you like about that. I prefer to focus on the genetics. The fact remains that you cannot point to any genetic lineage or race and conflate them with Zionism or Semitism, without pointing to a Caucasian people. Your best fallback here is to run with the argument that Zionism is more of a philosophy with no genetic lineage behind it, you will get further with that. Honestly, your main mistake was invoking the 'Caucasian' category at all. There was never any chance you were going to win with that, not without throwing away the whole of modern ancestral analyses in favor of 1800s armchair racialism. Not even the neo-Nazis would have your back on this one.

I'm sure it was a fiery and passionate sermon that you got your information from, certainly something to behold. I am quite sympathetic to this, part of my job involves travelling around the world studying different religions. But parroting a sermon is not the same as hitting the books and having your facts straight.