2005 -- 2019  AbundantHope.net
Phoenix Journal Selections 
param>Google Translate param>
The Khazars, part 15 BACK TO THE KHAZARS I have to give you that information which seems trite, for if you do not have those "trite" details you won't have the confirmation needed to adequately judge historical events and evolvement. As is the intent this day, to hide truth--so was truth hidden and destroyed all along the way--against this day -- PJ 28 -- pag. 181 of total deception. Whether or not the ending is as the written words and projections--matters not, you are headed toward an ending of an era at any angle of focus and you MUST KNOW HOW IT ALL REACHED THIS VORTEX OF EXPERIENCE. And so, we shall speak of things such as art and trade, etc. Khazar art, like that of the Bulgars and Magyars, was mainly imitative, modeled on Persian-Sassanide patterns. The Soviet archaeologist Bader emphasized the role of the Khazars in the spreading of Persian-style silverware towards the north. Some of these finds may have been re-exported by the Khazars, true to their role as middlemen (merchants); others were imitations made in Khazar workshops--the ruins of which have been traced near the ancient Khazar fortress of Sarkel. Unfortunately "progress" got in the way and Sarkel, the most important Khazar archaeological site has been flooded by the reservoir of a hydro-electric station. The jewelry unearthed within the confines of the fortress was of local manufacture. The Swedish archaeologist T.J. Arne mentions ornamental plates, clasps and buckles found as far away as Sweden, of Sassanide and Byzantine inspiration, manufactured in Khazaria or territories under their influence. I give you these references so that you can research and come to your own conclusions. Thus the Khazars were the principal intermediaries in the spreading of Persian and Byzantine art among the semi-barbaric tribes of Eastern Europe. After his exhaustive survey of the archaeological and documentary evidence (mostly from Soviet sources), Bartha concludes: The sack of Tiflis by the Khazars, presumably in the spring of AD 629, is relevant to our subject....[During the period of occupation.' the Kagan sent out inspectors to supervise the manufacture of gold, silver, iron and copper products. Similarly the bazaars, trade in general, even the fisheries, were under their control.... [Thus] in the course of their incessant Caucasian campaigns during the seventh century, the Khazars made contact with a culture which had grown out of the Persian Sassanide tradition. Accordingly, the products of this culture spread to the people of the steppes not only by trade, but by means of plunder and even by taxation....All the tracks that we have assiduously followed in the hope of discovering the origins of Magyar art in the tenth century have led us back to Khazar territory. The last remark of the Hungarian scholar refers to the spectacular archaeological finds known as the "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklos". The treasure, consisting of twenty-three gold vessels, dating from the tenth century, was found in 1791 in the vicinity of the village of that name which now belongs to Rumania and is called Sinnicolaul Mare. Bartha points out that the figure of the "victorious Prince" dragging a prisoner along by his hair, and the mythological scene at the back of the golden jar, as well as the design of other ornamental objects, show close affinities with the finds in Novi Pazar in Bulgaria--and in the Khazar Sarkel. As both Magyars and Bulgars were under Khazar suzerainty for protracted periods, this is not very surprising, and the warrior, together with the rest of the treasure, gives us at least some idea of the arts practiced within the Khazar Empire (the Persian and Byzantine influence is predominant, as one would expect). Some Hungarian archaeologists maintain that the tenth century gold and silversmiths working in Hungary were actually Khazars and indeed they were. As you shall see later, when the Magyars migrated to Hungary in 896 they were led by a dissident Khazar tribe, known as the Kabars, who settled with them in their new home. The Kabar-Khazars were known as very skilled gold and silversmiths; the originally more primitive Magyars only acquired those skills in their new country. Thus the Khazar origin of at least some of the archaeological finds in Hungary are verified and will become more clearly outlined in the light of the Magyar-Khazar  nexus which we will discuss a bit -- PJ 28 -- pag. 182 later on. Whether the warrior on the golden jar is of Magyar or Khazar origin, he helps you to visualize the appearance of a cavalryman of that period giving foundation to truth, perhaps belonging to an elite regiment. Masudi says that in the Khazar army "seven thousand of them (Istakhri has 12,000), ride with the King, archers with breast plates, helmets and coats of mail. Some are lancers, equipped and armed like the Muslims.... None of the kings in this part of the world has a regular standing army except the King of the Khazars". And Ibn Hawkal: "This king has twelve thousand soldiers in his service, of whom when one dies, another person is immediately chosen in his place". Here you have another important clue to the Khazar dominance: a permanent professional army, with a Praetorian Guard which, in peacetime, effectively controlled the ethnic patchwork, and in times of war served as a hard core for the armed horde, which, as you have now seen, may have swollen at times to a hundred thousand or more. According to the Masudi, the "Royal Army" consisted of Muslims who "immigrated from the neighbourhood of Kwarizm. Long ago, after the appearance of Islam, there was war and pestilence in their territory, and they repaired to the Khazar King...When the King of the Khazars is at war with the Muslims, they have a separate place in his army and do not fight the people of their own faith". That the army "consisted" of Muslims is of course an exaggeration, contradicted by Masudi himself a few lines later, where he speaks of the Muslim contingent having a "separate place" in the Khazar army. Also, Ibn Hawkal says that "the king has in his train 4,000 Muslims and this king has 12,000 soldiers in his service". The Kwarizmians probably formed a kind of Swiss Guard within the army. Vice versa, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus had a corps d'elite of Khazar guardsmen stationed at the gates of his palace. This was a privilege dearly bought: "These guards were so well remunerated that they had to purchase their posts for considerable sums, on which their salaries represented an annuity varying from about 2.25 to 4 per cent". SO ON TO THE FORTRESS The capital of this motley empire was at first the fortress of Balanjar in the northern foothills of the Caucasus; after the Arab raids in the eighth century it was transferred to Samandar, on the western shore of the Caspian; and lastly to Itil in the estuary of the Volga. There are several descriptions of Itil, which are consistent with each other. It was a twin city, built on both sides of the river. The eastern half was called Khazaran, the western half Itil. The city was called by different labels in different periods of history, e.g., al- Bayada, "The White City". The two were connected by a pontoon bridge. The western half was surrounded by a fortified wall, built of brick; it contained the palaces and courts of the Kagan and the Bek, the inhabitations of their attendants and of the "pure-bred Khazars" The wall had four gates, one of them facing the river. Across the river, on the east bank, lived "the muslims and idol worshippers"; this part also housed the mosques, markets, baths and other public amenities. Several Arab writers were impressed by the number of mosques in the Muslim quarter and the height of the principal minaret. They also kept stressing the autonomy enjoyed by the Muslim courts and clergy. Here is what al-Masudi, known as "the Herodotus among the Arabs", has to say on the subject in his oft-quoted work Meadows of Gold Mines and Precious Stones: The custom in the Khazar capital is to have seven judges. Of these two are for the -- PJ 28 -- pag. 183 Muslims, two are for the Khazars, judging according to the Torah (Mosaic law), two for the Christians, judging according to the Gospel, and one for the Saqualibah, Rus and other pagans, judging according to pagan law...In his [the Khazar King's] city are many Muslims, merchants and craftsmen, who have come to his country because of his justice and the security which he offers. They have a principal mosque and a minaret which rises above the royal castle, and other mosques there besides, with schools where the children learn the Koran. In reading these lines by the foremost Arab historian, written in the first half of the tenth century, between AD 943 and 947„ you might be tempted to take a too idyllic view of life in the Khazar Kingdom. Thus you find in the article KHAZARS in the Jewish Encyclopaedia: "In a time when fanaticism, ignorance and anarchy reigned in Western Europe, the Kingdom of the Khazars could boast of its just and broad-minded administration". Yes, I said "found in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, published in 1971-6. In the Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, the article on the Khazars by Dunlop is of exemplary objectivity. It may, however, be quite difficult to get your hands on the document and much less your eyes. There is no evidence of the Khazars engaging in religious persecution, either before or after the conversion to Judaism--that, dear ones, can only mean that there probably was persecution for evil always efforts to hide its actions. But on the other hand, the Roman Empire, or Islam in its early stages, was incredibly brutal and anything lesser looked pretty good. It is known that they preserved some barbaric rituals from the tribal past. You have now heard Ibn Fadlan on the killings of the royal grave-diggers. He also had something to say about another archaic custom--regicide: "The period of the king's rule is forty years. If he exceeds this time by a single day, his subjects and attendants kill him, saying 'His reasoning is already dimmed, and his insight confused'". But, Istakhri has a bit of a differing version of it: "When they wish to enthrone this Kagan, they put a silken cord round his neck and tighten it until he begins to choke. Then they ask him: 'How long dost thou intend to rule'? If he does not die before that year, he is killed when he reaches it". This is the sort of lore you would tend to discard, I would suspect. Don't. Ritual regicide was a widespread phenomenon among primitive and not-so-primitive people. There was great connection between the concept of the King's divinity, and the sacred obligation to kill him after a fixed period, or when his vitality would be on the wane, so the powers could find a more youthful and vigorous incarnation. It isn't such a bad idea, perhaps, for if you still practiced that ritual with politicians, perhaps you wouldn't have so many applying for the job. It speaks in Istakhri's favour that the bizarre ceremony of "choking" the future King has been reported in existence apparently not so long ago among other people, the Kok-Turks. Zeki Validi quotes a French anthropologist, St. Julien, writing in 1864: When the new Chief has been elected, his officers and attendants...make him mount his horse. They tighten a ribbon of silk around his neck, without quite strangling him; then they loosen the ribbon and ask him with great insistence: "For how many years canst thou be our Khan"? The king, in his troubled mind, being unable to name a figure, his subjects decide, on the strength of the words that have escaped him, whether his rule will be long or brief. There is a whole book written on THE KILLING OF THE KHAZAR  KING, BY FRAZER (Folklore, XXVIII, 1917). The point at issue herein is that the divine power was attributed to the Kagan, regardless whether or not it implied his ultimate sacrifice. It was more realistic that the King was, rather, kept in seclusion -- PJ 28 -- pag. 184 until his death and cut off from the people, until he was buried with enormous ceremony. The affairs of state, including leadership of the army, were managed by the Bek (Kagan Bek) who wielded all effective power. This actually denoted "double kingship" with the Kagan representing something divine, the Bek secular. This is taken here as important only in what came later. The acceptance of Judaism as the state religion was the result of a coup d'etat, which at the same time reduced the Kagan, descendant of a pagan dynasty whose allegiance to Mosaic law could not really be trusted, to a figurehead. CONVERSION The religion of the Hebrews had exercised a profound influence on the creed of Islam, and it had been a basis for Christianity; it had won scattered proselytes, but the conversion of the Khazars to the undiluted religion of Jehovah is unique in history. What was the motivation of this unique event? It is not easy to get under the skin of a Khazar prince--covered, as it was, by a coat of mail. But if you reason in terms of power-politics, which obeys essentially the same rules throughout the ages, a fairly plausible analogy offers itself without me appearing too mystical and mysterious in the offering. At the beginning of the eighth century the world was polarized between the two super-powers representing Christianity and Islam. Their ideological doctrines were welded to power-politics pursued by the classical methods of propaganda, subversion and military conquest. The Khazar Empire represented a Third Force, which had proved equal to either of them, both as an adversary ((s)atan) and an ally. But it could only maintain its independence by accepting neither Christianity nor Islam--for either choice would have automatically subordinated it to the authority of the Roman Emperor or the Caliph of Baghdad. There was no lacking in efforts by either court to convert the Khazars to Christianity or Islam, but all they resulted in was the exchange of diplomatic courtesies, dynastic inter-marriages and shifting military alliances based on mutual self-interest. Relying on its military strength, the Khazar Kingdom, with its hinterland of vassal tribes, was determined to preserve its position as the Third Force, leader of the uncommitted nations of the steppes. At the same time, their intimate contacts with Byzantium and the Caliphate had taught the Khazars that their primitive shamanism was not only barbaric and outdated compared to the great monotheistic creeds, but also unable to confer on the leaders the spiritual and legal authority which the rulers of the two theocratic world powers, the Caliph and the Emperor, enjoyed. Yet the conversion to either creed would have meant submission, the end of independence, and thus would have defeated its purpose. What could have been more logical than to embrace a third creed, which was uncommitted towards either of the two, yet represented the venerable foundation of both? In reality, the conversion to Judaism required an act of GENIUS. Yet both Arab and Hebrew sources on the history of the conversion varied in detail but let us just quote Bury once again for your insight: There can be no question that the ruler was actuated by political motives in adopting Judaism. To embrace Mohammedanism would have made him the spiritual dependent of the -- PJ 28 -- pag. 185 Caliphs, who attempted to press their faith on the Khazars, and in Christianity lay the danger of his becoming an ecclesiastical vassal of the Roman Empire. Judaism was a reputable religion with sacred books which both Christian and Mohammedan respected; it elevated him above the heathen barbarians, and secured him against the interference of Caliph or Emperor. But he did not adopt, along with circumcision, the intolerance of the Jewish cult. He allowed the mass of his people to abide in their heathendom and worship their idols. Though the Khazar court's conversion was no doubt politically motivated, it would still be absurd to imagine that they embraced overnight, blindly, a religion whose tenets were unknown to them. In fact, however, they had been well-acquainted with Judaists and their religious observances for at least a century before the conversion, through the continued influx of refugees from religious persecution in Byzantium, and to a lesser extent from countries in Asia Minor conquered by the Arabs. Khazaria was a relatively civilized country among the Barbarians of the North, yet not committed to either of the militant creeds, and so it became a natural haven for the periodic exodus of Judaists under Byzantine rule, threatened by forced conversion and by other pressures. I want to leave this writing at this point for I have other duties to attend. I believe that it must be becoming obvious that none of this "religious" hocus-pocus has anything to do with God's laws nor those of The Creation and thus has it ever been. These were the types of entities which were setting the rules and writing the books of rules--how can you "modern" "civilized" people continue to believe that God gave forth rules and they remained untampered with when men writing the laws still tied a man to two trees and then split him in half!?! Please, brothers, you must know that ignorance of truth is one thing and stupidity in passage quite another. Please choose wisdom and reason so that Divine God in justice and Truth can show you the out of this morass. I am intrigued by one after another of your "experts" on various issues at hand and in crisis; when asked their solutions, they invariably end up by saying there aren't any except maybe "prayers". To whom? For what? It is time you decide on both points for I promise you that there will NOT be a knight God on a gleaming white horse to ride you off into the clouds. There won't even be a silver craft to lift you off if you don't get with changing your direction. Why would a God of perfection desire satanic imperfection in his house? You ones of Earth have not become more "civilized and Godly", you have become more barbaric with more heinous ways to kill and mutilate than ever before in your history--and you march dead-ahead in your plans to use them all. So be it. I and my Command await your decisions for your time grows short. Salu. Hatonn to clear. -- PJ 28 -- pag. 186 --- BACK TO THE KHAZARS AND CONVERSION TO JUDAISM It is historically noted that the Khazars were a relatively "civilized" country among the Barbarians of the North, yet not committed to either of the concomitant creeds, and so it became a natural haven for the periodic exodus of Judoists under Byzantine rule, threatened by forced conversion and other pressures. Persecution in varied forms had started with Justinian I (527-65), and assumed particularly vicious forms under Heraclius in the seventh century, Leo III in the eighth, Basil and Leo IV in the ninth, Romanus in the tenth. Thus Leo III, who ruled during the two decades immediately preceding the Khazar conversion to Judaism, "attempted to end the anomaly [of the tolerated status of Judaists] at one blow by ordering all his Judaist subjects to be baptized". Although the implementation of the order seemed to have been rather ineffective, it led to the flight of a considerable number of Judaists from Byzantium. You DO have something with which to relate--The New World Order. What if, tonight, it is announced that the New World Order is in full operation and there will henceforth be no discussions of Constitutional rights, etc. The churches will teach that which the government of evil gives unto them to teach, etc. What would you do? What WILL you do--for it is coming rapidly now. I can promise you that when this happens YOU WILL ALL CONVERT--IN ACTIONS, EVEN IF NOT WITHIN BELIEF! Masudi relates: In this city [Khazaran-Itil] are Muslims, Christians, Jews and pagans. The Jews are the king, his attendants and the Khazars of his kind (the "White Khazars"). The King of the Khazars had already become a Jew in the Caliphate of Harun al-Rashid and he was joined by Jews from all lands of Islam and from the country of the Greeks [Byzantium]. Indeed the King -- PJ 28 -- pag. 189 of the Greeks at the present time, the Year of the Hegira 332 [AD 943-4] has converted the Jews in his kingdom to Christianity by coercion.... Thus many Jews took flight from the country of the Greeks to Khazaria.... I can't understand why you ones continue to ask me why we continue to use the term Jew if it was not a part of any language at the time, and we are quoting from ones "of the time". BECAUSE IT IS ALL IN TRANSLATION AND BY THE TIME IT WAS TRANSLATED, THE TERM JEW WAS REQUIRED AS TRANSLATION OF THE TERM JUDEAN, JUDAIST. IT IS A MAJOR PART OF THE WHOLE MANDATORY EFFORT AT DECEPTION SO THAT BY THIS CURRENT TIME OF CYCLES AND EVOLVEMENT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW DIFFERENCE--AND IT WORKED! Therefore, to be accurate in my own translation I am forced to utilize the translated version or you know not that of which I speak. THE VERY WORD JEW HAS BECOME THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL! THE VERY LABEL WAS CONCEIVED TO DECEIVE MANKIND AND IT HAS WORKED! The last two sentences of the quote above refer to events two hundred years after the Khazar conversion and show how persistently the waves of persecution followed each other over the centuries. But the Jews were equally persistent. Many endured torture, and those who did not have the strength to resist returned later on to their faith--"like dogs to their vomit", as one Christian chronicler gracefully put it. Equally picturesque is the description of a Hebrew writer of one method of forced conversion used under the Emperor Basil against the Judaist community of Oria in southern Italy: -- PJ 28 -- pag. 190 NEXT PAGE