2005 -- 2018  AbundantHope.net
Phoenix Journal Selections 
param>Google Translate param>
The Khazars, part 8 WHAT HAVE WE HERE? If you have a group of warriors of Mongol, Russian and Nordic bloodline who march across the nations like a bad case of deadly plague, stealing religions, territories and falsifying everything they touch through change by deceit, and their name is "KHAZAR", is it not possible that you would keep" a steady and constant lookout for Khazars any time you have a similar problem within the nations? You must understand that by changing names of the duck by calling it a bluebird changes not the duck. Neither does changing the name of KHAZAR to any other label or religion (to corrupted Judean) change the Khazarian. To clarify Dharma, we must reprint an old lesson on the rise of the Khazars so there is understanding--beyond the shadow of a doubt! Quoting primarily from THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE by Arthur Koestler: -- PJ 26 -- page. 8 About the time when Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West, the eastern confines of Europe between the Caucasus and the Volga were ruled by a state known as the Khazar Empire. At the peak of its power, from the seventh to the tenth centuries, AD, it played a significant part in shaping the destinies of medieval, and consequently of modern, Europe. Now, if they were at the peak of their power during this time, is it not logical and reasonable that they were around before that time? (quack, quack) The Byzantine Emperor and historian, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (913-959), was well aware of this when he recorded in his treatise on court protocol that letters addressed to the Pope in Rome, and similarly those to the Emperor of the West, had a gold seal worth two solidi attached to them, whereas messages to the King of the Khazars displayed a seal worth three solidi. This was not flattery, but Realpolitik. In the period with which we are concerned, the Khan of the Khazars was of little less importance in view of the imperial foreign policy than Charles the Great and his successors. The country of the Khazars, a people of Turkish stock, occupied a strategic key position in the vital gateway between the Black Sea and the Caspian, where the great eastern powers of the period confronted each other. It acted as a buffer protecting Byzantium against invasions by the lusty barbarian tribesmen of the northern steppes--Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, etc. --and, later, the Vikings and the Russians. But equally, or even more important both from the point of view of Byzantine diplomacy and of European history, is the fact that the Khazar armies effectively blocked the Arab avalanche in its most devastating early stages, and thus prevented the Muslim conquest of Eastern Europe. LITTLE SUMMARY The Khazar country...lay across the natural line of advance of the Arabs. Within a few years of the death of Muhammad (AD 632) the armies of the Caliphate, sweeping northward through the wreckage of two empires and carrying all before them, reached the great mountain barrier of the Caucuses. This barrier once passed, the road lay open to the land of eastern Europe. As it was, on the line of the Caucuses the Arabs met the forces of an organized military power which effectively prevented them from extending their conquests in this direction. The wars of the Arabs and the Khazars, which lasted more than a hundred years, though little known, have thus considerable historical importance. The Franks of Charles Martel on the field of Tours turned the tide of Arab invasion. At about the same time the threat to Europe in the east was hardly less acute... The victorious Muslims were met and held by the forces of the Khazar Kingdom...It can...scarcely be doubted that but for the existence of the Khazars in the region north of the Caucasus, Byzantium, the bulwark of European civilization in the east, would have found itself outflanked by the Arabs, and the history of Christendom and Islam might well have been very different from what is known. (Professor Dunlop, D.M. (1954), pp. ix-x., Professor and Historian, Columbia University--leading authority on the history of the KHAZARS.) It should not be surprising, therefore, given these circumstances, that in 732--after a resounding Khazar victory over the Arabs--the future Emperor Constantine V married a Khazar princess. In due time their son became the Emperor Leo IV, known as Leo the Khazar. Ironically, the last battle in the war, AD 737, ended in a Khazar defeat. But by the time the impetus of the Muslim Holy War was spent, the Caliphate was rocked by internal dissensions, and the Arab invaders retraced their steps across the Caucuses without having gained a permanent foothold in the north, whereas the Khazars became more powerful than they had been previously. -- PJ 26 -- page. 9 A few years later, around AD 740, the King, his court and the military ruling class embraced the faith which they then labeled "JEWISH", and their DISTORTED version of JUDAISM became the State religion of the Khazars! Their contemporaries were astounded just as you are, dear ones, as the proof is found in the historical evidence in the Arab, Byzantine, Russian and Hebrew sources. One of the most recent comments is to be found in the work by an honored Hungarian Marxist historian, Dr. Antal Bartha. His book on the THE MAGYAR SOCIETY IN THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES has several chapters on the Khazars and perhaps you should dig it up and study it: Bartha, A (1968), p. 35.. During most of that period of history the Hungarians were ruled by them. If, however, you get and study this book you will find that their conversion to Judaism IS DISCUSSED IN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH! With obvious embarrassment it reads: "Our investigations cannot go into problems pertaining to the history of ideas, but we must call the reader's attention to the matter of the Khazar kingdom's state religion. It was the Jewish faith which became the official religion of the ruling strata of society. Needless to say, the acceptance of the Jewish faith as the state religion of an ethnically non-Jewish people could be the subject of interesting speculations. We shall, however, confine ourselves to the remark that this official conversion--in defiance of Christian proselytizing by Byzantium, the Muslim influence from the East, and in spite of the political pressure of these two powers--to a religion which had no support from any political power, but was persecuted by nearly all--has come as a surprise to all historians concerned with the Khazars, and cannot be considered as accidental, but must be regarded as a sign of the independent policy pursued by that kingdom." Ah, but errors upon errors--the term "JEW" was not created until the 1770's A.D. the 18th century). You may be bewildered but the facts are beyond dispute. What comes into question and bears greatly on history, of course, is the fate of these Khazars with their corrupted Judaism after the eventual destruction of their empire in the 12th or 13th century--for along about the time therein they began changing names and painting different colors on themselves but never really changing "spots". (quack, quack--remember?) (Neither does painting spots on a Poodle make it a Dalmatian.) Sprinkled throughout the history books which were not deliberately destroyed or tampered with, it is found that Khazar settlements are found in the Crimea, in the Ukraine, in Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. (Do any of these places strike "current" strings on your banjo?) The general picture that emerges from these fragmentary pieces of information is that of the migration of Khazar tribes and communities into those regions of Eastern Europe--mainly Russia and Poland--where, at the dawn of the Modern Age, the greatest concentrations of those who would become known as "JEWS" were found. (You will note that none of this so far has any connection to that which is called Judean--not heritage, race--nor actually even religion, for the Khazars promptly re-wrote the Judean religious to suit their own intents and purposes. The next is extremely IMPORTANT so please pay close attention:) Historians are now forced to recognize that the majority of "eastern so-called "Jews"--are actually Khazars and have NO roots whatsoever in Semitic origin. The fear struck home to the historians, however, as the truth unfolded and many folded with it. The subject of Khazars could not, in all instances, be completely deleted from historical documents but most certainly were -- PJ 26 -- page. 10 completely tampered with, i.e. (Dunlop): The Turkish-speaking "Karaites" (a fundamentalist Jewish sect) (oops, and more errors, for there is that "Jewish" again, incorrectly utilized as description) of the Crimea, Poland, and elsewhere have affirmed a connection with the Khazars, which is perhaps confirmed by evidence from folklore and anthropology as well as language. There seems to be a considerable amount of evidence attesting to the continued presence in Europe of descendants of the Khazars. How important then, in quantitive terms, is that "presence" of the Caucasian sons of Japheth in the tents of SHEM? (Sheiiiites-- "Semites") Let us look closely at a radical propounder of the hypothesis concerning the Khazar origins of Jewry, Professor of Medieval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, A.N. Poliak. His book KHAZARIA (in Hebrew) was published in 1944 in Tel Aviv, and a second edition in 1951. In his introduction he writes: ...a new approach, both to the problem of the relations between the Khazar "Jewry" and other "Jewish" communities, and to the question of how far we can go in regarding this Khazar "Jewry" as the nucleus of the large "Jewish" settlement in Eastern Europe.... The descendants of this settlement--those who stayed where they were, those who emigrated to the United States and to other countries, and those who went to "Israel"--constitute now the large majority of world "Jewry". (Hatonn added the quotations.) Now a strange thing happens. There later comes what is now known as the "holocaust", BUT, there is FACT that almost ALL OF THE SURVIVING "JEWS" OF THAT HOLOCAUST--COME FROM THE KHAZARS OF EASTERN EUROPE! Are not “facts” interesting in changing perceptions? This can only mean that these so-called "JEWS" are Khazars in origin and that their ancestry is from the Volga (Mongol, Russia, Nordic) and NOT FROM JORDAN! This further causes you to KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had to come from the Volga region and not from that area which was labeled Canaan, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race, and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar (Gog and Magog) tribes than to any seed of Abraham, Isaac and/or Jacob. THEREFORE, THE TERM AS USED THIS DAY OF "ANTI-SEMITISM" IS TOTALLY VOID OF ALL MEANING. CRUEL HOAX UPON A PLANET AND CIVILIZATION You are entangled in this hoax of hoaxes and completely befuddled in the lies as directly perpetrated against you as a planet overflowing with a species out to destroy itself. "Attila was, after all, merely the king of a kingdom of tents. His state passed away--whereas the despised city of Constantinople (now hidden by a "changed label", Istanbul) remained a power. The tents vanished, the towns remained. The Hun state was a whirlwind...." Thus said Cassel, a nineteenth-century orientalist, implying that the Khazars met the same demise--simply changing names and infiltrating elsewhere. Yet the Hun presence on the European scene lasted a mere eighty years, from circa 372, when the Huns first started to move westward from the steppes north of the Caspian, to the death of Attila in 453, whereas the kingdom of the Khazars  held -- PJ 26 -- page. 11 its own for the best part of FOUR CENTURIES, And YOU never heard of them--how could that be? Could it be by directed INTENTION TO HIDE IT FROM YOU? AH SO--AND THE EVIL BEGINS TO SHOW THROUGH THE TATTERS OF THE ROBE, DOES IT NOT? The Khazars, too, lived chiefly in tents, but they also had large urban settlements, and were in the process of transformation from a tribe of nomadic warriors into a nation of farmers, cattle-breeders, fishermen, vine-growers, traders and skilled craftsmen. Does this sound like a familiar replay of a plot begun in stolen Palestine of self-proclaimed, newly labeled "Jews" in a place newly labeled "Israel" by self-proclaimed, self-styled "chosen of God 'israelites'"? Soviet archaeologists have unearthed unequivocal evidence of a relatively advanced civilization which was altogether different from the "Hun whirlwind". They found proof of villages extending over several miles, with houses connected by galleries to huge cattlesheds, sheep-pens and stables. They found an outlay of plans and artifacts which were identical in nature to the plans of this newly self-named "Israel". There were evidences that there were outlying communal centers which would now be labeled Kibbutz. There is total evidence of the transition of a people from tents into houses as the foundations are circular in shape, sunk into the ground as the transition to "permanent" housing of rectangular shape came into being. This facilitated tenting for the upper shelter but a foundation which would remain through many comings and goings. The excavations of these centers showed that the kingdom was, during its later period, surrounded by an elaborate chain of fortifications, dating from the eighth and ninth centuries, which protected its northern frontiers facing the open steppes. These fortresses formed a rough semi-circular arc from the Crimea (which the Khazars ruled for a time) across the lower reaches of the Donetz and the Don to the Volga; while towards the south they were protected by the Caucuses, to the west by the Black Sea, and to the east by the "Khazar Sea", the Caspian (ah ha!). However, the northern chain of fortifications marked merely an inner ring, protecting the stable core of the Khazar country; the actual boundaries of their rule over the tribes of the north fluctuated according to the fortunes of war. At the peak of their power they controlled or exacted tribute from some thirty different nations and tribes inhabiting the vast territories between the Caucuses, the Aral Sea, the Ural Mountains, the town of Kiev and the Ukrainian steppes. And, you haven't even heard of such a thing as Khazar (sic, sic). The people under Khazar sovereignty included the Bulgars, Burtas, Ghuzz, Magyars (Hungarians), the Gothic and Greek colonies of the Crimea, and the Slavonic tribes in the north-western woodlands. Beyond these extended dominions, Khazar armies also raided Georgia and Armenia and penetrated into the Arab Calphate as far as Mosul (under attack this day, March 30, 1991). Do you truly question the hate held in such wide-spread nations and peoples as is today held against the Khazars--these self- labeled, so-called "JEWS", usurpers of all they touch? These are THE ones now calling themselves "Jews", "Zionists" "Chosen of God Elite" and have stolen land (at your demand and support) from the people of Palestine and re-labeled it “Israel”--in order to FOOL THE WORLD. They have only "fooled" AMERICA AND PEOPLE THEREOF--FOR THEY HAVE GAINED CONTROL OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AND RELABEL IT "NEW WORLD ORDER"! Until the ninth century, the Khazars had no rivals to their supremacy in the regions north of the Black Sea and the adjoining steppe and forest regions of the Dnieper. The Khazars were the supreme masters of the southern half of Eastern Europe for a century and a half, and presented a -- PJ 26 -- page. 12 mighty bulwark, blocking the Ural-Caspian gateway from Asia into Europe. During this whole period, they held back the onslaught of the nomadic tribes from the East. If you take an Eagle's eye view of the history of the great nomadic empires of the East, the Khazar kingdom occupies an intermediary position in time, size, and degree of civilization between the Hun and Avar Empires which preceded, and the Mongol Empire that succeeded it. Isn't diagnosing the causative organism most interesting indeed? I shall share a "scribe's" insight. Dharma chuckles for she was an "A" student and yet all but failed at "history" and "geography" which seemed beyond all grasp and she pronounced to the narrow child's world: "I will never need it anyway"! So be it. WHO WERE THESE KHAZARS? Who were these remarkable people--remarkable as much by their power and achievements as by their conversion to a religion of outcasts? The descriptions that have been spread around to you originate in hostile sources, and must not be taken as truth for the deliberate deceit began long before you can count. An Arab chronicler makes an interesting statement: "As to the Khazars, they are to the north of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime, having over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land is cold and wet. Accordingly their complexions are white, their eyes blue, their hair flowing and predominantly reddish, their bodies large and their natures cold. Their general aspect is wild." It is obvious that after a century of warfare, this Arab writer had no great sympathy for the Khazars. Nor had the Georgian or Armenian scribes, whose countries, of a much older culture, had been repeatedly devastated by Khazar horsemen. A Georgian chronicle, echoing an ancient tradition, (PAY ATTENTION!) WITH THE HOSTS OF GOG AND MAGOG--"WILD MEN WITH HIDEOUS FACES AND THE MANNERS OF WILD BEASTS, EATERS OF BLOOD". An Armenian writer refers to "..the horrible multitude of Khazars with insolent, broad, lashless faces and long falling hair, like women". Lastly, the Arab geographer Istakhri, one of the main Arab sources, has this to say: "The Khazars do not resemble the Turks. They are black- haired, and are of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars, (Black Khazars) who are swarthy verging on deep, black as if they were a kind of Indian, and a white kind (Ak-Khazars) (Ashkanazi), who are strikingly handsome." (Movie stars and politicians, perhaps?) The latter is more flattering, but ONLY adds to the confusion. For it was customary among Turkish peoples to refer to the ruling classes or clans as "white", to the lower strata as "black", and thus you can see how "terminology" is of tremendous importance in deciphering truth. Thus there is no reason to believe that the "White Bulgars: where "whiter" in color than the "Black Bulgars", or the "White Huns" (the Ephtalites) who invaded India and Persia in the fifth and sixth centuries were of fairer skin than the other Hun tribes which invaded Europe. Istakhri's black-skinned Khazars--as much else in his and his colleagues' writings--were based on hearsay and legend, and you are none the wiser regarding the Khazars' physical appearance, or their ethnic origins. -- PJ 26 -- page. 13 The last question can only be answered in a most vague fashion from historical documentations. But it is equally frustrating to those who inquire into the origins of the Huns, Alms, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Bashkirs, Burtas, Sabirs, Uigurs, Saragurs, Onogurs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Tarniaks, Kotragars, Khabars, Zabenders, Pechenegs, Ghuzz, Kumans, Kipchaks, and dozens of other tribes of people who at one time or another in the lifetime of the Khazar Kingdom passed through the turnstiles of those migratory playgrounds. Even the Huns, of whom you know much more, are of uncertain origin; their name is derived from the Chinese Hiung- nu, which designates warlike nomads in general, while other nations applied the name Hun in a similarly indiscriminate way to nomadic hordes of all kinds, including the "White Huns" mentioned above, the Sabirs, Magyars and KHAZARS. Note that while the British at the time of World War I used the term "Hun" in the same pejorative sense, in Hungary schoolchildren were taught to look up to "our glorious Hun forefathers" with patriotic pride. Attila is still a popular first name in that area and a very exclusive "rowing club" in Budapest was called "Hunnia". In the first century AD, the Chinese drove these disagreeable Hun neighbors westward, and thus started one of those periodic avalanches which swept for many centuries from Asia towards the West. From the fifth century onward, many of these westward- bound tribes were called by the generic name of "Turks". The term is also supposed to be of Chinese origin (apparently derived from the name of a hill) and was subsequently used to refer to all tribes who spoke languages with certain common characteristics--the "Turkic" language group. Thus the term Turk, in the sense in which it was used by medieval writers--and often also by modern ethnologists--refers primarily to language and not to race. In this sense the Huns and Khazars were "Turkic" people (but not the Magyars, whose language belongs to the Finno-Ugrian language group). The Khazar language was supposedly a Chuvash dialect of Turkish, which still survives in the Autonomous Chuvash Soviet Republic, between the Volga and the Sura. The Chuvash people are actually believed to be descendants of the Bulgars, who spoke a dialect similar to the Khazars. From this original language integrated into the more recently accepted Arab/Hebrew dialect--came "YIDDISH". Do you feel the trail getting hotter and hotter? The origin of the original name "Khazar", and the modern derivations to which it gave rise, came from the Turkish root gaz, "to wander", and simply means "nomad". And now, hold your breath: the really interesting derivations from it are the Russian Cossack and the Hungarian Hussar--both signifying martial horsemen; and also the German KETZER--"HERETIC, I.E.: JEW!” I would herein say that this information has GREAT IMPACT on what is going on in your world this day! -- PJ 26 -- page. 14 --- NEXT PAGE