Showing posts with label Khazar Conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Khazar Conspiracy. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 April 2016
Tuesday, 26 April 2016
Thursday, 21 February 2013
Christian Identity Movemement
"Lothrop Stoddard, the leading racial theorist of the interwar period, had described two races of Jews, the "aristocratic" Sephardic Jews, who had entered the Mediterranean world, were the the genuine Semites. However, the Ashkenazic Jews were a mixture of diverse bloods, whose features reflected intermarriage with the Hittites. These eastern Jews had migrated into southern Russia, where they then blended with the Khazars, whom Stoddard regarded as a combination of Turkish and Mongoloid peoples. Although Stoddard had no connection with British-Israelism, the movement readily adopted the Khazar identity of the Jews as a further means of invalidating their claim to be descendents of the biblical Hebrews.
By the 1960s, when Christian-Identity was established as a force on the extreme-right, the Khazar ancestry of the Jews was a firm article of faith. Two books, widely read in this milieu, came to exercise a strong influence in this regard.
John Beaty's Iron Curtain Over America (1951) focused especially on the roots of Russian Jewry. He claimed that the reforms of Czar Alexander II gave the "Judaized Khazars", who had converted in the seventh century, the opportunity to infiltrate and corrupt Russia.
Wilmot Robertson's Dispossessed Majority (1972) repeated the Khazar thesis of Stoddard. Christian Identity teachings readily seized on this negative reference to Russian Jewry, but backdated Jewish intermarriage with the Khazars to biblical times.
In A Short History of Esau-Edom in Jewry (1948), the Vancouver writer C. F. Parker had claimed that a tiny remnant of "true Judah" was pitted against Idumean-Hittites who masqueraded as the true seed of Abraham and sought to expel the descendents of Jacob. These Esau-Hittites are the Ashkenazim, concentrated in Eastern and Central Europe and America. The old religious language lent itself to new political contexts. "Edom" meant "red" and Parker hinted that most Russian communist revolutionaries were descendents of Esau-Edom, an association repeated by others, including Howard Rand and Wesley Swift.
The hostility of British-Isralism toward Zionism also worked to associate the Jews with racial impurity. When the British Army invaded Palestine in 1917, the famous Balfour Declaration was issued, promising that the British would facilitate the establishment in Palestine of national home for the Jews. In 1922, British-Israelite prophecy seemed again confirmed when the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to rule Palestine and secure that objective. However, while Jewish settlement was necessary for divine fulfillment, the concept of a Jewish state was an anathema. Once Zionism articulated its demand for an exclusively Jewish state, the withdrawal or expulsion of the British would imply that Palestine would be left with Judah, but Israel would be absent. The novel When? describes an apocalyptic military climax to the Second World War, set in Palestine. After the British retreat from Jerusalem, the city is captured by the evil forces of Gog, aided by Zionists, none other than those inauthentic Jews who are the descendents of ancient intermarriages with impure races. One of the hero's informants claims that the Sephardim are the true Jews while the Ashkenazim are not. "There was great animosity between the real Semitic Jews and the greater part of the Zionists [who] were usurpers of Gentile blood."
In 1948, the year of the creation of Israel, C. F. Parker repeated the view that there were two races of Jews. He considered the Zionists to be almost exclusively Ashkenazim, and therefore "Esau-Edomites". If the Sephardim were pious and apolitical, the Ashekanzic Zionists shamelessly mobilised the financial and political influence of European and American Jewry to support their campaign for a sovereign state. "The newly declared Jewish state of "Israel" is as ersatz and barren as its predecessor, the Herodian-Jewish nation, for it still rejects Jesus Christ ... the Jews have seized the Holy Land from the rightful owners [Israel-Britain]" .
Howard Rand also fulminated against the new state, branding it the work of "renegade Jews" not "true Israelitish Jews". He described these "renegades" as the same imposters who had led the Russian revolution thirty years earlier. In a later article, he identified the Zionists with "a Great Conspiracy" and "programme of evil" whereby the Jews had deceived Christians, so that Jews appeared to be the rightful heirs of the state of Israel. This grand deception, he argued, had extensive ramifications among the Nihilists, the Illuminati, the Fabians and the House of Rothschild.
Christian Identity doctrine progressively removed the Jews totally from the domain of humanity. As we have seen, from the 1930s onwards, movement writings increasingly called into question the religious authenticity and racial homogeneity of the Jews. Even the originally philosemitic English movement limited the Jews to the tribes of Judah, while the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic tribes of Israel assumed the senior partnership in the quest for Jewish conversion and millennial settlement of All-Israel. Then it was suggested that Jews had intermarried with the offspring of Esau to become Edomites. Canaanite and Hittite blood was supposed to have further comprised their racial identity, until their Semitic inheritance was drowned in the Asiatic gene pool of the Khazars.
As Michael Barkun observed, while the Anglo-Saxons claimed for themselves the biblical role of Israel, the Jews claims were progressively delegitimated. First, they needed the protection of the European Christian tribes of Israel; then they lusted after strange peoples to become carriers of tainted and alien blood; finally, they were mere imposters masquerading as the heirs of biblical people and credited with plots and revolutions compatible with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (Goodrick-Clarke, 2003:237-38)
References
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas., 2003, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York, New York University Press.
By the 1960s, when Christian-Identity was established as a force on the extreme-right, the Khazar ancestry of the Jews was a firm article of faith. Two books, widely read in this milieu, came to exercise a strong influence in this regard.
John Beaty's Iron Curtain Over America (1951) focused especially on the roots of Russian Jewry. He claimed that the reforms of Czar Alexander II gave the "Judaized Khazars", who had converted in the seventh century, the opportunity to infiltrate and corrupt Russia.
Wilmot Robertson's Dispossessed Majority (1972) repeated the Khazar thesis of Stoddard. Christian Identity teachings readily seized on this negative reference to Russian Jewry, but backdated Jewish intermarriage with the Khazars to biblical times.
In A Short History of Esau-Edom in Jewry (1948), the Vancouver writer C. F. Parker had claimed that a tiny remnant of "true Judah" was pitted against Idumean-Hittites who masqueraded as the true seed of Abraham and sought to expel the descendents of Jacob. These Esau-Hittites are the Ashkenazim, concentrated in Eastern and Central Europe and America. The old religious language lent itself to new political contexts. "Edom" meant "red" and Parker hinted that most Russian communist revolutionaries were descendents of Esau-Edom, an association repeated by others, including Howard Rand and Wesley Swift.
The hostility of British-Isralism toward Zionism also worked to associate the Jews with racial impurity. When the British Army invaded Palestine in 1917, the famous Balfour Declaration was issued, promising that the British would facilitate the establishment in Palestine of national home for the Jews. In 1922, British-Israelite prophecy seemed again confirmed when the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to rule Palestine and secure that objective. However, while Jewish settlement was necessary for divine fulfillment, the concept of a Jewish state was an anathema. Once Zionism articulated its demand for an exclusively Jewish state, the withdrawal or expulsion of the British would imply that Palestine would be left with Judah, but Israel would be absent. The novel When? describes an apocalyptic military climax to the Second World War, set in Palestine. After the British retreat from Jerusalem, the city is captured by the evil forces of Gog, aided by Zionists, none other than those inauthentic Jews who are the descendents of ancient intermarriages with impure races. One of the hero's informants claims that the Sephardim are the true Jews while the Ashkenazim are not. "There was great animosity between the real Semitic Jews and the greater part of the Zionists [who] were usurpers of Gentile blood."
In 1948, the year of the creation of Israel, C. F. Parker repeated the view that there were two races of Jews. He considered the Zionists to be almost exclusively Ashkenazim, and therefore "Esau-Edomites". If the Sephardim were pious and apolitical, the Ashekanzic Zionists shamelessly mobilised the financial and political influence of European and American Jewry to support their campaign for a sovereign state. "The newly declared Jewish state of "Israel" is as ersatz and barren as its predecessor, the Herodian-Jewish nation, for it still rejects Jesus Christ ... the Jews have seized the Holy Land from the rightful owners [Israel-Britain]" .
Howard Rand also fulminated against the new state, branding it the work of "renegade Jews" not "true Israelitish Jews". He described these "renegades" as the same imposters who had led the Russian revolution thirty years earlier. In a later article, he identified the Zionists with "a Great Conspiracy" and "programme of evil" whereby the Jews had deceived Christians, so that Jews appeared to be the rightful heirs of the state of Israel. This grand deception, he argued, had extensive ramifications among the Nihilists, the Illuminati, the Fabians and the House of Rothschild.
Christian Identity doctrine progressively removed the Jews totally from the domain of humanity. As we have seen, from the 1930s onwards, movement writings increasingly called into question the religious authenticity and racial homogeneity of the Jews. Even the originally philosemitic English movement limited the Jews to the tribes of Judah, while the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic tribes of Israel assumed the senior partnership in the quest for Jewish conversion and millennial settlement of All-Israel. Then it was suggested that Jews had intermarried with the offspring of Esau to become Edomites. Canaanite and Hittite blood was supposed to have further comprised their racial identity, until their Semitic inheritance was drowned in the Asiatic gene pool of the Khazars.
As Michael Barkun observed, while the Anglo-Saxons claimed for themselves the biblical role of Israel, the Jews claims were progressively delegitimated. First, they needed the protection of the European Christian tribes of Israel; then they lusted after strange peoples to become carriers of tainted and alien blood; finally, they were mere imposters masquerading as the heirs of biblical people and credited with plots and revolutions compatible with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (Goodrick-Clarke, 2003:237-38)
References
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas., 2003, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York, New York University Press.
The Origins of Ashkenaz
Sol Schindler of Bethesda, Md., writes:
“Paul Kriwaczek tells us in his book ‘In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia To Find the World’s First Prophet’ that the Hebrew word ashkenazi originally meant a Scythian. I myself always thought it meant a German. Did ancient Hebrew speakers use one term to describe all the barbarians beyond the Danube, or did they actually distinguish between Goths and Scythians?”
The place name Ashkenaz occurs three times in the Bible: In Genesis 10:3, in I Chronicles 1:6 and in Jeremiah 51:27. The first three verses of the 10th chapter of Genesis read: “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Yefet: and unto them were sons born after the Flood. The sons of Yefet: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Yavan, and Tuval, and Meshech, and Tiras. And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz and Rifat and Togarmah.”
The Bible represents Shem, Ham and Yefet as the ancestors of the three great ethnic-and-linguistic families of man known to the ancient Hebrews: the Semitic, the Hamitic or African, and the Indo-European. Yefet, the supposed progenitor of the Indo-Europeans, may derive, modern scholars believe, from the figure of Iapetos, the son of Uranus and father of Prometheus in Greek mythology.
Of his seven sons, Gomer can be identified with the inhabitants of Asia Minor known to the ancient Assyrians as the Gimmiraya and to the Greeks as the Kymroi or Cimmerians; Madai with the Medes, a people akin to the Persians who lived in what is today western Iran; Yavan with the Ionians or Greeks. Magog, Tuval, Meshech and Tiras can be identified with, respectively, the seventh-century BCE King Gyges of Lydia in southwest Turkey and with two peoples known to the Assyrians as the Tabal and the Musku, and to the Greeks as the Tibaroi and the Moschoi, living along the southern shore of the Black Sea, and as the Tyrsenoi, as the ancient Greeks called the Etruscans.
As for Ashkenaz, it is almost certainly the Hebrew name of the land of the people known to the Assyrians as the Ishkuza and to the Greeks as the Skythoi or Scythians. The Scythians were a powerful confederation of Indo-European tribes who spoke a language of the Iranian family; their original home was the steppe-lands north of the Black Sea, in what today would be southern Ukraine, from where, in the mid-first millennium BCE, their armies spread southwestward into western Asia Minor and southeastward into the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.
Jeremiah, vengefully predicting the downfall of the Babylonians in the early sixth-century BCE, after their destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, proclaims: “Blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her [Babylon], call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni [both in Armenia], and Ashkenaz.” As we have seen, the book of Genesis connects the Scythians, or descendants of Ashkenaz, with the Cimmerians, or descendants of Gomer, and historically indeed, the two peoples were closely related, since they were originally neighbors north of the Black Sea, from where the stronger Scythians pushed the Cimmerians further south. A rather fanciful account of the wars between them can be found in Herodotus.
By talmudic times, however, both the Scythians and the Cimmerians had disappeared from the world, swallowed up by other nations. Casting about for the location of Gomer, the rabbis of the talmudic period took it on the basis of phonetic resemblance to be Germania, as the Romans referred to the Teutonic areas west of the Rhine whose tribes they were constantly battling. “Gomer is Germamya [sic],” says the tractate of Yoma, while the tractate of Megillah tells us: “There are three hundred crown wearers [that is, petty kings] in Germamya and three-hundred-sixty-five lords in Rome, and every day they go forth and kill one another because they are too busy fighting to have time to unite under a single king.”
This is no doubt the reason that Ashkenaz, the biblical son of Gomer, came to be associated with Germany, too. This association may have been strengthened further by the name Scandza, as Scandinavia, the Germanic-speaking north of Europe, was often referred to in medieval times. By the middle ages, we find Ashkenaz being widely used for Germany in Jewish sources (when the 11th-century Rashi, for example, translates a Hebrew word into German in his commentaries, he gives it to us in “the language of Ashkenaz”), and before long it became the standard term.
Originally, therefore, an ashkenazi in Hebrew was a Jewish inhabitant of Germany. (It doesn’t appear in any Jewish source in the sense of Scythian.) Yet as Jews migrated eastward and northward to Slavic lands from German ones, taking with them “the language of Ashkenaz” (which gradually turned into Eastern European Yiddish), “Ashkenazi” came to denote any Yiddish-speaking Jew, and eventually — as it does today — any descendant of Yiddish-speaking Jews.
Ashkenaz, on the other hand, continued to refer in Hebrew to Germany alone, until it was replaced in the 20th century by germanya so as to avoid the ambiguity of ashkenazim meaning both non-Jewish Germans and Jewish speakers of Yiddish. As for germamya, it is gone from the world, along with the Cimmerians and Scythians.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/13681/the-origins-of-ashkenaz
The place name Ashkenaz occurs three times in the Bible: In Genesis 10:3, in I Chronicles 1:6 and in Jeremiah 51:27. The first three verses of the 10th chapter of Genesis read: “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Yefet: and unto them were sons born after the Flood. The sons of Yefet: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Yavan, and Tuval, and Meshech, and Tiras. And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz and Rifat and Togarmah.”
The Bible represents Shem, Ham and Yefet as the ancestors of the three great ethnic-and-linguistic families of man known to the ancient Hebrews: the Semitic, the Hamitic or African, and the Indo-European. Yefet, the supposed progenitor of the Indo-Europeans, may derive, modern scholars believe, from the figure of Iapetos, the son of Uranus and father of Prometheus in Greek mythology.
Of his seven sons, Gomer can be identified with the inhabitants of Asia Minor known to the ancient Assyrians as the Gimmiraya and to the Greeks as the Kymroi or Cimmerians; Madai with the Medes, a people akin to the Persians who lived in what is today western Iran; Yavan with the Ionians or Greeks. Magog, Tuval, Meshech and Tiras can be identified with, respectively, the seventh-century BCE King Gyges of Lydia in southwest Turkey and with two peoples known to the Assyrians as the Tabal and the Musku, and to the Greeks as the Tibaroi and the Moschoi, living along the southern shore of the Black Sea, and as the Tyrsenoi, as the ancient Greeks called the Etruscans.
As for Ashkenaz, it is almost certainly the Hebrew name of the land of the people known to the Assyrians as the Ishkuza and to the Greeks as the Skythoi or Scythians. The Scythians were a powerful confederation of Indo-European tribes who spoke a language of the Iranian family; their original home was the steppe-lands north of the Black Sea, in what today would be southern Ukraine, from where, in the mid-first millennium BCE, their armies spread southwestward into western Asia Minor and southeastward into the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.
Jeremiah, vengefully predicting the downfall of the Babylonians in the early sixth-century BCE, after their destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, proclaims: “Blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her [Babylon], call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni [both in Armenia], and Ashkenaz.” As we have seen, the book of Genesis connects the Scythians, or descendants of Ashkenaz, with the Cimmerians, or descendants of Gomer, and historically indeed, the two peoples were closely related, since they were originally neighbors north of the Black Sea, from where the stronger Scythians pushed the Cimmerians further south. A rather fanciful account of the wars between them can be found in Herodotus.
By talmudic times, however, both the Scythians and the Cimmerians had disappeared from the world, swallowed up by other nations. Casting about for the location of Gomer, the rabbis of the talmudic period took it on the basis of phonetic resemblance to be Germania, as the Romans referred to the Teutonic areas west of the Rhine whose tribes they were constantly battling. “Gomer is Germamya [sic],” says the tractate of Yoma, while the tractate of Megillah tells us: “There are three hundred crown wearers [that is, petty kings] in Germamya and three-hundred-sixty-five lords in Rome, and every day they go forth and kill one another because they are too busy fighting to have time to unite under a single king.”
This is no doubt the reason that Ashkenaz, the biblical son of Gomer, came to be associated with Germany, too. This association may have been strengthened further by the name Scandza, as Scandinavia, the Germanic-speaking north of Europe, was often referred to in medieval times. By the middle ages, we find Ashkenaz being widely used for Germany in Jewish sources (when the 11th-century Rashi, for example, translates a Hebrew word into German in his commentaries, he gives it to us in “the language of Ashkenaz”), and before long it became the standard term.
Originally, therefore, an ashkenazi in Hebrew was a Jewish inhabitant of Germany. (It doesn’t appear in any Jewish source in the sense of Scythian.) Yet as Jews migrated eastward and northward to Slavic lands from German ones, taking with them “the language of Ashkenaz” (which gradually turned into Eastern European Yiddish), “Ashkenazi” came to denote any Yiddish-speaking Jew, and eventually — as it does today — any descendant of Yiddish-speaking Jews.
Ashkenaz, on the other hand, continued to refer in Hebrew to Germany alone, until it was replaced in the 20th century by germanya so as to avoid the ambiguity of ashkenazim meaning both non-Jewish Germans and Jewish speakers of Yiddish. As for germamya, it is gone from the world, along with the Cimmerians and Scythians.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/13681/the-origins-of-ashkenaz
British-Israelism
"Foremost among these external anti-Semitic motifs brought into British-Israelism was the charge that Eastern European Jews were in fact not europeans at all but were "Asiatics". The specific form this took twas the accusation that Jews from the czar's empire were descendents of the Khazars, a people that had once lived near the shores of the Black Sea, and whose leadership stratum and an unknown portion of its populace had converted to Judaism in the seventh century. The Khazar theory never figured as a major component of anti-Semitism. Indeed, it only receives scant attention in Leon Poliakov's monumental history of the subject. However, it came to exercise a particular attraction for the advocates of immigration restriction in America. Since they had a well-developed position on the exclusion of "Orientals", particularly the Chinese, the suggestion that Jews were Asiatics rather than Europeans made it possible to include them within an existing category of inadmissible foreigners. Hence, in the 1920s, when immigration restrictionism reached a peak, the Khazar theory enjoyed a vogue in America, although it had in fact existed for several decades before that.
The earliest suggestion that Khazar ancestry played a significant role in determining the composition of Ashkenazic Jewry appears to have been in a lecture given by Ernest Renan, "Judaism as a Race and as a Religion," on January 27, 1883. Although the conversion of the Khazar ruling group was well known, Renan seems to have been the first to suggest that Khazar converts may have been numerous enough to constitute a major proportion of East European Jewry. Renan's suggestion was consistent with his long-standing belief that a racial distinction separated Jews from Aryans. There was, however, no immediate reason for such a view to exercise an attraction for British-Israelites, except insofar as they might, for their own reasons, have harboured an antipathy towards Ashkenazic Jews. There was nothing in the Khazar theory per se that commended it to British-Israelites, for - ironically - legend had for generations associated the Black Sea Khazars with the ten lost tribes of Israel.
(Barkun, M., 1997 (Revised Edition): Religion and the Racist Right - The Origins of Christian Identity Movement -- Chapter 7:The Demonisation of Jews I:Racial Anti-Semitism -- Jews as Asiatics: The Khazar Hypothesis pp.136-142)
The earliest suggestion that Khazar ancestry played a significant role in determining the composition of Ashkenazic Jewry appears to have been in a lecture given by Ernest Renan, "Judaism as a Race and as a Religion," on January 27, 1883. Although the conversion of the Khazar ruling group was well known, Renan seems to have been the first to suggest that Khazar converts may have been numerous enough to constitute a major proportion of East European Jewry. Renan's suggestion was consistent with his long-standing belief that a racial distinction separated Jews from Aryans. There was, however, no immediate reason for such a view to exercise an attraction for British-Israelites, except insofar as they might, for their own reasons, have harboured an antipathy towards Ashkenazic Jews. There was nothing in the Khazar theory per se that commended it to British-Israelites, for - ironically - legend had for generations associated the Black Sea Khazars with the ten lost tribes of Israel.
(Barkun, M., 1997 (Revised Edition): Religion and the Racist Right - The Origins of Christian Identity Movement -- Chapter 7:The Demonisation of Jews I:Racial Anti-Semitism -- Jews as Asiatics: The Khazar Hypothesis pp.136-142)
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Gilad Atzmon
In a 2007 interview on Indymedia, Gilad Atzmon claimed:
So I must do so in his stead.
Why, it’s fair to ask, does Gilad Atzmon, a self-described intellectual whose knowledge of history we are supposed to be inspired by, instead spread an anti-Semitic cock-and-bull story?
And why is Indymedia UK helping him do so?
To be clear: spreading the “Ashkenazi means Khazar” lie is not, taken independently and in isolation, sufficient grounds to conclude that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, rather than simply just another shambolic scholar fooled into not only embracing but (more embarrassingly) spreading a classic antiSemitic fiction.
The most that can be said,when this is taken in isolation, is that it’s obviously best to be quite wary when accepting Atzmonite “history” and that one might be justified in wondering whether the rest of it is also recycled anti-Semitic cant.
But I hasten to point out that this is only one chip in what turns out to be, on examination, a rather tall stack. As the chips accumulate, other ad hoc explanations become increasingly untenable, until for all but the most willfully self-blinkered. the most reasonable conclusion will be: yes, Gilad Atzmon is an antiSemite, and yes, Indymedia UK should indeed no-platform him.
“In fact, Sephardi Jews — or “Arab Jews” — are far closer to Palestinians than Ashkenazi Jews, who are largely Khazarians.”The interviewer, unfamiliar with the standard cant of the anti-Semite, fails to challenge Atzmon.
So I must do so in his stead.
Why, it’s fair to ask, does Gilad Atzmon, a self-described intellectual whose knowledge of history we are supposed to be inspired by, instead spread an anti-Semitic cock-and-bull story?
And why is Indymedia UK helping him do so?
To be clear: spreading the “Ashkenazi means Khazar” lie is not, taken independently and in isolation, sufficient grounds to conclude that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, rather than simply just another shambolic scholar fooled into not only embracing but (more embarrassingly) spreading a classic antiSemitic fiction.
The most that can be said,when this is taken in isolation, is that it’s obviously best to be quite wary when accepting Atzmonite “history” and that one might be justified in wondering whether the rest of it is also recycled anti-Semitic cant.
But I hasten to point out that this is only one chip in what turns out to be, on examination, a rather tall stack. As the chips accumulate, other ad hoc explanations become increasingly untenable, until for all but the most willfully self-blinkered. the most reasonable conclusion will be: yes, Gilad Atzmon is an antiSemite, and yes, Indymedia UK should indeed no-platform him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)