Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Quotes - Jewish and American.


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#141 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 06:45 AM

The ADL's credibility has been severely shaken by its long record of disinformation. While the ADL has every right to continue advocating pro-Israel policies, its real agenda should be exposed and it must be made to end the illegal spying, harassment, and intimidation of political opponents. More importantly, U.S. law enforcement agencies, the media, and political circles need to see the ADL for what it is: a pro-Israel group more than ready to distort the truth to further the Israeli agenda. While in retrospect, it now seems very clear that the ADL's wild allegations against alleged PLO support networks in the 1980's were baseless, it must be remembered that at the time they were seen as credible and led many people to lose their jobs and others to be imprisoned. The ADL's current crusade against alleged Islamic terrorist networks is almost identical to its earlier one against so-called ties to the PLO. Both campaigns are based on general stereotypes and fears and are devoid of evidence and fact. To repeat such allegations without further investigating them, as some in the media have done, is unprofessional and unethical. To act upon them, as some law-makers and law-enforcement agencies have done, is dangerous and threatens the freedoms and civil liberties Americans have grown to expect.
  • 0

#142 BlackCloudSky

BlackCloudSky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 07:21 AM

Thank you Donan, Anyone distorting the truth is doing noone any service at all. It would seem ridiculous to deny or reduce the holocaust of WWII. I notice on the Israeli Holocaust site that the Armenian Holocaust is mentioned. Perhaps it is pertinent to remember all the other holocausts.

The evidence of Nazi close relations with Zionists is on the web site http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ which is affiliated to http://www.netureikarta.org/ new site www.nkusa.org and you may regard that source as authoritative and accurate.

The link
THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE - THE KHAZAR EMPIRE AND ITS HERITAGE http://www.christusr.../www2/koestler/
refers to a book written by

Mr. Koestler was an Ashkenazi Jew and took pride in his Khazar ancestry. He was also a very talented and successful writer who published over 25 novels and essays. His most successful book, Darkness at Noon, was translated in thirty-three languages.
As expected, The Thirteenth Tribe caused a stir when published in 1976, since it demolishes ancient racial and ethnic dogmas...At the height of the controversy in 1983, the lifeless bodies of Arthur Koestler and his wife were found in their London home. Despite significant inconsistencies, the police ruled their death a suicide...

Additionally he correctly states that the Right of Israel to exist is defined by the United Nations. But it might affect the assumed religious basis of zionism.

Therefore because of the source of the material it seems unlikely to be Palestinian ProPalGanda. Whether it is authoritative is another matter.

The reference to Karl Marx being Jewish is from the Black Pope Story, http://www.historici...s/blackpope.htm
which is definitively not reliable. It must be the most exaggerated of conspiracy theories ever. However in the light of all the events that have occurred I think it is worth reading, provided you can do this with tounge in cheek. i.e. very critically and sceptically.

With that, they then introduced Communism in 1848 through Karl Marx. They tutored him in the British Museum, according to Alberto Rivera, an ex-Jesuit.

So Marx, the Jewish Freemason, was to be the one to put forward this Communism for the world, so that Communism would look like a Jewish brain-child, so that Communism could be blamed on the Jews. Well, what's not told is that the Jews involved in the implementing of Communism were Masonic Jews. Karl Marx was a 33rd-degree Freemason, a worshipper of Lucifer, whose father wanted nothing to do with him, because his father was a Baptist preacher.

Jewish Freemasonry, controlled by the Jesuits, implemented Communism in Russia. Lenin, the half-Jew, was a Freemason. That civil war that took place from 1917-1922, for 5 years, was given the appearance that it was primarily Yiddish. I mean, they're on the streets of Russia talking Yiddish; they had Yiddish signs; and it was wanted to give the impression to the world that this revolution was of Jewish origin

As stated much as this must be interesting to read, one has to treat it as fiction. as is http://www.vaticanassassins.org/
You also find references on http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/ which seems definitively Fundamental Christian, and must be treated as unreliable. Useful if you want to know what fundachristens think, if it can be called thinking.

BlackCloudSky
  • 0

#143 Houlin

Houlin

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 01:25 PM

Black Cloud Sky:

I read this book on the Khazars years ago and it has always puzzled me. The Khazar people, if you dare, were probably there but there is a fascinating deau-ex-machina, namely, after they appeared or fled from the Eastern Roman Empire where jews were persecuted? [what's new] in the eastern Empire, they settled down in Khazaar, joined with the Spanish jews, thrived as a Jewish state,and disappeared 5 centuries later when the Mongols cleared the the land of all opposing peoples. This seems rather dubious because the Mongols did not kill everybody as is often declared. Ghenghis, they claim, was after the mufti of Baghdad at the time, and when his hordes swept westward, he seems to have left the people untouched contrary to the stories. According to many, he commit genocide against everyone. Yet, when you look at the evidence, the stamp of civilization of the various races is still apparent. Even the many religions that were inherently of a western stripe flourished.

Anthropologists have been able to show various anomolies regarding a red haired race throughout this area and the east. They believe these were the jews.

As for Karl Marx, you are off the mark. I have a work of his where he studies the Jews and declares them to be parasites. I also have another work by jews critical of this writing. The Jewish authors give Marx's biography and deposit a sort of explanation for why he condemned the Jews. Make no mistake. He had no sympathies for the Jews.
  • 0

#144 BlackCloudSky

BlackCloudSky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 02:51 PM

Thank you Houlin, Yes the Khazar book is puzzling, and remains interesting.

Re. Karl Marx reference, I did point out that the source is unreliable, and should be treated as fiction. On trying to find information, I do try and look at the rest of the web-site. If the rest of it is odd or strange, it does cast doubt on anything else on that source.

It does present a problem to me, that trying in trying to research something, one does come across some very odd and strange web-sites.

You see in trying to understand the motivations behind the latest Iraq war I do thik one has to understand other peoples personal private belief system and their predjudices.

This can give one acute mental indigestion.
  • 0

#145 Houlin

Houlin

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 03:41 PM

I understood your prologue but I spoke because it might deposit doubt where it should not flourish. There was no room to debate Karl Marx's position on the Jews even though, according to his detractors, he was a first or second generation chistrian. Your references and statements were merely smoke screens, black clouds, to obstruct the truth.

There was an arguement that Marx wrote his small work on the Jews in much the way a man might try to denounce homosexuals...meaning out of a phobia or fear. Oedipus blinded himself because he did not want to admit that he was a simple mother fucher and the Jews are saying that Marx tried to do the same thing because he did not want to admit he was a jew. This is just a black cloud to confuse everyone and to lead there minds astray. This is really preposterous but the Jews are always covering up their tracks and polishing their image. If you understand anything of their history, you will see that they are constantly revising true stories about them, constantly muddying the waters of truth, and constantly blinding the vision of the rest of the world as might an octapus when he tries to escape a predator like me. They have so thoroughly screwed up the canvas of history and the events that occurred in WWII and in the Middle East that it would take a professor like Saddam to clear up all the lies that they have printed in their Medias throughout the world. If that does not work, they could get people like Arthur and his wife and kill them and make it look like it was suicide. The Mosad has delighted in explaining how it does this.

Another point that Aurthur Koestler produced was fundamental to the Jews. He claimed that the idea that a jew could be a semite has a completely different spin if in fact the jews originated from Khazar. As he concluded in this book, it struck him that Most jews are in fact not semites. If you follow the Arc and Jewish History, you can see that in fact many jews left Judah and Israel and the other kingdoms, worked their way into the desterts of Egypt along an influential trade route, and established a second Jerusualem. They afterwards took the Arc along this same trade route and it came to rest in Ethiopia. The africans there still practice the old time religion before the fall of Solomon's Temple and blood tests and DNA prove they were of that race that flourished when Solomon despoiled Israel. In the scrolls of Cleopatra and in her love scrolls to Julius Ceaser, she indicates that many of these jews came from an older and more hostile tribe of barbarians and that they were not even egyptians. She had the same contempt for them as did Marc Antony and Gaius. Id remember her detailed accounts of her visits to them in Alexandria and how alien they were to her. I suspect that the only influence they had even back then with Augustus, Tiberius, Marc Antony etc was in their loan Power. But throughout all of history, through the middle ages, throughout the various kingoms that rose and fell, they were always troublemakers and parasites.
  • 0

#146 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 07:55 PM

The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities.... The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them). ...
The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.

"Through its 31 offices across the country, the ADL monitors school curricula, library acquisition lists, and public conferences and symposiums, working behind the scenes to stifle intellectual freedom." Robert Friedman, The Jewish Thought Police: How the Anti-Defamation League Censors Books, Intimidates Librarians, and Spies on Citizens, The Village Voice, July 27, 1993.


http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni.html
  • 0

#147 BlackCloudSky

BlackCloudSky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 07:58 PM

Thank you Houlin,

Your reply is very interesting. However it raises so many questions that although of great interest are off topic in this thread. I have read a little about Ethiopia. Obviously you are much more informed than me.

Personally I think the person who wrote that about Karl Marx is going right over the top. As is so common he cannot distinguish between assumption and fact. Result = Fiction. But I cannot take your interpretation as fact either. If you watch any group of people discussing a topic, they are quite unable to analyse any subject in depth. The result is inevitably more fiction than fact. This is not consciously deliberate.

I had already gathered that untangling what happened in WWII is extremely difficult or impossible. But I cannot agree that the distortion of truth is consciously deliberate; rather I think it is an interpretation the writers choose/prefer to see. i.e. human fallibility/arrogance. Also common in Fundamentalist Christians.

I did take on board the inference about Arthur and his wife. i.e. suspicious; not proven. one sees so much that is suspicious but not proven.

Much as I do not like a lot of what I see and find. I cannot bring myself to characterise a whole people as troublemakers and parasites. That is wrong. However I do without qualification think that dogmatism and egotism in religion should be challenged. And that statement applies equally to Christianity, and especially Fundamentalist Chrisianity.

My main and very deep concern is that we have seen horrific scenes of death and what amounts to global terrorism. Surely there must be a way for mankind to rise above this.

I feel that the distortion manipulation of truth is prime in the causation of the events we have seen. But I feel despair when I write to our Libdem party, and my local MP, and receive no answer. I feel despair when so many people let this happen, and so many people blindly follow our media. Though I would not know the truth if I had not looked for it on the internet.

Do you think there is any hope for us, or are we all sheep.

BlackCloudSky

ps. Pun on my spoof name deserved; not really appreciated!
pps. Can we close on Marx now please. Also on Khazars, unless it says something constructive. Perhaps myths in christianity Fundamentalist Christianity would be a better topic.
  • 0

#148 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 08:05 PM

Fundamentalist Christians, the Bible and Israel

Based on their interpretation of the Bible and its prophecies, fundamentalist Christians see the Holocaust and Israel as fulfillments of these prophecies, equate today's Israel, with Biblical Israel, and that today's Jews as the descendents of Abraham. As a result, fundamentalist Christians face the same dilemma that faces Israel today, namely, who fits the definition of a "Jews". This also ignores the Jews' assimilations throughout the centuries and the claim that many Ashkenazi Jews are Caucasian (descendents of the Khazar), i.e., non-Semitic. Fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel include renouned evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Thus, fundamentalist Christians shy away from criticizing Israel, while blaming the Palestinians and Arabs for the problems in the Middle East, often using distorted, out-of-context facts to support their claims. At the same time, they ignore Israel's sins, especially the original sin against the Palestinians that started the conflict.
  • 0

#149 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 08:06 PM

"In the former days God did separate Israel for Himself and give her the land promised to Abraham. Israel was special among all the nations of the earth (Deut. 7). But ultimately the blessing upon Abraham was to be given to all the nations (Matt. 28:19-20). With the coming of Christ God fulfilled all the promises to the fathers (Rom. 15:8). In this age, "God does not show favoritism, but accepts people from every nation who fear Him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34).

All of Israel's institutions were fulfilled in Christ -- including the land concept (Heb. 3-4). The Old Testament clearly states that God kept His work and gave the land to Israel. The notion that God had to give the land "again" is without Biblical foundation.

There is nothing wrong with Jews living in a certain land, but to claim a "divine right" to it and to employ this claim as a basis for disrupting, hurting, and killing others is wrong. God is not with people when they manipulate and intimidate others. God uses the wicked actions of people in His purposes, but He does not sanction them. "
  • 0

#150 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 08:22 PM

In the old Testament God promised the holy land to the descendants of Abraham (Genesis XV: 18-21). The Khazar heritage of Ashkenazi Jews is a historical fact, and hence forfeits their Biblical Right to Palestine, which is often cited by Israeli leaders and their fundamental Christian supporters. Famous Ashkenazi Jews include Ben-Gurion, Sharon, Shamir, Weizmann, Meir and majority of Jews today.
  • 0

#151 BlackCloudSky

BlackCloudSky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:06 PM

Very well put Saddam, To claim a divine right to Yisrael, and use that to justify murder and suppression is not the will of God. The Torah belongs to God, not to any particular people. God chose the Jews to carry out his will, not to bequeth special favors on them.

It is said that Jesus was an Essene, the essenes were known as the Nazoreans. So Jesus the Nazorean apparently meant that he was a Nazorean, rather than of Nathareth. Much of current Christian belief is apparently due to St Paul, who was a pharisee, before his conversion. I think it was him who deified Jesus. Before that I think christian may have believed in reincarnation. Then it was the Emporer Constantine, who as a result of a dream converted to christianity, and issued the Edit of Milan, when Christians were no longer persecuted. And it was at the first council of Nicea that the Nicean creed was adopted, and arianism rejected.

Hope you do not mind, but one other suggestion. The myth that Genesis and Revelations are literally correct. According to the Catholic Encylopedia, Protestantism differs from Catholicism in that Protestantism relies much more on a literalistic interpretation of the Pentateuch (Torah), whereas Catholism is more dependant on the concept that the pope is the heir to St. Peter, and he is Christ's vicar on earth.

So that seems to sow the seeds of the Fundamentalist dogmatic interpretation of Genesis, and Revelations. But I am not sure how they came to the idea of Original Sin, and the Born again concept. What I do know is that somewhere along the line they seem to have totally turned their interpretation to a deification of Jesus, and it appears to me have largely forgotten the extrordinary philosophy of his parabels and the laws and teaching he gave us.

Fundamentalist Christians seem to use extrordinarily painful tortuous arguments to deny the evidence of evolution, and all that we learn from science. There is a large body in the USA that would prohibit the teaching of the complex evolution of the cosmos and of Darwins theory of evolution.

Example of Censor in USA due pressure Groups.
Astronomy: Censored in Science Education
http://www.space.com...tro_030403.html

Correct me if I am wrong, but Genesis seems to be at least in part a compilation of myths Abraham took out of Babylon.

Correct me if any of this is wrong.

Personally I feel that the dogmatic interpretation of the Bible presents Christianity with a problem in confronting science which need not occur if one can simply accept the philosophy and teachings of Jesus.

But one must always remember the terrible things that have been done in the name of christianity. The suppression of the Albgensian Heresy, The Crusades. The Inquisition(s). e.g. type Religious Wars in Google.

Lastly there is the Fundamentalist Christian belief that they are going to be taken up in body to heaven on the arrival of the messiah. There are web-sites which state the Final Battle has already started.

BlackCloudSky
  • 0

#152 BlackCloudSky

BlackCloudSky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:24 PM

Saddam, Are you really certain that your statement below is true?
i.e.

"The Khazar heritage of Ashkenazi Jews is a historical fact, and hence forfeits their Biblical Right to Palestine, which is often cited by Israeli leaders and their fundamental Christian supporters. "

Because this had obviously occurred to me.

That if this is true it forfeits their Biblical right to Palestine. However the United Nations partition stands as a legal right. But this is simply a legal right, and there is no religious basis for their claim to have the whole of Israel.

Therefore there is absolutely no justification for the idea that they have a right to settle anywhere in Israel, nor any excuse for the use of violence to enact that belief.

Nor is there any justification for non- jews in Israel not to have political rights as detailed in Gush Shalom.

Would it not be a good idea for there to be formal confirmation of your statement above? ASAP Then post far and wide.


BlackCloudSky
  • 0

#153 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 12:56 AM

Saddam, Are you really certain that your statement below is true?
i.e.

"The Khazar heritage of Ashkenazi Jews is a historical fact, and hence forfeits their Biblical Right to Palestine, which is often cited by Israeli leaders and their fundamental Christian supporters. "
____________________________________________

That's not my statement but I put it there because the statement represents one of few theories about the origin of Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern and Central Europe. And I believe partly in that theory.


New York Times Reveals that European-Descended Jews have no Blood line to Abraham
The fact that most of those who call themselves Jews are not Jews and have no claim to the lands of Palestine because they have no genetic relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can no longer be suppressed. The October 29, 1996 N.Y. Times, in an article entitled, "Scholars Debate Origins of Yiddish and the Migrations of Jews," states:

"Arching over these questions is the central mystery of just where the Jews of Eastern Europe came from. Many historians believe that there were not nearly enough Jews in Western Europe to account for the huge population that later flourished in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and nearby areas.

"By reconstructing the Yiddish mother tongue, linguists hope to plot the migration of the Jews and their language with a precision never possible before.

"It has even been suggested, on the basis of linguistic evidence, that the Jews of Eastern Europe were not predominantly part of the diaspora from the Middle East, but were members of another ethnic group that adopted Judaism.

"...One linguist has recently argued that Yiddish began as a Slavic language that was 'relexified,' with most of its vocabulary replaced with German words.

"...Even more troublesome are demographic studies indicating that during the Middle Ages there were no more than 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Western Europe. These figures are hard to reconcile with other studies showing that by the 17th century there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.

"...Some scholars believe the roots of Yiddish, and even the Ashkenazic people themselves, lie much farther east. In his 1976 book, The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler made the startling suggestion, never taken seriously by linguists, that the Eastern European Jews were not really Semitic -- that they were largely descended from the Turkish Khazars, who converted en masse to Judaism in medieval times.

"More recently, Koestler's controversial thesis has been revived and expanded in a 1993 book, The Ashkenazic 'Jews': A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity (Slavica Publishers), by Dr. Paul Wexler, a Tel Aviv University linguist.

"Wexler uses a reconstruction of Yiddish to argue that it began as a Slavic language whose vocabulary was largely replaced with German words. Going even further, he contends that the Ashkenazic Jews are predominantly converted Slavs and Turks who merged with a tiny population of Palestinian Jews from the Diaspora."
  • 0

#154 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 01:04 AM

The Jews Are Not A Race!
By Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal
Excerpt from his book, What Price Israel? (1953)


Today, to trace anyone's descent to ancient Palestine would be a genealogical impossibility; and to presume, axiomatically, such a descent for Jews, alone among all human groups, is an assumption of purely fictional significance. Most everybody in the Western world could stake out some claim of Palestinian descent if genealogical records could be established for two-thousand years. And there are, indeed, people who, though not by the widest stretch of imagination Jewish, proudly make that very claim: some of the oldest of the South's aristocratic families play a game of comparing whose lineage goes farther back into 'Israel'. No one knows what happened to the Ten Lost Tribes of 'Israel', but to speculate on who might be who is a favored Anglo-Saxon pastime, and Queen Victoria belonged to an 'Israelite' Society that traced the ancestry of its membership back to those lost tribes.

Twelve tribes started in Canaan about thirty-five centuries ago; and not only that ten of them disappeared - more than half of the members of the remaining two tribes never returned from their "exile" in Babylon. How then, can anybody claim to descend directly from that relatively small community which inhabited the Holy Land at the time of Abraham's Covenant with God?

The Jewish racial myth flows from the fact that the words Hebrew, 'Israelite', Jew, Judaism, and the Jewish people have been used synonymously to suggest a historic continuity. But this is a misuse. These words refer to different groups of people with varying ways of life in different periods in history. Hebrew is a term correctly applied to the period from the beginning of Biblical history to the settling in Canaan. 'Israelite' refers correctly to the members of the twelve tribes of 'Israel'. The name Yehudi or Jew is used in the Old Testament to designate members of the tribe of Judah, descendants of the fourth son of Jacob, as well as to denote citizens of the Kingdom of Judah, particularly at the time of Jeremiah and under the Persian occupation. Centuries later, the same word came to be applied to anyone, no matter of what origin, whose religion was Judaism.

The descriptive name Judaism was never heard by the Hebrews or 'Israelites'; it appears only with Christianity. Flavius Josephus was one of the first to use the name in his recital of the war with the Romans to connote a totality of beliefs, moral commandments, religious practices and ceremonial institutions of Galilee which he believed superior to rival Hellenism. When the word Judaism was born, there was no longer a Hebrew-'Israelite' state. The people who embraced the creed of Judaism were already mixed of many races and strains; and this diversification was rapidly growing...

Perhaps the most significant mass conversion to the Judaic faith occurred in Europe, in the 8th century A.D., and that story of the Khazars (Turko-Finnish people) is quite pertinent to the establishment of the modern State of 'Israel'. This partly nomadic people, probably related to the Volga Bulgars, first appeared in Trans-Caucasia in the second century. They settled in what is now Southern Russia, between the Volga and the Don, and then spread to the shores of the Black, Caspian and Azov seas. The Kingdom of Khazaria, ruled by a khagan or khakan fell to Attila the Hun in 448, and to the Muslims in 737. In between, the Khazars ruled over part of the Bulgarians, conquered the Crimea, and stretched their kingdom over the Caucasus farther to the northwest to include Kiev, and eastwards to Derbend. Annual tributes were levied on the Russian Slavonians of Kiev. The city of Kiev was probably built by the Khazars. There were Jews in the city and the surrounding area before the Russian Empire was founded by the Varangians whom the Scandinavian warriors sometimes called the Russ or Ross (circa 855-863).

The influence of the Khazars extended into what is now Hungary and Roumania. Today, the villages of Kozarvar and Kozard in Transylvania bear testimony to the penetration of the Khazars who, with the Magyars, then proceeded into present-day Hungary. The size and power of the Kingdom of Khazaria is indicated by the act that it sent an army of 40,000 soldiers (in 626-627) to help Heraclius of the Byzantines to conquer the Persians. The Jewish Encyclopedia proudly refers to Khazaria as having had a "well constituted and tolerant government, a flourishing trade and a well disciplined army."

Jews who had been banished from Constantinople by the Byzantine ruler, Leo III, found a home amongst these heretofore pagan Khazars and, in competition with Mohammedan and Christian missionaries, won them over to the Judaic faith. Bulan, the ruler of Khazaria, became converted to Judaism around 740 A.D. His nobles and, somewhat later, his people followed suit. Some details of these events are contained in letters exchanged between Khagan Joseph of Khazaria and R. Hasdai Ibn Shaprut of Cordova, doctor and quasi foreign minister to Sultan Abd al-Rahman, the Caliph of Spain. This correspondence (around 936-950) was first published in 1577 to prove that the Jews still had a country of their own - namely, the Kingdom of Khazaria. Judah Halevi knew of the letters even in 1140. Their authenticity has since been established beyond doubt.

According to these Hasdai-Joseph letters, Khagan Bulan decided one day: "Paganism is useless. It is shameful for us to be pagans. Let us adopt one of the heavenly religions, Christianity, Judaism or Islam." And Bulan summoned three priests representing the three religions and had them dispute their creeds before him. But, no priest could convince the others, or the sovereign, that his religion was the best. So the ruler spoke to each of them separately. He asked the Christian priest: "If you were not a Christian or had to give up Christianity, which would you prefer - Islam or Judaism?" The priest said: "If I were to give up Christianity, I would become a Jew." Bulan then asked the follower of Islam the same question, and the Moslem also chose Judaism. This is how Bulan came to choose Judaism for himself and the people of Khazaria in the seventh century A.D., and thereafter the Khazars (sometimes spelled Chazars and Khozars) lived according to Judaic laws.

Under the rule of Obadiah, Judaism gained further strength in Khazaria. Synagogues and schools were built to give instruction in the Bible and the Talmud. As Professor Graetz notes in his History of the Jews, "A successor of Bulan who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah was the first to make serious efforts to further the Jewish religion. He invited Jewish sages to settle in his dominions, rewarded them royally... and introduced a divine service modeled on the ancient communities. After Obadiah came a long series of Jewish Chagans (Khagans), for according to a fundamental law of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the throne." Khazar traders brought not only silks and carpets of Persia and the Near East but also their Judaic faith to the banks of the Vistula and the Volga. But the Kingdom of Khazaria was invaded by the Russians, and Itil, its great capital, fell to Sweatoslav of Kiev in 969. The Byzantines had become afraid and envious of the Khazars and, in a joint expedition with the Russians, conquered the Crimean portion of Khazaria in 1016. (Crimea was known as "Chazaria" until the 13th century). The Khazarian Jews were scattered throughout what is now Russia and Eastern Europe. Some were taken North where they joined the established Jewish community of Kiev.

Others returned to the Caucasus. Many Khazars remarried in the Crimea and in Hungary. The Cagh Chafut, or "mountain Jews," in the Caucasus and the Hebraile Jews of Georgia are their descendants. These "Ashkenazim Jews" (as Jews of Eastern Europe are called), whose numbers were swelled by Jews who fled from Germany at the time of the Crusades and during the Black Death, have little or no trace of Semitic blood.

That the Khazars are the lineal ancestors of Eastern European Jewry is a historical fact. Jewish historians and religious text books acknowledge the fact, though the propagandists of Jewish nationalism belittle it as pro-Arab propaganda. Somewhat ironically, Volume IV of the Jewish Encyclopedia - because this publication spells Khazars with a "C" instead of a "K" - is titled "Chazars to Dreyfus": and it was the Dreyfus trial, as interpreted by Theodor Herzl, that made the modern Jewish Khazars of Russia forget their descent from converts to Judaism and accept anti-Semitism as proof of their Palestinian origin.

For all that anthropologists know, Hitler's ancestry might go back to one of the ten Lost Tribes of 'Israel'; while Weizmann may be a descendant of the Khazars, the converts to Judaism who were in no anthropological respect related to Palestine. The home to which Weizmann, Silver and so many other Ashkenazim Zionists have yearned to return has most likely never been theirs. "Here's a paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox": in anthropological fact, many Christians may have much more Hebrew-'Israelite' blood in their veins than most of their Jewish neighbors.

Race can play funny tricks on people who make that concept the basis for their likes and dislikes. Race-obsessed people can find themselves hating people who, in fact, may be their own racial kith and kin.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, an anti-Zionist Jew, is a graduate from Cornell University and Colombia Law School. He is also a historian, journalist and lecturer. He is the author of five books.
  • 0

#155 Houlin

Houlin

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 01:52 AM

I am sorry if my words offended you and I will try to veer off the subjects as you wish. But if you don't mind me injecting a last word on this, The sense that Marx was claiming that Jews were parasites had to do with two things. On the one hand, the Jews wanted to think of themselves as the chosen ones and with this in mind, they ususually established communities completely independent of the rest of the Society in which they lived. In other words, they regarded themselves as so special that they wanted everyone else out of their communities. At the same time, they complained and challenged society throughout the ages to allow them intercourse with others and made them feel as though they had discriminated against them. They played a role that was distinctly antagonistic. Marx reflected on this dual existence and thought that what the Jews really wanted was to be able to get as much from the rest of society as they could like milking a cow or collecting golden eggs from the goose that laid them but not in any way participating in the make up or development of society considering themselves outside of it. He noted they wanted all the blessings of social order but never wanted to take any part in it. Yet they would constantly demand equal rights when they were never themselves willing to afford others those same rights they demanded. In this, they would constantly attempt to produce a guilt trip in others over their behaviour while they maintained exclusivity. For this and other reasons, he characterized the jewish situation as parasitic.

With respect to another subject that we spoke of regarding the jews, I was especially interested in the trade routes to india that looped around Egypt and down and up the african coast. you said " Perhaps myths in christianity Fundamentalist Christianity would be a better topic." and I was thinking more on enigmas and the subject of the Jews with regard to their distorting their past. It seems that christianity is itself a myth and an enigma and it seems to have been born out of a cult of jews turned evangelist or turned to missionizing the entire world with Jesus as a starter.

There was a jewish trade route that wound its way around africa and then boats would take people to Madras where a christianity was brought to the Indians by a guy named Thomas. Somehow, this is the same Thomas that was called the Doubting Thomas. The Bishop of Madras wrote a sort of history of the Mar Toma Church and he has in this history certain stories attributed to St. Thomas. Those stories clearly indicate to me that Thomas was first a jew and perhaps a zealot and then a Christian. I am still trying to understand how he lived and died there and for what purpose. I suspect that he might have been the supervisor of a trade delegation or warehouse franchise yet I am at a loss to understand how he could have been in Madras and Jerusalem when Jesus Christ died. I think trade puts him there but evangelicalism seems also to have been is primary motive. Notwithstanding, the dates in question are also enigmatic since Thomas is recorded to have been extant around 350 AD when Constantine moved to Byzantium. Still, the context in which he writes makes me believe he lived squarely in the Roman World and Not Constantines. That he was bishop could be symbolic or could be fabricated as so many other things were in the Christian church. Have you ever read Peter de Rosa's book The Vicar's of Christ, the Dark side of the Papacy. Or have you read the biography of Charle's Magnus? De Rosa claims that a lot of the church was based on forgeries and Charlemagne kinda acknowleges that there were no Popes befor 900, not of Rome, not of anywhere. It fundamentally throws doubt on what you call an Early Church? Fundamental Christianity? It seems we know more about Josephius than we do about Jeeeeeesus. What are your ideas on this? Or would they be talking about matters of faith. Once again, please forgive me and my manners. I am not as polite as I think I am nor am I at all diplomatic.
  • 0

#156 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 02:19 AM

Zionists and the Bible
A criticism of the claim that the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine is prophecied in Holy Scripture.

Professor Alfred Guillaume

I WISH TO make it plain at the outset that my remarks are directed to one aspect of Zionist claims - the claim to fulfill scripture by the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine - and must not be interpreted in any other way or be taken to prejudice the claim of the Jews to be allowed to make a home in Palestine.

To a superficial reader it well might seem that a divine promise to give a land to a particular people made some four thousand years ago and often repeated constituted that people owners of that land by divine right.

Now if this is the Jewish title to Palestine it must be carefully scrutinised. Accordingly I propose to examine a few texts which are familiar to all practising Jews, and which have profoundly influenced some Christian bodies, particularly in America.

The points which are of importance are

(1) to whom were the promises made?

(2) What was the extent of the land which was promised?

And (3) was the promise irrevocable or was it subject to any conditions?
  • 0

#157 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 02:20 AM

(1) To Whom Were The Promises Made?

The first explicit promise of Palestine to the descendants of Abraham was at Shechem (now Nablus) in Genesis 12:7: "Unto thy seed will I give this land." Ch. 13:15, when Abraham is standing on a hill near Bethel, has the words: "all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy seed for ever." Ch. 15:18 is more explicit: "Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." The promises are repeated to Isaac; and to Jacob in 28:12; "the land where-on thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed, and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south; and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." When Abraham made a covenant with God through circumcision 17:8 all the land of Canaan was promised to him as "an everlasting possession." Other passages might be quoted, but these are representative, and others add nothing that is relevant here.
  • 0

#158 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 02:20 AM

Now it is generally supposed that these promises were made to the Jews, and to the Jews alone.

But that is not what the Bible says.

The word to thy seed' inevitably includes Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, who can claim descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. (Here we are not concerned with the Muslim tradition that Abraham was once at Meccah and left Ishmael there). Ishmael was the reputed father of a large number of Arab tribes, and Genesis records that Abraham became the father of many north Arabian tribes through his concubine Keturah. It cannot be argued that the words of Gen. 21:10-12, necessarily cancel the promises made to Abraham's seed as a whole: "(Sarah) said to Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bond- woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight on account of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice: for in Isaac shall seed be called unto thee. And also of the son of the bond- woman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed." It is true that henceforth among the descendants of Isaac 'the seed of Abraham' was taken to mean the Israelites; but from the beginning it was not so, and the descendants of Ishmael had every right to call and consider themselves of the seed of Abraham. Moreover, when the covenant of circumcision was made with Abraham (Gen. 17) and the land of Canaan was promised as "an everlasting possession," it was Ishmael who was circumcised; Isaac had not then been born.

From this brief study of the divine promise to the descendants of Abraham we see that the first promise necessarily included all the descendants of Ishmael; but that afterwards in the time of Isaac and Jacob the promise was narrowed to their descendants, though not in such a way as to exclude explicitly their Arab brethren; and it is well known that many Arabs accompanied Moses and Joshua into Palestine when the country was partially occupied; and not a little of Moses' success was due to the kindness and hospitality of Jethro the Midianite, who was of course an Arab and Moses' father-in-law.
  • 0

#159 Houlin

Houlin

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 02:30 AM

Saddam:

You are blowing my mind. But Thanks for all the good stuff you write.I am impressed. You know that sometimes I fudge it, but you are all the time on the mark.
  • 0

#160 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 02:35 AM

Hey azov , I've been fine. No major complains at least. Thanks for showing up your avatar's boobies on my thread.

Thanks Houlin for your nice words.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru