I want to revisit the Khazar issue one more time to bring some important points which were neglected in yesterday's discussion. As a preamble, let me note that it is a very important issue as it relates to some of the most important aspects of 20th-century history (World Wars I and II and especially the creation of the state of Israel).

First, regardless of whether the DNA evidence proves or disproves the theory that Khazars/Ashkenazi Jews actually are not genetically closely related to Sephardic Jews, this has no bearing on the main elements of the history of Khazaria, including their conversion to a version of the Pharisaic religion (I use this word on purpose to clarify that my viewpoint is not based on a racial/ethnic construct) based on the Babylonian Talmud and the infamous Kol Nidre. Moreover, whether we name them "Khazars", "Jews", "Zionists" or otherwise, there is mounting evidence (including on this website) that elite elements of this group have been, in conjunction with other elite groups/secret societies, behind many, perhaps most, of the important historical events of the last few centuries.

So, logically, one cannot use the blanket statement "it is contentious because of the DNA evidence" to conveniently ignore all of the accumulated historical and socio-cultural evidence. In my view, the one major difference that disproving the theory (whether on the basis of DNA evidence or otherwise) would bring is that it may reinforce the historical claims of Ashkenazi Jews (in particular) to the land of Israel by suggesting (note: not "proving") an implicit genetic continuity, even though this remains another very contentious issue in part because of the treatment of Palestinians who happened to live there in 1948 and thereafter.


Second, I would like to point out another important source, which I did not mention because I have not read it (but I intend to): The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand (2009).

Click to view link

This book has been a best-seller and received some critical appeal (for whatever it's worth):

The book was in the best-seller list in Israel for nineteen weeks. It was reprinted three times when published in French (Comment le peuple juif fut inventé, Fayard, Paris, 2008). In France, it received the "Prix Aujourd'hui", a journalists' award given to a non-fiction political or historical work.[7] An English translation of the book was published by Verso Books in October 2009.[8] More translations are in progress.[9]

Here is a summary of the most important elements (from Wikipedia):

Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the ancient Land of Israel and that a "nation-race" of Jews with a common origin never existed. Just as most contemporary Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytising religion. Many of the present day world Jewish population are descendants of European, Russian and African groups.

[ ... ]

Sand's explanation of the birth of the "myth" of a Jewish people as a group with a common, ethnic origin has been summarized as follows: "[a]t a certain stage in the 19th century intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people. From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace."[10]

[ ... ]

Sand believes that the idea of Jews being obliged to return from exile to the Promised Land was alien to Judaism before the birth of Zionism, and that the holy places were seen as places to long for, not to be lived in. On the contrary, for 2,000 years Jews stayed away from Jerusalem because their religion forbade them from returning until the Messiah came. According to Sand, the ancestry of Central and Eastern European Jews stems heavily from mediæval Turkic Khazars who were converted to Judaism, a theory which was popularized in a book written by Arthur Koestler in 1976.[12]


Third, regarding the DNA evidence, I would recommend the following summary published in Science, which I found to be fairly even-handed in its treatment of the issue:

Click to view link

Here is a relevant excerpt:

Ostrer [the leader of the research team that published the article on the DNA analysis] said, "I would hope that these observations would put the idea that Jewishness is just a cultural construct to rest." However, geneticist Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, says that although the study "does not appear to support" the Khazar hypothesis, it "doesn't entirely eliminate it either."[4]

Here is what Sand had to say regarding the genetic research:

Shlomo Sand has contested the claim that his book has been contradicted by recent genetic research published in Nature journal and the American Journal of Human Genetics. In a new afterword for the paperback edition of The Invention of the Jewish People, Sand writes:

This attempt to justify Zionism through genetics is reminiscent of the procedures of late nineteenth-century anthropologists who very scientifically set out to discover the specific characteristics of Europeans. As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of "Judaization of the country" in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew.[22]


In conclusion, some very interesting material which could lead to a discussion that is very relevant to some of the perspectives discussed on this website, if only because of the importance of Zionism in shaping some major elements of 20th-century history.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Very well done. Thanks. BTW, we never suggested the Khazar theory was untrue; we pointed out it was "contentious." It remains so, but this is an excellent resource you have provided.

"You asked why we used the word "contentious." Your implication doubtless was that we were somehow trying to be an apologist for "Jews" as we do not use this particular term as regards other issues we discuss here.

But you were wrong."

Actually I was implying nothing of the sort. The point was that some of speedygonzales' points were valid and fairly well-established (in particular his summary of Khazar history), but s/he was immediately asked to provide sources (although I am sure that DB was aware of these sources) and, when another feedbacker provided one, s/he was told that it was contentious. I did not see why it needed to be especially labeled as contentious/not well sourced, given the type of conversations that we often entertain here at DB.

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is contentious because of the DNA evidence.

This does not qualify as scientific evidence, but a simple background check on Koestler and Freedman in particular would suggest that, based on their life history, they knew what they were talking about.

Also, if the theory claiming that Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically different from Sephardic Jews is truly wrong, I wonder why there is extensive, state-enforced discrimination against Sephardic Jews in Israel and that marriage between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews is not well regarded? It would seem that the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel clearly consider themselves to be different from the Sephardic Jews (whether the reason is to be found in genetics or somewhere else).

"It is contentious because recent DNA evidence seems to prove it WRONG unlike the other issues you mentioned."

The DNA papers are only one element. I personally do not take these articles as the ultimate proof (and I believe I have to background to appreciate this research). You can probably find evidence about all the other issues I mentioned that would "prove" DB's position (or my position for that matter, since I believe we agree on most of these other issues) wrong. In fact, we can find several peer-reviewed articles about global warming (and perhaps peak oil/abiotic oil as well, but I have not checked that one) that would seem to prove us wrong. So, it is a very delicate pathway. If one chooses to disagree with peer-reviewed research in one field, then one has to accept that others may disagree with peer-reviewed research in a different field. This is why my position is that it becomes an issue of belief and trust in the end for many of these issues, insofar as I refuse to consider peer-reviewed scientific literature as the ultimate arbiter (yes, in spite of my academic training...).

Also, are you saying that Koestler, Freedman, Reed, and others, are all liars, or that the extensive documentation they compiled is untrustworthy, or that they are just writing some fiction? On the basis of what, a few peer-reviewed articles? I will admit that you have a valid basis to say that their view is contentious, but I will repeat that most issues discussed here are very contentious and that DB (and myself as well) sometimes happen to disagree with peer-reviewed science.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You asked why we used the word "contentious." Your implication doubtless was that we were somehow trying to be an apologist for "Jews" as we do not use this particular term as regards other issues we discuss here.

But you were wrong.

The theory is contentious because of DNA evidence, nothing more or less. Global warming does not have to contend with DNA evidence. Nor do many of the memes we find compelling.

We remain fascinated by the Khazars and their secret history. And the DNA evidence may not, in fact, prove the theory wrong.

But the newly revealed DNA evidence makes the theory ... contentious.

That simple.

DB: It is a contentious theory.

There are at least a few other reliable sources besides Koestler (I do not necessarily agree with everything speedygonzales wrote, by the way).

Benjamin Freedman (himself a Jew):

Click to view link

Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion and the history of Zionism.


At the risk of sounding controversial, I am wondering why it is necessary for DB to say something like "it is a contentious theory". This is DB-speak for "we do not really agree with this/we do not like this viewpoint".

I mean, practically everything discussed on these pages is "a contentious theory", yet we do not bother always prefacing our comments by saying it is a contentious theory.

9/11 is contentious, "Peak Oil/Abiotic oil" is contentious, anthropogenic global warming is contentious, the fake Moon landings are contentious, many historical events are contentious, and so on and so on, etc...

The fact that some people, even a significant majority, disagree with a theory, has no bearing on its validity. So to say that a theory is "contentious", which I take as a synonym for saying "some people disagree with this theory" has practically no relevance when deciding whether it is true (or, to be more accurate, choosing to "believe" in this particular version, because none of us is in a position to decide if it is true), or at least contains elements of truth.

I choose to believe Freedman, Reed, Koestler and others over DB in that particular case, and I choose to express this viewpoint as clearly as possible. Nothing contentious here...

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is contentious because recent DNA evidence seems to prove it WRONG unlike the other issues you mentioned. Simple enough, eh? Choose what you wish.

No , it is absolutely not very good , but on very millions reasons very bad!
There are so many euphemistical tautologyies and intrinsiec contradictions , that could be easy bigger nummber then all words used in this explication.
Please DB , think with your head before say "ery good". is very good only as historycal references, but what germany wa sdoing all the time was never good !

@ DB

Yes, you do, and so do I. It is the way that the points are made in the reply that prompted my apology.

If my comments generated this reply, I humbly apologize to the other readers of this thread.

Reply from The Daily Bell

No need to apologize. We make the same points. And he is correct; freedom in America is drastically eroding. If people cannot see the police state forming around them now, they are being willfully blind.

khazaria story try 'the thirteenth tribe' arthur koestler

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is a contentious theory.

To understand Europe one must go very deep into history. 100 AD Khazars moved from Indo-Iranian territory and found place between Black and Caspian see. DNA proved that khazars have the same roots as slavs, they just left mainlad little bit latter.

In The peak of their power they controled 1.5 milion square kilometers up to today's Poland. They made coalitions with surrounding nations and including The Huns so they fought against Rome. Arround 850 khazar leaders changed religion to talmudism, due connection with Islam and Christianity, they had been pagans, so it would allow 'em make politics thru marriages.Khazars made wealth to looting The silk road. But in 980 varangian-russian leader Vladimir III. took over Khazaria.

And this is begining. Khazar aristocracy moved to Spain, Hungary, Germany. Their created language after conversion to judaism Yidish whi has nothing to do with hebrew or semites.

From Spain we have: Los Bancos- Warburgs,Loyola-jesuits and alumbrado/illuminati. From Hungary: Sarkozy, George Soros. From Germany: Rothschild's.

Their promised land is not Israel but Khazaria. So they had been workin' hard and they took lots of control over western civilization with cooperation with aristocracy.

If they wanted get back their homeland they supposed to get strong on european soil: French revolution. First atemp for return to khazaria were Napoleon in Russia. He looted Russia and lost 200 carriages of valuables.

During 19th century killed couple members of the tsar family by Khazars. Russia-Japan war was financed by Jacob Schiff, Khazars on Wall Street. Stalin worked for Rothschild in 1901 in Batumi. Later sent to Siberia for 1905 revolution.

1910 Khazars created FED. 1914 WW1. Finally they get back to homeland by Bolshevik revolution. But Stalin broke their plans. WW2. Germans knew how was WW1 created so they created German revolution 1919 or Bavarian Soviet Republic. They has nothing to do with Wall Street created USSR so this is not in books of so called history.

And now germans knows all this. 90% germans does not believe official version of 9/11. Germans now have strong support in Europe against Empire of The City.

We can just hope that European Union broke and Germany will cooperate with Russia and their brothers by blood in eastern europe.

Reply from The Daily Bell

What are your sources for all this?

I would count it as mainstream: Mix of reality and fiction which should lead readers somewhere from where he needs to dig out again. The writer simply deleted changes in knowledge provided by "Internet University."

There is an article on this web page: "How The city of London Controls world power." This writings also simply deleted reality of "Give me control over countries currency and I care not who makes it law."

'Knowledge will forever govern ignorance,and a people who mean to be their own Governors,must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.'
James Madison, 1822

Am not gonna dig deeper. Al starts at begining.

"Europe cannot be compared to America. The United States is a nation. It has a constitution. Europe is a collection of nations. Europe does not have a constitution." This is really masterpiece. What it makes diference for individual? As model for European Union was United States of America. It was the same as was for USSR, build by Wall Street and Warburgs.

Starting from 1928, the Soviet economy was put under a system of planning whereby all modes of production were socialized and foreign trade was de-emphasized in favor of an autarkic system of domestic demand and supply.

The irony was that Soviet central planning adopted much of its effective techniques from successful US experience. It was a system of planning focused solely on unit end-results while externalizing social costs. The key distinction was that the Soviets rejected and bypassed the corporate structure and replaced shareholders with state ownership.

Stalin brought about "revolution from above". Its main features were: strengthening of political dictatorship in the name of the proletariat (equivalent to enhancing management authority in the US in the name of shareholders), collectivizing kulak peasants (equivalent to agri-business development in the US), emergency measure authority (equivalent to government bailouts and regulations in the US), introduction of a five-year plan structure (adopted from US corporate strategic planning) and rapid expansion of urban labor force (equivalent to urbanization in the US), and tight state control over agriculture (equivalent to farm subsidy programs in the US), heavy industry (equivalent to defense contracts in the US) and finance (equivalent to central banking in the US).

Between 1934 and 1936 the Soviet economy achieved a spectacular economic growth rate that continued despite political purges of Trotskyites between 1936 and 1938. Economic growth was unfortunately interrupted by war in 1941. German invasion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not independent of apprehension of continued Soviet economic success.

Propaganda works. It worked in the USSR, in Nazi Germany, in imperial Japan and in the capitalist US, each to instill in the general public an acceptance of its system as being the suitable one if not the best, despite visible shortcomings. It helped achieve optimal effectiveness and stability in the overall economy in all these countries.

Author simply deleted reality of existence: Emergency Power Statuses, which makes so called president of the US absolut monarch. See lately Kucinich and Paul criticizing agression against Lybia.

It is worth considering, meanwhile, whether it is merely a coincidence that some of the most troubled European states are those that put up with fascist dictatorships until the mid-1970s - condoned in the case of Greece by the US, which was inclined in the Cold War context to lend its imprimatur to even the most vicious regimes as long as they were demonstrably anti-communist. The New York Times

The US, taking over from the British empire, had also intervened in Greece in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the communists constituted a powerful force following their leading role in resisting the Nazi occupation. But Winston Churchill made a deal with Josef Stalin, who thereafter offered no encouragement to potential Soviet allies in Greece.

The nation, Columbia University professor of history Mark Mazower commented in , suddenly 'stood for a very different Europe - one … whose only path out of the destitution of the mid-1940s was as a junior partner with Washington. As the dollars poured in, American advisers sat in Athens telling Greek policymakers what to do and American napalm scorched the Greek mountains as the communists were put to flight.'

Click to view link

While US is in "black sea"

Click to view link

How Free Is Your Country?

According to the Worldwide Governance Indicators report, which ranks countries by the amount of freedom citizens have to voice opinions and select a government, the U.S. tops out at 35th place--a drop from its rank of 22nd in 2005 because of a decreased trust in public officials and restrictions on the freedom of the press. "The U.S. is not a model," says Daniel Kaufmann, a lead author of the report, but it is far from the doghouse.

Try explain me something when You get into top 5, or top 10 then I will have respect for it.

Europe cannot be compared to America. The United States is a nation. It has a constitution. Europe is a collection of nations. Europe does not have a constitution.

What is a nation? In general, a nation is a group of people living within defined borders, which communicate with each other in a common language, and which use a common currency.

The border policy of the European Union is falling apart under the onslaught of immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Denmark is ready to resume border checks.

While most Europeans speak English, the official language is different for each Euro Zone country.

The European Union as a custom union makes sense. The European Union as a common currency union makes no sense at all. The monetary elites fooled themselves in seeing an advantage in the Euro currency. Except for the Germans, there is no advantage for other countries to belong, unless of course the Germans can be coerced to give up some of their wealth to the other countries. The European Parliament is in charge of that job.

There is little doubt in my mind that Helmut Kohl sought approval from the Americans in the late 1980s by keeping in mind that a Democrat administration could possibly come into power. Why would he push for a common European currency?

He saw what was happening to the other defeated nation of WW II, Japan. The Americans were continously leaning on Japan to devalue the Yen. In other words, the Japanese were constantly being forced into foregiving America the debt obligations it had to Japan.

With the near collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and the hope for reunification of the two Germanies, Helmut Kohl wanted to protect the Deutsche Mark from coming under pressure from the Americans to devalue down the road. With the approval by a Republican administration, the Euro Zone was created with the conclusion of the Maastricht Treaty.

The Maastricht Treaty can be seen as a protective barrier around the Deutsche Mark. With the creation of the Euro, the Deutsche Mark became the standard for the Euro.

The problem this article points out relates to the "Deutsche Mark Standard" of the Euro. The basis for this standard is the productivity of Germany in the area of high tech machinery and chemical products which have a worldwide market.

The "U.S. Dollar Standard" on the other had finds its basis in the world price of crude oil quoted in USD. That price is set by the American Oil Compamies and the Saudi Royal family.

After the creation of the Deutsche Bundesrepublik in 1949, finance minister Dr. Ludwig Erhardt, wanted to create a redeemable currency with the establishment of the Deutsche Mark. It was the United States which prohibited him from making the Deutsche Mark a redeemable currency.

Having had experience with central banking under the Kaiser and run away inflation in the Weimar Republik, Dr. Erhardt, as well as the Deutsche Bundestag knew full well what the implications of creating a fiat currency were. Therefore, the German constitution contains a strict prohibition against inflating the Deutsche Mark.

Greece, Spain, and Portugal, all members of the Euro Zone admitted under the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, are countries with a "Siesta culture". The productivity of labor in those cultures differs from the productivity of Northern Europeans. Of course, people can choose their own lifestyle.

However, for people to expect to be supported in their lifestyle through work by others is unrealistic.

The average German is not interested to be taxed to guarantee the lifestyle of the siesta culture. They will happily spend their money by vacationing in the medeterrainean countries, but they object to having their government take money from them by force or through inflation to benefit Southern Europeans.

The question before the German Constitutional Court is whether the Euro is or is not the "Deutsche Mark", and whether the ECB's decision regarding currency creation trumps German constitutional requirements.

If the Germans are smart, they'll take a clue from the former Finanz Minister of the Weimar Republik, Hjilmar (Horace) Schacht. He created the redeemable Rentenmark to circulate parallel to the highly inflated Reichsmark. It worked. It stabilized the economy and started industry to expand again.

Before strive and discontent among the different members of the Euro Zone totally collapses the Euro, the Germans should resurrect the "Deutsche Mark" as a covertible currency as Ludwig Erhardt had originally intended. They should let the Deutsche Mark circulate along side the Euro and let the markets determine which currency is preferred.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Very good.

Hi Ya'll,

German may play a delay game of absolute decision, but in the end, Germany will do what is in the best interest of Germany, period. The rest will be own there own, no matter what the end result is. The PIGS are at the public trough and they are eating but not producing anything. There is no one domino in this economic game, they are all tied to Germany and Germany is beginning to be tied to China! It was a cluster mess in the formation of the Euro, which now is simply unraveling as many predicted.

It can also be a lesson of learning to the one all-fits-all currency. It will not work! If world domination is to occur it will have to be implemented by other economic means. As people fall back to their tribal instincts for safety and protection they become harder enemies of the state, in this case, the one world currency. If one were to implement a one world social protection currency, that is to say, a broad coverage of centralized social welfare programs based on a hypothetical currency it could possibly be sold to the masses as the populations live longer and personal need services explode. It has been done before and the masses fall for it. There would be no reason that it would not be attempted again after the collapse of the Euro.

this is the roadmap:

Bilderberg 2011 Discussions Leaked Via Moles Inside

Click to view link

To make a point using your second feature article today regarding public schooling, the first victims of the Prussian school model (which later expanded throughout the West and to the US) were...well, you know. This may very well come back to haunt those who desire continuation of the EU project.

I have heard it said that in Germany "If it is written, you can do it; if it is not written, you cannot do it."

Much of what is being done via the EU experiment and the saving of the banks in Europe is "not written." This will not go down well in a country of people who have been trained so thoroughly in the Prussian scheme of education.

I think the real danger to the EU is Greece, this first domino is already falling in slow motion. Here is my take on it:

Click to view link

Greetings ..... Given the German resolve and an astute sense of opportunity,I would think that Greeces' gold inventory as well as any tangible assets are gone or will be taken...In the short term the Euro will survive until Germany can usher in a means of exchange that would suit their economy and establish an economic stranglehold...Socialism in Greece is over; the populus just doesn't realize it Click to view link will not be long before the pitch forks come out of the Click to view linkY CAREFULL ATTENTION AMERICA

Reply from The Daily Bell

We have written about this. What is visited on Europe today is aimed at the US tomorrow.

If the central banking elite pushing for a One World Order & One World Currency are actually helping to manipulate a crises in the Euro (& other fiat currencies), I would think that they would want Germany to keep propping up the PIGS until the whole thing collapses at once & thus would not welcome a German legal veto on that course of action.

title should read: 'Real Hope for European Countries Lies With German Judges'.

or the politicians can throw more good money after bad.

or we can have some silly dreamer conversation about european consolidation.

eur is a dead currency walking.