Well-Known Member
Submitted by David Livingstone on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 10:31

Many of those interested in studying the conspiracy have become convinced that the only way to explain the depth of its deceptiveness is to conclude that its purported perpetrators are not who they claim they are. In other words, that those who call themselves European Jews are actually descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic people of southern Russia who converted to Judaism in the eighth century AD.

The truth is the Illuminati conspiracy begins with the emergence of the Kabbalah, developed by heretical Jews in Babylon in the sixth century BC, more than a thousand years before the advent of the Khazars. It then came to form the basis of the Western occult tradition by first being inherited by the Greeks, such as Pythagoras and Plato, before spreading to the Roman world and then being adopted by esoteric Muslims before being introduced to Europe during the Crusades.

On the contrary, as the historian Cecil Roth noted, culturally the Jews could be termed the first Europeans.[1] Judaism in Europe has a long history, beginning with the conquest of the Eastern Mediterranean by Pompey in 63 BCE, thus beginning the History of the Jews in Europe. In the early Roman empire, there was a Jewish colony in Rome, and distinctive Jewish communities were found as far north as Lyons, Bonn and Cologne, and as far west as Cadiz and Toledo. When Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD, prompting a massive exodus of Jews from Palestine, certain cities in southern France, like Arle, Lunel, and Narbonne, provided a haven for Jewish refugees where they eventually came to dominate European trade during the MIddle Ages.

Fortunately, modern genetic studies are allowing us to explode many of the false assumptions that had been made about the origins of various peoples, which had often been distorted by nationalistic sympathies. That includes the discovery that important personages in history were of Jewish ancestry, like Napoleon and Hitler, and also that the Jews of Europe originated in the Middle East.

According to Jon Entine, historians and scientists believe the Khazarian theory should more accurately be called a myth.[2]The strong claim has been widely criticized as there is no direct evidence to support it.[3] Ultimately, Ashkenazi Jews have been found to have a strong DNA connection to Israelites and the Middle East,[4] sharing many common genes with other Jews from approximately 3000 years ago,[5] which “does not support this [Khazar conversion] idea.”[6]

Abraham Eliyahu Harkavi had suggested as early as 1869 that there might be a link between the Khazars and European Jews. The theory, however, that Khazar converts formed a major proportion of Ashkenazi Jews was first proposed to a Western public by Ernest Renan in 1883.

The idea was taken up by a number of Jewish historians, including Sigmund Freud, and authors like H. G. Wells (1921). But the Khazar-Ashkenazi hypothesis came to the attention of a much wider public with the publication of The Thirteenth Tribe, by agent of the CIA Arthur Koestler in 1976. But Koestler's work was mainly a hsitory of the Khazars, and merely provides a suggestion that European Jews may be descended from them, without providing any proof.

The last 15 years has seen a large number of genetic studies on Jewish populations worldwide, which conclude: “The consensus research holds that most Ashkenazi Jews, as well as many Jews tracing their lineage to Italy, North Africa, Iraq, Iran, Kurdish regions and Yemen, share common paternal haplotypes also found among many Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.”[7]

Nadine Epstein, an editor and executive publisher of Moment magazine said “When I read Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe, I bought his theory that Ashkenazim were descended from the Khazars… But in 1997, Karl Skorecki in Haifa, Michael Hammer in Tucson and several London researchers surprised everyone by finding evidence of the Jewish priestly line of males, the Kohanim. Half of Ashkenazic men and slightly more than half of Sephardic men who claimed to be Kohanim were found to have a distinctive set of genetic markers on their Y chromosome, making it highly possible that they are descendants of a single male or group of related males who lived between 1180 and 650 B.C.E., about the time of Moses and Aaron.[8]

In 2000, the analysis of a report by Nicholas Wade, titled Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora, “provided genetic witness that these [Jewish] communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries… The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism.” [9]

A 2001 study found that Jews were closer to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent, such as Kurds, Assyrians, Turks, and Armenians, than to their Arab neighbors, whose “chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia.”[10]

In 2010, Atzmon et al. presented research refuting the possibility of large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Ashkenazi Jews, part of European/Syrian Jewish populations, shared a proximity to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations which was found to be incompatible with any theory maintaining that the Askhenazi were direct lineal descendants of Khazars or Slavs. They did allow that some Slavic or Khazarian admixture might have taken place during the second millennium, and noted that the 7.5% prevalence of the R1a1 haplogroup., common among Ukrainians, Russians and Sorbs, as well as among Central Asian populations, among Ashkenazi Jews has led to interpretations for a possible Slavic or Khazar admixture, although this admixture may have resulted only from mixing with Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians, rather than with the Khazars.[11]

Using four Jewish groups, one being Ashkenazi, a Kopelman et al study found no direct evidence to the Khazar theory[12]while another study concluded that its findings “debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.”[13]

Some scientists believe that even if the theory were to be true, “only a small minority of the Khazars may have adopted Judaism.”[14] and that “the questions of whether there was a Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jews’ lineage, or exactly what percentage of mitochondrial variants emanate from Europe, cannot be answered with certainty using present genetic and geographical data.”[15]

2013, the results of the largest genetic study on Jews released by the Wayne State University found that Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews shared substantial genetic ancestry, that they derive from Middle Eastern and European populations and found no detectable Khazar genetic origins.[16] Another 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, found no significant evidence of Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jewish DNA, as would be predicted by the Khazar hypothesis.[17]

Source: Wikipedia, "Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry", (accessed April 12, 2013)

[1] Johnson. A History of the Jews, p. 171

[2] Entine, Jon. "Israeli Researcher Challenges Jewish DNA links to Israel, Calls Those Who Disagree 'Nazi Sympathizers'", Forbes, May 16, 2013

[3] Melissa Hogenboom, 'European link to Jewish maternal ancestry BBC News, 9 October 2013; "No indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews". ASHG. Retrieved 5 November 2013.

[4] Middle East origins: Jared Diamond (1993). "Who are the Jews?". Retrieved November 8, 2010. Natural History 102:11 (November 1993): 12-19; "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Retrieved 11 October 2012; Shriver, Tony N. Frudakis ; with a chapter 1 introduction by Mark D. (2008). Molecular photofitting : predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. ISBN 9780120884926. sharing many common genes with other Jews from 3,000 years ago.

[5] Wade, Nicholas (June 9, 2010). "Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity". New York Times. Retrieved 8 November 2013; "Who Are the Jews? Genetic Studies Spark Identity Debate". Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Retrieved 9 November 2013.

[6] "Jews worldwide share genetic ties". Nature (journal). 3 June 2010. Retrieved 9 November 2013.


[8] "Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries". Retrieved 9 November 2013.

[9] "Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries". Retrieved 9 November 2013.

[10] Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, Ariella Oppenheim. "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", (The American Journal of Human Genetics (2001), Volume 69, number 5. pp. 1095–112).

[11] G.Atzmon, L.Hao, I.Pe'er, C.Velez, A.Pearlman, P.F.Palamara, B.Morrow, E.Friedman, C.Oddoux, E.Burns and H.Ostrer.Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Midde Eastern Ancestry. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 03 June 2010.

[12] Kopelman NM, Stone L, Wang C, et al. (2009). "Genomic microsatellites identify shared Jewish ancestry intermediate between Middle Eastern and European populations". BMC Genetics 10: 80. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-80. PMC 2797531. PMID 19995433.

[13] "New Study Finds Most Ashkenazi Jews Genetically Linked to Europe". 2013-10-16. Retrieved 2013-10-31.

[14] "Genomic microsatellites identify shared Jewish ancestry intermediate between Middle Eastern and European populations". Retrieved 9 November 2013.

[15] "Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries". Retrieved 9 November 2013.


[17] "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages". Nature Communications. Retrieved 8 November 2013.
From the genetic point of view, the main voice in favor of the Khazar hypothesis is Eran Elhaik, whose earlier research paper is at this link:

The current version of the Wiki article (as opposed to the one from last 2013) has an extensive discussion of Elhaik's work, as well as critical comments from other geneticists. Elhaik posted spirited replies to his opponents at his blog site, although he has just recently hidden all of that argumentation from public view; and he has published a new paper in which he further refines his theory, tracing the Ashkenazi to a small region in Iran (or Turkey??) where he says the villages of Iskenaz, Eskenez, Ashanas and Aschuz are located. This is based not only on genetics, but also on linguistics of Yiddish.

I don't think Elhaik's results are basically inconsistent with the Atzmon et al. paper cited as Livingstone's reference 11 above, which also admits significant admixture of Slavic or Khazarian elements into the Ashkenazi population.



This seems a sadly hilarious farce, making strange bedfellows of hating camps that both need the modern Zionist narrative to exist to justify their raison d'tre. In all these discussions I've yet to see anyone explain the 'Jewish' origin of the name Ashkenaz, since the Biblical narrative clearly claims they are not Semitic. End of discussion, or at least it should be .. if one is also going to use it as the infallible historic basis for reconstituting Zion and shedding so much blood.

That disagreement over the interpretations of Middle Eastern DNA also pits Jewish traditionalists against a particular strain of secular Jewish ultra-liberals who have joined with anti-Israeli Arabs and many non-Jews to argue for an end to Israel as a Jewish nation. Their hero is the Austrian-born Shlomo Sand—and now Elhaik. His study gained buzz in neo-Nazi websites and radical anti-Israeli and more radical pro-Palestinian blogs. For example, the notorious former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke actually attacked Elhaik in his latest anti-Jewish rant—Duke’s anti-Semitic beliefs hang on the fact that Jews are genetically cohesive and conspiratorial. “The disruptive and conflict-ridden behavior which has marked out Jewish Supremacist activities through the millennia strongly suggests that Jews have remained more or less genetically uniform and have … developed a group evolutionary survival strategy based on a common biological unity — something which strongly militates against the Khazar theory,” Duke wrote in his blog in February.

As is becoming increasing apparent to me, it appears that 'culture' is, in some ways, even thicker than blood (which is thicker than water). Sans someone actually finding a provable genetic link to such tribal behavior, I'll assert that the heinous and oddball nature of the Biblical narrative and (actually) incoherent claims of genetic purity found within, is what really binds otherwise politically disparate Jews together when such topics as Zionism arise. And of course, on Zionism they are not monolithic. Instead the noted strong binding attraction is this culturally existential Identity derived from their unique foundational narrative, which when clearly read reveals something much different. As such this seems to me a form of group Stockholm Syndrome that entrains them neurotically to ever fulfill the usefully despised role of Judah, their patriarch.

When someone is attacking both your Identity and your people's existence then you might take notice too. Trump's supporters are up in arms over just such cultural and existential perceptions.

The OT clearly demonstrates that the ubiquitous bloodline claims are lies, or that this whole book is a lie, or both. End of story, ... or it should be. Ezekiel asserts that the lineage of Abraham is half-Hittite, Hosea says that he had to marry the whore Gomer, an humorous allusion to the Ashkenaz' non-Semitic 'patriarch' in order to repopulate the land. Joseph's sons were the sons of an Egyptian high priest's daughter, Chosen for him by 'pharaoh'. King David had a non-Jewish mother.

Even David Livingstone has an Islamic axe to grind since he is of proud Sunni faith.

It's no wonder that Elhaik and Sand got panned by the institutional cabal, just like Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion got picked up by the white supremicists. The latter always forget to point out Chapter 4 where Shahak pointed out the inclusion of Jews into the institution of the European buffer class, between the interbred familial Euro-nobles and the non-related European serfs.

Jews were already at least 10% of the Roman Empire before 70 CE, and, per Sand, the way most of this population arrived was by Jewish (and Phoenician - aka Semites) males doing their trading business, as is done today, by traveling alone. And here, when settling down, to form a remote trading outpost, they would have ample opportunity to marry goy shiksas that were more than happy to have a husband that could only have one wife. Sand claims that the Romans would not have cleared all the Jews out of Palestine area, as this would have been a disaster for their economy and tax collections. They only had an interest to getting rid of the militants. This is confirmed by the Flavian Romans having given the rabbinic Jews the city of Javneh/Jamnia to re-establish the 'new order'.

But Sand even went further by heavily detailing the layered historiography of the 19th Century programmatic development in building the justification for the Zionist Return, based upon the models just used for making the synthetic claims for European 'nations'. There was no such thing in many places of Europe, ever, as prior to the nation building process, these regions were odd assortments of feudal fiefdoms. Again, with nobles not blood related to their serfs. The critical element was making the Zionist case was that there was indeed a Roman caused Diaspora, when no such claim had been made before this time, including by the contemporary commentators, who should know better than us. The Karaite Jews do not believe these fabricated claims to justify Zionism either.

Are present day Cohanim descended from Aaron? That question is unanswerable; we do not even know for certain that Aaron or Moses even existed. However, DNA studies of the Y chromosome have determined that a majority of self-proclaimed Cohanim (it’s an oral tradition) has a set of genetic markers that trace back approximately three thousand years to a single common ancestor. In other words, if there was no Aaron, there was certainly a High Priest early in the Jewish tradition whose ancestors have retained evidence of that tradition in their DNA.

As discussed in Abraham’s Children, Judaism has always retained its tribal roots even as faith-based religions flourished. In the centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century, Jewish lineage became defined through the mother rather than the father. Jewishness is now based on a triple helix: belief in God (although many Jews are agnostic or atheist); recognition of ancient Israel as a Biblical homeland; and literal blood connection with other Jews, passed on from generation to generation.

Also, it should be noted that the term cohen is not limited to Jews, but rather a generic Semitic term. It is the common Semitic term for priest, as it was found used in various places such as Ugarit. As such, Phoenicians were also widespread around the Mediterranean, and maybe much further. Indeed, the entire Celtic cohort of southern Europe is Semitic, based upon patterns of drought driven migrations out of the Fertile Crescent. The pagan Beltane Fires of England are likely related to the Ba'al fertility worship of Canaan. So maybe all these cohens were somehow related indeed?

As Jerry and I discussed in the last post, the Catholic Church dragged out the claimed high priest's ephod (the seamless robe) of Jesus in 1933 to celebrate Hitler's rise to power. If Jesus was a high priest then he would have to have been a Levite, whose descent must stem from the male line. But Jesus's father was Joseph the carpenter/tekton ... who descended from David, an odd Jew. But actually Jesus's father was ... ummmh God. Oh Jesus!!!

If the Sephardic and Ashkenazim are so closely related genetically, then why do they appear so different, and why do the Ashkenazi treat them and the other 'Jews' so badly? The narrative advanced on the difference is that the Sephardic were the Jewish population of most of Europe, and that during the Crusades that Christian over-enthusiasm, egged on by anti-Judaic cheerleaders, was responsible for massive Sephardic losses when the Crusaders marched through town. And thus the gradual movement north and westward by the (Khazar) Ashkenazim to fill the necessary economic and cultural void.
From the Forbes Entine article comment replies above:

Jon Entine 3 years ago
Actually, the non-Middle Eastern features of many Jews is the result of genetic drift for the most part. The introgression of “non Jewish” genes into the Ashkenazi gene pool, until the later half of the 20th century, has been estimated at less than 1/2 of 1 percent, making it one of the more homogeneous populations in the world over many, many centuries. And their roots to the Middle East, particularly on the male side, are indisputable. Obviously that’s changed in the past few generations as Jews increasingly marry outside its ethnic group.

Jon Entine 3 years ago
The Khazar hypothesis is not total rubbish. It’s estimate that about 20% of Ashkenazi Jewish males do have markers that suggest they originated in the area where the Khazarian empire flourished…so there was some significant gene introgression, probably from converting elites–it just wasn’t massive and did make up the majority of the seed Ashkenazi population.. Plus there is lots of non Middle Eastern genetic contributions on the female side…as much as 50% in Askhenazi Jewry. So, I believe your observations are reflected in the genetic record.

This is pretty amazing. Other populations, including some that have more genetic mixing, somehow can retain more homogeneous features, yet the population that only has "genetic drift for the most part" can be all over the appearance map? This sounds to me like the "seed Ashkenazi population" is pretty nebulous and speculative. Do the Sephardic and similar have such drift?

Of course, the business of Esau and his red hair, and the lack of mention about his twin brother's coloring is interesting in this regard.
The following video has some interesting detail, much of it apparently from Islamic historcial sources, and of which I was not familiar. Near the end it mentions the ongoing controversy, but I also found it interesting to note the brief mention of the Ashina takeover of the Khazars, which is a common elite modus operandi that we observe in Western history. It also claimed that the Khazars were once able to position their own candidate for the papacy, but did not offer a name.

As well, is detailed some significant interactions with the Rus, in what is now Ukraine.

Thx again Sarge. Yes, this is the correct thread for both posts.

Unfortunately Haaretz makes one provide their email and get daily emails from them. However, the headline seems to provide the desired message.

I have only just read the first few pages of Mathis' piece, and I think I can see that we're slowly closing the gap in our approaches. I have mainly entertained the Khazar - Ashkenazi association because it clearly points out the problem of the Genesis genealogy as to who is and who is not 'Shem-etic'. The important thing, then, to me, is that this is one indication, out of many, that we are dealing with some significant Identity issues, including cuckolding and cultural misappropriation.

From pg. 1:

Historians and archaeologists admit the Jews and Phoenicians come from the same place and have the same language, so they really have to jump through hoops to prevent you from making the obvious connection. They have to make you think the Phoenicians crashed and burned completely at the time the Jews (Twelve Tribes) were arising, and that after that the Jews were the constant punching bags of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, etc. When the truth is, Phoenicia never crashed. Phoenicia was an extension of Egypt, and was behind both Persia and Babylon. It was also behind Mycenae, Crete, Greece, and Macedonia.

The general region of the Khazars has all these DN river names (Don, Danube, Dneiper) that indicate another 'early' colonizing direction for the peoples known as the Danoi and such, whom are connected with both Mycenae and the tribe of Dan, and both of these can be connected with Egypt.

Did you see those guys Miles showed wearing their cone hats? Cone? Cohn?

This gets us to such as the De Vere claim of a tribal clan of genetic shamen/priests, such as Herodotus described for the Medes. Later these became known as Magi, and this passed down to the West as Magician/Wizards ... wearing cone hats. Similarly, these have been known as 'viziers', ala Joseph. And that guy Azes, which Bartram showed?

Makes one wonder about the Cone Heads from the old SNL days.
From Page 5- "I have shown you the Cohens have been the big winners in the Phoenician Navy battles for supremacy. They were formerly Comyns, Komnenes (from Armenia), and they are also. . . Kahns and Khans. Genghis Khan was really Genghis Komnene or Genghis Cohen."

Charles N. Pope, of the "Domain of Man" site, believes that the Plantagenet dynasty of England descended from the Komnene Byzantine Roman Emperors, and that an alternate identity of Plantagenet King John was Genghis Khan (!!!).
There is a book from some years ago that details some rather amazing aspects attributed to Genghis Khan, that today seem completely incongruous with today's Mongols. If true, are we looking at another episode of an 'alien' elite taking control over a society, ala thought by some for the Hyksos for one?

Seemingly related, there is also the various English heraldry and such with origins with the Huns and Scythians. And altogether which begs the question of just what is a 'cohen/khan' here? The term generally denotes a priest or shaman in a wider generic 'Semitic' context - beyond that of Judaism.