"Zionese" ? Yes, absolutely ! That's a much more focused and specific term than my sophomoric "antisemantics". It hits the nail right on the head. Thank you very much for posting this excellent piece, Rhiannon. I certainly could'nt have said it any better myself..... and that's for damn sure !

I am sick and tired of all this tippy-toeing on eggshells around the Jews! Truly, they have a huge responsibility! Now I am deeply grateful and glad for the Neturai Karta and JewsAgainstZionism, and any other Jews and organizations like these. But the numbers of these people MUST INCREASE!!!

I cannot help but think that if 'israel' would be taken care of -
^-^-^its zionist policies abolished,
^-^-^the lies and hatred against the Palestinians STOP,
^-^-^and if Jews would realize that while it will take a few generations for the Palestinians to stop hating Jews (C'mon! After all, look what was done to the Palestinians and their children all these years!).............

that eventually the Jews and Muslims, Ashkenazi and Arab can finally live together without all this sick and twisted violence. And when that happens, I believe that all the evils of this world will be taken care of and justice will occur. I've said it before and I will say it again. The Jews are chosen and for no OTHER REASON but to dismantle ZIONISM, undo all its EVIL that plagues this whole world. The ball is in their court!

THIS is what they were chosen for!

I have mentioned National Vanguard before. It really is a great site. The bloggers their are quite nasty with their racist remarks, however. But they know their stuff. They are aware like so many are not. At least they have that going for them. It is a great site. I visit it from time to time. Excellent information, and that is very rare, Rhiannon, for a blogger, [like this Larry] to post so eloquently. I also couldn't have said it better myself!

Ellendra Jane

My answer to excellent comments made on blog # 579 (Not in Our Name).

We should make a point of saying we're not anti-'something' just because some people are 'something', rather because of the historical record of this 'something' being so consistently and abysmally bad. Therefore - quasimodo, Ellendra, Rhiannon - we should be wary of declaring ourselves anti-Judaics (or anti-Jew-daics if you prefer) because there are good people also amongst the Jews. The Oriental (ME) Jews, often, are decent human beings - there are some of them who help Arabs and Palestinians rebuild their homes, destroyed by the IDF; they have a long record of peaceful coexistence in the midst of their host Arab nations. To my knowledge, there was no attempt in their history to rebuild the kingdom of Israel after the arrival of Islam in the Middle East. The record is not so good for the Ashkenazi Jews, I'm afraid, even though even in their midst you will find decent human beings. But the idea of a violent - costs what it costs - rebuilding of Khazaria is in their traditions, in their collective history and subconcious imagination. The earliest know attempt in the 12th Century (David al-Roy), then Poland-Lithuania, then the Soviet Union ... now Palestine. It is the age-long attempt of a Turanic elite clan to recreate its lost Empire, with the notable handicap of not having the required military might (the historic Khazars held a mercenary army and their cavalry men of arms remained in the steppes long after the demise of Khazaria to eventually become the Cossacks). So, at the most, I would call myself anti-turanian, should I give myself a hate name that takes the sting out of the Fake Jews' smear words; anti-Zionist is also 'out' now, officially equated to anti-semitism. But there again, I would consider the bad historical record of the Turanians a consequence of the impossible regions (the eurasian steppes) from which they stem- so why hate them? Besides, like already said, other Christian empire-builders (including the British) were just as cruel and distructive of local cultures.
As for the Mongols, A.Z. pointed out how the subdued populations eventually came to benefit from their conquerors. "The Mongol hoards were also ruthless, but any people who joined them received benefits. Warriors who joined them were promoted to top military ranks, regardless of their race, religion, or ethnic background". A.Z., this is written by Turanic house-historians, who want to see a good side of their imperial kinsmen, but the converse is actually true! The Mongol overlords, having subdued the sedentary populations, came to realise there was no point in slaughtering them further and actually adopted their men of valor, their ways, their religion and form of government. There is a (partial) notable exception of this in the Mongol conquest of Eastern Europe (Batu (Sain) Khan and his decendants never adopted Christianity - except for his son Sartaq). In any case, the Turks there never assimilated the ways, culture and religion of the Russians (with the notable exception of the Cossacks) and the Turanian Jews (the Ashkenazis) are in this no exception. So, sorry A.Z., I do not see any good legacy from the onslaught of the Turanian hordes in Europe.
Regarding Israel disappearing as a racial apartheid state, I can only reaffirm my strong doubts. We Westeners have to stop their abominations, coming to realise we have little or nothing to gain, in the long run, from their appropriation of the New Khazaria in the Middle East. South Africa's gone (?) apartheid state is not a good liking, for does the name Mendela (Mandel-a) say nothing to you? It is rumored this is a Fallasha Jew, or something of that sort (like Kofi Annan, whose real name should be Amnon ...). Still in S.A. it is mostly the british/dutch concerns which are suffering, the israeli/ashkenazi controlled diamond/gold mining interests not in the least. So, I'm skeptical about S.A., pessimist about New Khazaria.
Finally regarding the ashke-NAZI website www.masada2000.org, have a look at their fabricated historical compedium and hope that Wake Up From Your Slumber soon ends up in their list of openly anti-turanian websites.
As for John Kaminski, there's a Turanian Jew who left Judaism/Zionism and makes excellent points in his excellent essays.

Excellent reply and synopsis, history worm. Now could you please get more to the point, and come up with a suitable terminology for these FALSE JEWS, or TURANIAN ASHKENAZIS ? I already know about the wonderful attributes of the Oriental and Sephardic Jews, and I bear them NO malice aforethought whatsoever. I also know how they are persecuted by the Askenazi. It's taking an incredible amount of time to get this conundrum straightened out, and you have certainly helped enormously, but again, could you try to see my bloody point ? You still haven't responded to the sources I sent you at the end of Erlenda's "Racism" Blog. They are intrinsic and essential to my resolution of this present discussion. Especially the Jack Bernstein material. To my mind, both the terms 'ANTISEMITISM', and 'ZIONISM' are such hopeless misnomers and so non-specific as to already be archaic. As for my postulation of ANTIJUDAISM as a more honest appellation, it is still dangerously vague and not specific enough. As for my own philosophy toward Judaism as a system of belief or disbelief, it won't matter to anyone else whatsoever. But as for being able to call a Jew a Jew, that also seems to be another "antisemantical" trap. So hereafter, whether they be mosers or mamzers or what have you, I'll simply refer to the real bastards in question, Turanian, Khazarian, Ashkenazian, Impostor, or FALSE Jews, ( for which I have NO FORGIVENESS WHATSOEVER ) as what they really are, for brevity and specificity's sake, as NAZIS ! GODDAM NAZIS ! If you would please at least corroborate the sources you asked me for, you will understand. Once I begin to conduct myself as an ANTINAZI, maybe that will cut me some slack with these so-called "JEWS". Maybe if I run around like Chicken Little squawking " the NAZIS ARE COMING !, the NAZIS ARE COMING !, the stupid goys will actually believe the threat is real. How was it Koestler said it;- "a most UNFORTUNATE HOAX... ? http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/463?page=1
Why Racism is Self-Defeating | Wake Up From Your Slumber http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideo...
Final Solution to Adolph Hitler

Hey, there is a whole lot of truth from that post, History Worm. No one is calling the Jews evil. But they most definitely have a huge responsibility! As some of them say, "not in our name", well hell yeah! The have more power than they know of. They could squash zionism just like that!

So why don't they then? Too comfortable, too lazy? Or do they like being zionists after all, secretly or obviously?

Regardless, the Jewish people have a lot of work to do. No one is calling them evil, but look who they are calling evil. How many more Iraqi, Lebanese, and Palestinian children have to be murdered? Anyone who gets in the zionist way...these people are labeled "EVIL"........and I say: "Well then you deserve the terms RACISTS - LIARS - MURDERERS and BIGOTS thrown back at you." Seeing that the Jews and the zionists are wound up tightly together, they the Jews have a huge albatross around their necks they need to throw off. It's their CALL.

Look History Worm, I could give you many examples of how the zionist-ashkenazi- fake jews twist their way through dialogue with people who try to uncover the truth. I've got a list going.

BTW, Kofi Annnan is Jewish? Are you sure about that? "christian" zionists are labelling him a demonized Muslim...so now I am confused. What a world we live in.

Ellendra Jane

Sorry for this late reply. Look, fellow researchers of the truth, we should refrain from generalization and usage of misnomers which discredit our cause. Not all Jews are bad, although, yes, they're often complicit and draw advantages from their fellow wolves' wrongdoings. But the term anti-Zionist is more and more equated to anti-semitic, even officially, in the West these days.
Let me repeat it once more: the Ashkenazi Jews are not semitic and they are not european either. They are Turanians, descendants of judaised Khazars and other finno-turko-mongol tribes from the eurasian steppes. So, if the misnomer anti-'semite' grates on you, don't just refuse to use or acknowledge it, spit back 'you mean anti-TURANIAN!' to your Zionist (or philo-Zionist) detractors. This will show them you know who they really are - FALSE JEWS - and put them in a defensive stance. The word Khazar is anathema to Ashkenazi Jews and to Zionists, the best way to exorcize them.
To Quasimodo, I did get your point about Nazism being also a creature of the Ashkenazi (leadership). There were indeed ashkenazic names (Rosenberg, Frank, ...) amongst the Nazi leaders, but from this to state AshkeNAZIs=NAZIs I cannot concur. The equation Ashenazis=Bolsheviks [it's actually an approximation, since a good number of non-ashkenazic Turanians (Lenin, Stalin, ...) were also involved] is much easier to establish. Nazism was a somewhat more complex phenomenon, the great majority of Germans embracing it (only later, to be victims of it) and needing no civil war to get established - which was not the case in Russia. To me, Nazism was initially encouraged by the ashkenazi bankers in order to halt the advance of Bolshevism in Europe. Trotzky, Luxemburg, wanted to bring the 'Marxist' revolution to the whole of Europe, whilst the ashkenazi bankers had devised it only in order to bring Russia's Czars down - and this is why Stalin (accepting Socialism in only one country: Russia/USSR) was Lenin's heir, and not Trotzy (wanting Socialism in every country). That's why the ashkenazi apprentice sorcerers had to stop the spread of their wizardry by fomenting its antidote, Fascism, which was by its nature anti-'Jewish' (the Nazis never realised who their foes really were, and that's why they had Ashkenazis amongst their leaders). Then, once again, the antidote begun to eat-up the patient - would you go as far as to say the Ashke-NAZIs encouraged Hitler's total war? The Germans' attempt to unify Europe under Den Deutschen Adler's wings from the Urals to the Atlantic? No, this was not in the interest of the Turanic Ashkenazis (and of the British and Americans), on the contrary that would have been a total disaster as a rebirth of Imperial Rome ... in Berlin.
So, I see Hitler's adventure as a precursor of Saddam Hussein's (also first encouraged as antidote to the Iranians, then a beast run wild against its maker) and find Condit's thesis a bit too far fetched. But I agree the ashkenazi Zionist elite did go along with Nazism's initial experiments and I have no reason to doubt that Nazism was infiltrated by ashkenazic fifth columns. I would buy on the other hand Jack Bernstein's thesis of the Three Israels. Israel's elite does indeed contain all three elements: Bolsheviks from the ex-USSR (look at Liberman), Nazism from Nazi Germany (look at Begin, Jabotinsky and their treatment of British and Palestinians) and Fake Democrats. Why, is this not the sort of fake democracy the Ashkenazis installed in Poland-Lithuania?
To sum up, don't use anti-Zionist (it's politically incorrect), don't use anti-Nazi (it's historically incorrect, plus nobody will believe you), don't use anti-Jewish (it's wrong, for the sake of the many good oriental Jews also victims of the Turanians): call these wolves 'Fake Jews' (or 'self-styled Jews', like in good old Benjamin Freedman's Fact are Facts), use anti-Turanian instead. You won't harm the Turks, if they want to enter the European Union they should better return Costantinople and Byzantium to the Europeans first. You won't harm the Muslims, the Semitic Muslims should learn from history and also take distance from the Turanic Muslims.
To Ellendra (Jane): "The have more power than they know of. They could squash zionism just like that"! Who, the Oriental Jews? The Sephardis? They are but a few hundred thousands, many not even wealthy or politically relevant. They have all the menial jobs in Israel that the Arabs can't or shouldn't take. They were evicted from their arab homelands. If there were no Palestinians, Oriental/Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews would be fighting each other to the death.
All your nasty detractors/opponents, you will find, are Ashkenazis. Fight them with the anathema words - Turanians! Khazars!
As for Kofi Annan, yes, Muslim intellectuals told me he is really a Fallasha (Ethiopian) Jew whose real name is Amnon. Are you really so surprised?

history worm; Thank you at last for your long awaited rejoinder, and for addressing my concerns in such a comprehensive way. You have much more of a background to fill in the blanks than I do, believe me. But I can also be very obsessive-compulsive about finer details when I'm on the trail of something hot. So before I let you off the hook, I will dust off my old proverbial fine-tooth comb and lend you a few more straggling hairs and passing observations, to which you need'nt respond if you should deem unfit. I think we can almost put this controversy to bed, but for the following. I might question whether you caught the entirety of the long, somewhat tedious, but invaluable Condit production, as you never mentioned, in particular, 'the Rakovsky Interrogation', which is very seminal to his thesis. You still appear to insist that the AshkeNazi bankers were interested in halting the advance of Bolshevism in Europe, which completely contravenes Condit, and to which I took objection in my 'What's it All About, Wolfie ?' post, before the Bernstein piece. If you happened to notice that photograph he brandished, of Stalin and Rakovsky ( of the Ashkenazi Elite ) directly behind him in a funeral procession, it appeared to me that Trotsky also shows up in that picture. What do you think, is it him ? You imply that Trotsky, and his ragtag band of New York Bolsheviks, indeed wanted to "bring the Marxist revolution to the whole of Europe", while the Ashke' Elite had devised it only in order to bring down the Czar. I think one better reason why Stalin was Lenin's heir is, according to these sources, Stalin actually had him assassinated, along with that whole cadre of AshkeNazis that shadowed Stalin to get him back with the European "pogrom",( with the notable exception of Rakovsky, who essentially ratted them all out to save his own hide ). Another 'MOSER' in the ranks ? I don't believe Stalin would have stopped in his own tracks on his westward trek, had he not been held back in Poland. I just simply see it as all of these Bolshevik and later 'Nazi' players doing the bidding of the Elite that was funding them, up until evidence of Stalin's so called 'Bonapartism', ( another name for the M.O. that Napoleon engaged in when he kicked against the pricks of the self same funding apparatus ). Now that's an interesting parallel you also make to Imperial Rome, and what might today be termed 'Balkanization', or fragmentation of principalities into smaller states. This is a time worn signature strategy of the AshkeNazi, the M.O. of 'divide and conquer', which we see today most notably in Iraq, and Palestine. When is our 'modern day' civilization ever going to catch up with this simple subterfuge, that's been happening ever since the rise of Khazaria and before ? Remember Bernstein's definitions of FASCISM ( as National Socialism ) and COMMUNISM ( as INTERnational Socialism ) at the very end of 'Three Faces' ? This would seem to belie your contention that Fascism was an 'antidote' of Socialism, when in essence, they are two sides of a three sided coin ( the other notable side being 'democracy', as Bernstein would have it in Israel ). Also, YES, I would go as far as to say the 'Ashke-NAZIS' encouraged Hitler's 'total war'. Where else would he get the funding, after the boycotts ? And let us not forget our noble counterpart "American" and "German" financiers, Bush, Farben, Thiessen, et al. Same old gang of regulars, and NAZIS, in my book. I knew when Der Bushka kifed the 2000 election it was going to get bad, i just never knew it would get THIS BAD. How else can you explain his utter diehard allegiance to the false flag of "Israel" ? Anyway, history repeats itself, and you, history worm, above all, should realize that. As for your broad brush approach of ANTI-TURANIAN, to you this might be perfectly case sensitive, and to me as well, but to the world at large, I fear, the reaction will be something like- WHAT THE FORK IS a TURANIAN ? Which also reminds me of your comical misspelling of CHAMELEON as CAMELONT. Maybe if you could screw that up a little more, you'll come up with a whole brand new moniker for these God awful Chameleons, the KHAZARS. That label seems to be gaining more ground every day. So, in closing, for now I shall keep my little 'notsy' secret to myself, and you, and Jack Bernstein, ( did you notice all the parallel behaviors in Bernstein's piece ? ) and go with ANTI-KHAZARIAN instead, although if indeed by their DEEDS shall we know them, these sons of bitches have all the earmarks, all the way down to the cheesy epaulets on their shoulders, of a NAZI ! There is much more, but for now, thanks for a great exchange, a major heads up to everyone concerned--Best Regards

History does indeed repeat itself ...

.... and I'm the first to preach this. Saddam Hussein like Adolf Hitler for example, to me both tyrants lived the same basic adventure - with a few variations.
Anyhow, I'd like to continue the exchange when I have the time, as I learn a lot from all of you posting and commenting in this forum. So sorry: I haven't had the time yet to watch Condit's production properly, but scanned quickly through it and got the zest - I think. I don't agree with the view - which you spoused, Quasimodo - that the Ashke-NAZI elite provoked the Holocaust of its lower classes in order to have a justification to later take Palestine. There were far too many semitic and turanic Jews of high rank who lost property, family, and had to emigrate and start anew. Also, it was not obvious that the Nazi Germans would have capitulated so soon and so devastatingly - if the Nazis had thought much earlier of pitting the downtrodden Slavs against their turanic soviet enslavers (20.000.000 lives lost in the 1920s and 30s) there might have been a real chance to crush the Soviet Union too (the Cortez strategy). That would have unified Europe under the German Eagle's wings from the Urals to the Atlantic, Hitler like the new Karl der Grosse, and the prospect of a New Khazaria would have vanished. Except, perhaps, in Central Asia where the Nazis had plans to eventually resettle die Ostjuden. From this last remark you gain hint of the real reason why I don't buy Condit's main assertion - because (... but this is illegal in some countries and cannot say it). So, bear with me: I reaffirm my assertion that Nazism was to Bolshevism - for the ashkenazi bankers funding both - what Saddam's Baatism was to Iran's Ayatollahs' Revolution. An antidote that went over to kill both patient AND doctors, except that Saddam was more clever and stopped the fighting with Iran at the 1.000.000 loss mark.
By the way, what was the Cold War if not a continuation of this struggle between the sorcerers and their bolshevik zombie? But this is another story.
As for your comment, "YES, I would go as far as to say the 'Ashke-NAZIS' encouraged Hitler's 'total war'. Where else would he get the funding, after the boycotts ?" I have to again disagree with you. Hitler got his 'funding' from barter of german technology against soviet assistance in re-armament before 1941, plus real funding from swiss and german bankers who were not necessarily ashkenazic. But I have no doubt he was INITIALLY also heavily funded in secrecy - despite the boycott - by the ashkenazi bankers adamant to keep Bolshevism in check. Only to later realize the Nazis had plans for a new Holy Roman Empire based in Berlin, something you also agreed - Quasimodo - was not in the interest of the divide-and-conquer ashkenazic strategy.
Regarding Stalin and Trotzky, I think most historian would agree with me that Lenin allowed the former to be his heir also because the latter would have continued the Bolshevik 'Revolution' to the rest of Europe and the world too. That's why Trotzky was exiled, and then liquidated by the NKVD (Pavel Sudoplatov confirms this in his book 'Special Tasks'): Stalin and his mobsters had accepted the idea of 'Socialism in one country (Russia/USSR) only'. But then, in 1941, the 'cure' began to demolish the patient as well as the doctors.
As for the Poland 1920 Bolsheviks' debacle, see that was Trotzky going into overdrive, when the Red Army was engaged in a difficult civil war still; no wonder the Poles managed (thankfully) to stop the Bolsheviks that time when Stalin was making himself useless in Kazakhstan.
As for Bernstein's definitions of FASCISM ( as National Socialism ) and COMMUNISM ( as INTERnational Socialism ), well that was before 1941: the moment the two definitions simply got exchanged. Fascism was an 'antidote' of Socialism only in the sense that the two ideologies were doomed to clash with each other. Both viruses and antibodies are made of the same biomolecular stuff.
As for 'WHAT THE FORK IS a TURANIAN'? I explained in a previous comment to a request about ashkenazi infiltration in Iran. Turan is a region of Turkmenistan where the Turks place the myth of foundation of their nation. The Persians referred to their arch-enemies to the north as Turanians, so it's (also in the turkik founding myths) a name for the fourth Homo-Sapiens species that so much cought your imagination. According to the Turks (of Central Asia), there were first the Turanians, then came the Semites, then the Yaphetites and finally the Khamites and the latter three species pushed the Turanians into the eurasian steppes. So the Turanians (this term actually comprises all finnic, turkik and mongol nomadic tribes) feel they have a 'right' (as 'The Chosen' by their primeval god, Tengri) to recapture all the lands of Western Eurasia. Tell the Zionists about them being Turanians, turkik-stock. Guaranteed anathema. Used as an 'anti' word, it will tell all Gentiles who these steppe wolves in sheep's skins really are.
But you can keep calling them Khazars, except it's not quite right. But it's mostly details.
I will try to watch Condit's production more carefully one of these days.

H.W.- Simply fascinating, history worm ! You can now dial up the Masada website and inform them we shall henceforth prefer to be shitlisted as the web's FIRST and ONLY ( to my limited knowledge ) ANTI-TURANIAN website ! Let them snarl over that for a while. I simply wanted to note here, in rapturous exhaustion, that you have somehow mystically managed to come full circle in a rather esoteric discussion which originally took wing, ( if my amnesia serves me well ) as an entirely HYPOTHETICAL expostulation of my Neo-Darwinian concept of "SPECISM" ? Remember ? And all the brickbats that flew out of the belfry along with it ? Quickly allow me to once again quote you, my friend, toward the end- "TURANIANS,-- so it's- ( also in the turkik founding "MYTHS" ) a NAME for the FOURTH ( 4th ) HOMO SAPIENS SPECIES that so much caught my imagination" !!! There we are, right back to square one ( 1 ) if you were to ask me ! PLEASE CLARIFY ! Are you referring to a "MYTH" ( to which there is often more truth than supposed historical fact ) or, to a possible verifiable EXISTENCE of such a SPECIES ??? THIS IS VERY, VERY, IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY ! For then, perhaps, we could BOTH be vindicated in a wholly new realm of verifiable, NON-HYPOTHETICAL 'SPECISM', without suffering all the idiotic constraints inherent in any similar dispute over RACISM. I will tell you honestly here, that I have felt all along that my original misgivings have been evaded somewhat in all of this, and that I have felt "instinctively" for some time that any creatures of a particular ilk that go to such absurd lengths to disguise themselves, and to segregate themselves from the rest of humanity at large, but to prey upon it, are actually demanding to be regarded as a distinct, separate, CHOSEN, if you will, "SPECIES", not a RACE. So we have jumped right off Darwin's back and right back into the Biblical fray, where I have somewhat better acquaintance than your Turanian Dark Ages. You have given no account so far to any linkages of the Ashkenazim with their Biblical counterparts of the "tribe" of Ashkenaz, although you seem to be on the verge. For now, I will leave this mess right on your doorstep where it began. Just keep this simple fact in mind: Are not the Wolves, and again the Sheep, both borne of the Steppe, but undeniably TWO ( 2 ) COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES ????????

You are a very demanding interlocutor. First of all, I repeat, I was only reporting about one funding MYTH of the Turks. Just a MYTH! Hugo von Kutschera (1910 book, precursor of Koestler's) had studied old ottoman literature on these myths and reported the belief of the Turks thinking of themselves as a separate Homo Sapiens species, come out of creation's cradle BEFORE everybody else. That's right: they thought of themselves are the FIRST, not the FOURTH, Homo Sapiens species! Considering also that the Turanians believed themselves to be their God's (Tengri's) Chosen Ones for the conquest and domination of the world, and the retake of their ancestral lands (see my previous comment), one would come to the conclusion that THEY indeed think of themselves (as WOLVES) to be a different species from us (SHEEP). This is probably why the Khazars liked the idea so much of chosing Judaism and the Bible/Talmud as their new monotheistic religion: God's Chosen, the fallic cult and therefore circumcision, and so on. The Wolf and Roe-Deer mythology again. But, sorry, I don't think there's any scientific evidence for this SPECISM, as you like to call it. Besides, if we were different species, the possibility of having non-sterile joint offsprings would be precluded - and we know this is not true. Therefore if it is specism, it is only in their minds, in their collective tribal culture - not in their genes.
"I have felt "instinctively" for some time that any creatures of a particular ilk that go to such absurd lengths to disguise themselves, and to segregate themselves from the rest of humanity at large, but to prey upon it, are actually demanding to be regarded as a distinct, separate, CHOSEN, if you will, "SPECIES", not a RACE." They are a diffent race (Turanians, not Semites), but the same Homo Sapiens species as we are. Their self-segregation is first geographical, then historical, then cultural - and thus religious - but not really genetical. We decided to call it TRIBAL.
"You have given no account so far to any linkages of the Ashkenazim with their Biblical counterparts of the "tribe" of Ashkenaz" You're right. Well, there isn't any solid linkage, except for the Turanians stealing the Oriental Jews' religion! OK, there was some initial limited mixing of Semitic and Turanian Jews at the time of the latter's conversion (which took over 100 years and went on in waves, according to Alfred Posselt) and then again after the demise of Khazaria, when many judaised Khazars moved to moorish Spain and to islamic West Asia. But we know that the bulk of the judaised Khazars, that went to Poland/Russia to be later rejoined by other judaised khazar tribes that left Khazaria with the Magyars (Hungarians - that was before Khazaria's fall), kept themselves in splendid ethnic isolation for 6-7 centuries of Shtetl life. Only after the Jewish Enlightenment in the 1800s did the mixing with European-stock people begin to take place. So, it's a very complex situation - genetically - which is why I believe that trying to *prove* that the Oriental and the Ashkenazi Jews are linked through genetic markers by means of tiny- and selected-sample statistical studies is - to say the least - absurd.

history worm ! - nowhere near as demanding an interlocutor as yourself, I might add ! Keeping in mind that my preposterous presuppositions have consistently been presented as HYPOTHETICAL, while your conclusions have been largely presented as EMPIRICAL, or FACTUAL, it's been great fun to push the envelope a little in our mutual propounding of MYTH. Look at all the revelation, TRUE or FALSE, that has come of it ! You, history worm, being a historian, strive for VERITIES, or FACTS, while I, being naught but an armchair philosopher, thrive on MYTHS, and POSSIBILITIES. Possibly the twain shall never meet, and conversely, it is quite POSSIBLE, to me, that MYTHS are only FACTS in SHEEP'S CLOTHING. When you speak of the tribes ( 3 ) of the sons of Noah, are you not referring to what we have come to know as the 3 MAJOR RACES of MAN ? It was you who referred to them as SPECIES, not I. And then you add to the pile on your doorstep with a MYTHOLOGICAL 1st ( or Fourth ) SPECIES or RACE, as you have it, known to us now as Turanian. It would seem rather likely to me in my manifest ignorance that Turanians, ( with the notable exception of their own exclusive conception of their divine origin ) would fit into the commonly held notion of conformity to the Caucasian stock or RACE. Or are all the elements of SHEMITIC, CHAMITIC, and JAPHETIC stocks present in some HYBRID, INBRED STOCK known to us now as TURANIAN ? I am not prone to presuppose anything in your imposing arena of empirical fact. I merely question why this TRIBE, as you call it, demands to be considered as a separate SPECIES or RACE, not that I, MYSELF, actually consider them to be one. It appears to be somewhat largely a matter of self perception, or deception, as the case may be. To drag out another favorite bugaboo, are you familiar with Eustace Mullins' "racist" and "anti-semitic" treatise, "The Biological Jew" ? That will get us very easily past all this Ashkenazi claptrap, and right back down to the real nitty gritty about this little historical - or is it mythological- dispute over BIRTHRIGHT, and a couple of cats known as CAIN and ABEL. With that, I'm calling HALF-TIME !

History worm you wrote

"This is probably why the Khazars liked the idea so much of chosing Judaism and the Bible/Talmud as their new monotheistic religion"

I think they chose Judaism so as to preserve their own culture and 'race' for political reasons and to prevent themselves from merging into the two dominant politico-religious (Christianity and Islam) domains of the time.

and I really know nothing about the historical or cultural aspects of judaism or khazars . . .

but what if it wasn't khazars who chose judaism, but judaics who chose khazars for their military prowess and political power?

maybe just a whacky idea . . .

Regarding Khazars and Judaism or vice versa, would you settle for a "marriage of convenience", Q ? Also, sincere apologies to History Worm for my misdirection to Eustace Mullins "Biological Jew" as a reference. I meant to cite Mullins'- "Curse of Canaan, a DEMONOLOGY of HISTORY"... I thought at least the last part of the title would aggravate you enough to be mildly curious. Here is a rather lopsided review, which provides a quick lopsided look-- http://www.bethuneinstitute.org/documents/canaan.html
Curse of Canaan - A Case Study in Hate Propaganda

To leftfield: of course you're right about the Khazar conversion to Judaism. I was just adding another possible couple of reasons for why the went for it.
To Quasimodo: I was only lightly complaining, I do like you as a challenging/stimulating interlocutor. As for the specism/racism issue, I always only reported what I read in vonKutschera's (an obscure old book about one founding myth of the Turanians, it was never my own view. I don't think the Turanians are a separate Homo Sapiens species, though they might think of themselves as one. But - though no anthropologist myself - I have come to believe the Turanians are a SEPARATE major Homo Sapiens (one species) race.
That's right, Koestler was wrong in concluding the Ashkenazis are also Yaphetites like us Indo-Europeans. Leave the Torah aside and look at the historic record. The turkish sages were right in considering FOUR major human races: the Turanians (finno-turco-mongols), the Semites, the Yaphetites and the Khamites. I don't really know how serious this (old-fashioned, nazi-like and no longer cool, would Erlenda say to us) distinction of the human races is, but in order to classify languages and historical development (with exceptions) it does work. The reason why the Torah neglects the Turanians as a major race in its funding myths, is probably because the Semites in ca. 1000 BCE (when the Torah was written down, probably) did not know much about the steppe nomads. Mind you, there is an account from the Khazar King Joseph (who was already a 'Jew') of biblical descendance from Togarmah, one of Yaphet's descendants, but these are myths. And you should know that the name Ashkenazi itself comes from biblical citation (Ashkenaz is a land in South Caucasus). The Ashkenazis claim Ashkenaz is Hebrew for (!) Germany, but this is nonsense. It was the Sephardis in Moorish Spain who probably first made this blunder, but the name does come from biblical lore and is alas inappropriate. For the Khazars stem from the Altay region like all Turanians and Turan is their mythical 'entrance hall' from West Asia to the steppe region (pursued, perhaps it's true, by the newcomers - Semites and Yaphetites).
But I'm digressing. You were asking about how many major human races: I would say FOUR. Why the first one, the Turanians, think of themselves as being special, well that's because of their ferocity, their constant and successful bashing at the remaining three sedentary major races and - ultimately - because of the harsh ways of the Nation of the Steppes. Please go and visit Kazakhstan, Mongolia, ... even South Russia (Kuban etc.), South Ukraine (with its foul waterways). Harsh regions. Can you blame these tribes, this race, for wanting to move out of such grassy inferno?
As for my empirical arguments etc.: I can substanciate all my statements with appropriate literature sources - not Internet sources (always ephimeral, unchecked), but PRINTED sources (not available to everyone though and painstakingly collected). Just ask me.
Cheers.

By the way, the American Indians, or Redskins - from Alaska to South America - are also Turanians. Their God Manitu is the Turco-Mongols' Tengri. Indeed the Redskins came out of the eurasian steppes through the Bering Strait Land Bridge (we think) and only in South America there was colonization (much, much later) from Khamitic peoples from Polinesia. Koreans, Japanese, ... all these are Turanians. A very ancient and successful major human race, indeed, probably the very first Homo Sapiens race to have come out of Africa. But ask the anthropologists.
As for 'The Biological Jew' and all that, Quasimodo, I'm not aware of such 'antisemitic' (you said it) literature. I will research in due time.
To qrswave: it was not the True Jews who chose the Khazars, it was indeed the other way round. The Khazars stole the True Jews' religion, holy books, identity ... now their ancient part-time land too. Have a look at this book: Marion Woolfson, 'Prophets in Babylon: Jews in the Arab World'.

I quickly glanced at your Mullins link, Quasimodo. Sounds all a bit far-fetched to me, I spoke of the 4 major human races (as actually a turkik funding myth, with some sense in it after all) in terms of linguistic, anthropological and historical development classification. The biblical and apocryphal biblical contentions about Adam, Eve and their offsprings is all too mystical and symbolical to me, so let's stick to the facts.
One comment about Mullins' work, however, did strike a note of deja-vu for me:
"In Mullins 'New History of the Jews', Mullins claims that Jewish priests regularly kidnap little white boys, strip them naked, chain them to altars, pierce them with knives, and drink their blood while they lie dying (p. 50)."
Hey, didn't we hear about the fuss created by a book in print by Prof. Ariel Toaff (son of Italy's former Chief Rabbi Elio Toaff) - a professor of history in Israel's Bar-Ilan University - about the veridicity of the Jews' Blood Libel after all? Prof. Toaff now claims that a few radical Jews in the middle ages did engage in blood-letting dark rituals at the expense of goy children as young as 2. So, maybe Mullins is now vindicated by Toaff and soon the rest of his 'antisemitic' accusations too?

history worm- I'm really starting to love the header for this thread. It's so easy to find, and it's so true ! If you will but concede that I, the Immortal Quasimodo, ( if I am truly capable of nothing else ), can at least make a "good argument", then all my "far-fetched" fetchings might someday be somehow vindicated. But again, it is the lurking history worm, propounding and confounding the fundaments of myth versus reality, by inquiring of my grotesque and hunchbacked presence whether or not I have heeded his response to my "challenges". So here we go again, if only for the sake of "argument". I love it where you just hang it up and grumble "LET'S STICK TO THE FACTS" ! Haven't I already pegged you as empirical enough ? But let us do just that, as you like, and dispense with all this mythical poppycock, shall we ? I am truly dumfounded that you have at last stumbled upon that perennial "antishemitic" MYTH, ( as the Jews still have it ) of a most dreaded BLOOD LIBEL ! -to lend it some creedence from your own voluminous credentials ! How dare we propound such 'CONSPIRACY THEORIES', ( in light of absolutely no evidence to the contrary ) and propose to consider them as FACT ? You know, the idea does occur to me, that this ongoing romance the Jews seem to have with their convenient arch-nemesis, "anti-semitism", may shed an even darker light on these occult proceedings. What with Toaff's father being a Rabbi and all that, and promptly issuing his obligatory condemnations of his precious son's work, it all begins to look like a whole new version of the holocaust oracle. Now that such suppositions appear to be sliding on to the slag heap of real history vs. myth, perhaps it is high time for them to breathe a whole new life into the incredible BLOOD LIBEL SAGA! This should certainly suit the best interests of all concerned, adherents and detractors alike, by fanning the flames of 'antisemitism' into a totally unavoidable nuclear 'holocaust', thereby vindicating both legends to a realm of FACT, over FANCY, wouldn't you think ? Do they ever stop to consider the reality of a very REAL SPIRITUAL HOLOCAUST they have triumphed in perpetuating ? ( not to mention those other ones, of course ) This begins to resemble some sort of 'Black Death' of the mind and spirit. At any rate, I diverge. So to reiterate, I quote you here-------["One comment about Mullins' work, however, did strike a note of deja-vu for me:
"In Mullins 'New History of the Jews', Mullins claims that Jewish priests regularly kidnap little white boys, strip them naked, chain them to altars, pierce them with knives, and drink their blood while they lie dying (p. 50)."
Hey, didn't we hear about the fuss created by a book in print by Prof. Ariel Toaff (son of Italy's former Chief Rabbi Elio Toaff) - a professor of history in Israel's Bar-Ilan University - about the veridicity of the Jews' Blood Libel after all? Prof. Toaff now claims that a few radical Jews in the middle ages did engage in blood-letting dark rituals at the expense of goy children as young as 2. So, maybe Mullins is now vindicated by Toaff and soon the rest of his 'antisemitic' accusations too?]................So, if I hear you correctly, you are proposing that perhaps Mullins could be vindicated ? Don't surprise yourself too much. I'll give you here a few more outtakes from that terrible review I posted, which does offer an accessible outline of Mullins 'Curse of Canaan' These will be points which I, the Immortal Quasimodo, shall also be intensely interested in seeing vindicated, if not syndicated. Since Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel is not your cup of meat, I will refrain: {p.22. The Canaanites are Satan's curse on humanity and an evil plague. The Canaanite political parties at the time of Christ are the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essains, and Scribes; and also the Edomites who intermarry with the Turks, producing the Chazars - the present occupants of the State of Israel.- pp. 94-97. Twin Canaanite evils of Communism and Zionism. - p. 206. Hitler's Nazi Party was the political party of the German Jews,................. the Ashkenazim.????!??@*&?
- p. 210. Victims of WW2 were 100 million, many of whom were entire families of the "people of Shem." These were human sacrifices created by the Canaanites.} author of review [disinfo]: {" Mullins claims about the second world war involve a conspiracy by Canaanites and Freemasons, and the ridiculous assertion that Hitler's party was a party of German Jews, when the Jews were Hitler's intended victims. Mullins makes no mention whatever of the Holocaust of the Jews, not a word about the extermination of 6 million European Jews, turning these victims into, in effect, the aggressors. His fraudulent claim that "the Canaanites" intend to wipe out all white people in a third war is equally as anti-Semitic as the claim that the Jews instigated WW1 and WW2 "} oh yeah?....................to name just a few. I am particularly interested in Mullins assertion about Nazi Germany, as you are well aware. But these notes are but a springboard. The great poet Ezra Pound was incarcerated in a mental hospital and brutally suppressed but somehow his very successful proteges ( Hemingway, Eliot, Yeats, Joyce, were among that company ) managed to eke out to an unwitting world some of the sheer profundity of his thought. He was actually politically assassinated for being the most influential thinker and writer to expose the crime of the Federal Reserve Bank. It is our humble Eustace Mullins, who was his last and most faithful protege', and hopefully has carried that work of exposition to a final successful fruition. I only mention it here in suggesting that Mullins is certainly no third rate clown, but someone to be seriously reckoned with, whether you agree with him or not. One more thing, if I may. Have you ever read Koestler's 'Roots of Coincidence' ?? Maybe that theory will explain this Ashke-Nazi shit once and for all. See my spread on "Douglas Feith's Gestapo Office" ( Spetzoperazye ! ) here ?-- http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/628
Feith calls prewar lies 'good government' |--Over and out.

Interesting challenges, Quasimodo. First of all, sorry for misreading you: "LET'S STICK TO THE FACTS" ! Haven't I already pegged you as empirical enough ? You have, and I misunderstood. In my milieu to be 'empirical' is an insult and a derogatory term, but you're right - it just means sticking to the facts. That's my method and why I haven't read Koestler's "The Roots of Coincidence" - since I do not go in for parapsychology and the paranormal.
So, on to Mullins and the Blood Libel. Actually, on the one hand I am 100% convinced that the whole fuss that has been made about Prof. Ariel Toaff's new book 'Pasque di Sangue' has only one goal: procuring massive sales for this new book by an italian/israeli academic. It's all about money, since these guys would sell their mothers and sisters (the wives they already sell) in order to make money. Look at what happened as Prof. Toaff returned to Israel: he has been backed by academia and sanctions against him have been ruled out (today's news), despite a petition, to 'terminate' this canard. So, in my view, a big fuss just to make Prof. Toaff earn big money with his book. On the other hand, though, I now do believe this Blood Libel legend must have a basis of truth (just as in the case of the poisoning of wells by Jews during the Black Death plague - see my comment on this) because sabbatean/frankist sectarian Ashkenazis have been involved, Toaff says. Wolves in sheep's clothing, in fact.
As for Eustace Mullins' 'Curse of Canaan', I did say I find his book a little too far fetched and truly anti-semitic. He seems to ascribe all evils in man's history to the Canaanites and their semitic likes, even to the point of the Ashkenazi-Khazars being the offsprings of the dreadful (?) Edomites with the humble (!) Turks. Not to mention the thesis, which you spouse Quasimodo, that the german Nazis were in fact Ashke-Nazis. Hold it right there, pal! Canaan is the ancient name of modern Palestine-Lebanon and to call all of its inhabitants Canaanites is inappropriate. On the coastline lived Phoenicians, yaphetite people, and even if some inhabitants of Canaan used a semitic language, this does not mean they were all Semites [this brings me to another controversial point, about Scythians and Sarmatians speaking an iranian language, but being most probably Turanians too; similarly the modern south-Ossetians; language does not entirely define ethnicity: the Ashkenazis spoke Yiddish, Russian and now English, but they are neither Germans, nor Slavs or Anglo-Saxons, are they?]. So even though the Amorites and Moabites were semitic, who knows what was exactly the ethnicity of the early Jews of Crimea (greek Taurid, then Little Khazaria or Gazaria, then Cumania, then ...) and in any case the evidence is that the khazar aristocracy and elite converted en masse to Judaism without collective marriage with such Jews.
Re. Mullins' contention about Hitler's Nazi Party being the political party of the German Jews, I offered you my view - entirely empirical - in terms of Nazism as sorcery devised to contain the ashkenazi banker's other sorcery, Bolshevism, designed for Russia's Czars only - and with both sorceries then degenerating and escaping the control of the very same wizards who created them in the first place.
In summary, I do see Mullins' contention about the Blood Libel being now vindicated, perhaps, but I remain very skeptical about the rest of his theses. Anti-'semitism' is a politically- and historically-flawed passion amongst the Gentiles and I would rather see it replaced - more realistically - by anti-turanism.

history worm; I am well aware that a Biblical realm of 'myth' is not exactly your forte, or your 'cup of meat', to be exact. So I shall leave it up to Mighty Quinn the Eskimo and his Turanic Amerindians for now, because, Lord knows, when Quinn the Eskimo get's here, everybody's gonna jump for joy. The only excuse I have for waxing Biblical with a dyed-in-the-wool historian, is to once again attempt to draw a line between archetypal myth and the apocryphal reality of history. This assorted baggage has been so essential, I just can't let go of it, even though I tried several times to finally dump it quite unceremoniously on your doorstep. I only tried to 'raise Cain' with you for a specific reason, in light of Mullins, and in light of all our previous rambling, which is considerable. All this monkey business would seem unfinished if not for some passing mention of what has come to be known as a "Serpent Seed Theory", which has been floating around in one form or another for millennia. I would think you had some passing acquaintance with it, but I can't simply assume that. It is of interest here primarily as a germinal element of Mullin's work, and also in relation to our hypothetical debate of species over race or vice versa. I simply wanted to outline a few points, and eliminate some possible misconceptions you may have. Mullins begins here: pp. 2-3. {There was a pre-Adamic race (prior to Adam and Eve), whose leader was Satan. Satan impregnated Eve, and the child was Cain.}......There you have a basic encapsulization of what is known as the "Serpent Seed Theory". Whether or not you might lend it any creedence whatsoever is immaterial at this point. My point is, there is no underestimating the all pervasive influence this simple little perverted occult "legend", ( or myth,) has had on what we might call "Racial" History, or "Racial Memory". Distinctions of race seem to be a stronger suit for you in the factual world. But the thing is here, if I were to try to confound you at all with my "specism" proposition, this is likely to be the most convenient point of convergence. This 'serpentine' theory which Mullins espouses ( but which is not his own, by any means ) could be the most accessible catalyst to any further discussion related to separate and distinct species. To follow up:
pp. 6-7. { Noah and his family were the last remaining pure blooded Adamites. HAM, the SECOND son of Noah had intercourse with a PRE-ADAMIC WOMAN on the Ark. This woman was dark-skinned. Their off-spring was a black son named Cush. Ham also had a SON CALLED CANAAN who was of MIXED RACE. Noah cursed Canaan saying he should be a slave because Canaan attempted to have homosexual relations with him.} OK, where am I going with this ? I mainly want you to distinguish WHO it is that Mullins thinks these people are.
p. 8. { The Canaanites - THE DESCENDANTS OF CANAAN-- [ not necessarily the people of the proverbial Land of Canaan ] - practice demon-worship, occult rites, child sacrifice, and cannibalism.}.... shall we throw in ritual murder for good measure ? and again:
p. 11. { Ham brought MIXED RACE CHILDREN into the world. His consort Naamah encouraged Ham to engage in RITUAL MURDER [ there it is ! ] and CANNIBALISM, and told Ham that by killing and eating FAIR SKINNED PEOPLE, his descendants could regain their superior qualities. Throughout the following centuries, the FAIR-SKINNED DESCENDANTS of Noah have been ritually slaughtered by the "DARKER" descendants of Ham.}

pp. 12-13.{ Over the last 3000 years, the DARKER descendants of Ham have engaged in genocide against the white descendants of Noah. } Okay, we're almost to a point where I can FACTUALLY state that Mullins considers the ADAMIC stem of SHEM, the 1st son, as the FAIR SKINNED, ADAMIC SHEMITES, or SEMITES, same difference. He considers the descendants of HAM, through CANAAN, to be of MIXED RACE, HAMITIC, CANAANITES, for lack of a better word. We're not talking geography here, or linguistics, or politics, or anthropology. We're talking about RACIAL HISTORY, mythical or factual, whether you like it or not. Since we have gone to such great pains to explode this ANTISHEMITIC SEMANTICAL FRAUD, I'm going to keep beating it to death until it dies a most cruel death, just as hard as you are pounding on the Turanian definitions. Again:.. ( please read this in light of foregoing ) pp. 18-19. { God commands the WHITE PEOPLE ( THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ) to rid themselves of CANAANITES.}...So here's where it gets really good. Mullins is essentially saying that the ADAMIC WHITE PEOPLE are the TRUE SEMITES, and are the TRUE CHILDREN of ISRAEL ! Do you see where I'm going with this ? Although we haven't even touched the 3rd or JAPHETIC branch, I'm simply trying to determine what constitutes a SEMITIC group. Although Mullins consistently refers to the "darker" descendants of Ham as the CANAANITES, I think he might be wiser to refer to them as the MIXED RACE, which could conceivably be your 1st TURANIAN RACE, because it stems from a PRE-ADAMIC root, which was later confounded with the 2nd or HAMITIC RACE. Here he goes again:
pp 32-33. { Noah's first son, Shem, is the father of the fair-haired, fair-skinned, predominantly blue-eyed, healthy, creative, productive, people. Hence white people are Shemites or Semites. THEREFORE WHITE PEOPLE CANNOT BE ANTI-SEMITES BECAUSE THEY ARE SEMITES. ( The Canaanites are generally shorter, darker, more furtive, almost always engaged in criminal activity, usually with special government approval. The Canaanites determination is to exterminate the people of Shem; they are also Communists.)} ...Now as cryptical and comical as that might sound, Mullins is still being quite consistent here. Who has ever said this more plainly ? Everyone would fit into this designation, regardless of skin tone ( including Arabic ) that is not Negroid or Mongoloid, except for this 1st, MIXED TURANIAN ? RACE, ( or SPECIES as I might have it ) The review these examples are taken from is of course hopelessly muddled, but is a perfect example of the extent of this colossal dichotomy of misunderstanding. There is no denying that Mullins is racist, but in a much larger sense, if that is possible. This is where I must decry the utter hypocrisy of the whole "RACISM" analogy, which I consider to be just another bugaboo, somewhat resembling our old nemesis, ANTISEMITISM, which we have hopefully slain once and for all in these pages...TIME OUT !

Sorry Quasimodo, cannot keep up with everything, will reply properly some other time.
However, I've said already I consider Mullins' racial and RACIST contentions too far-fetched.

See ya round, catch ya later, history worm ! What I've really been trying to get at is an ancient HISTORICAL account of ancestral INCEST, which is even more intriguing to me than your 'blood libel'. I leave you once again to your own devices, and I certainly hope to catch up with you again, one of these days.