"Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews [Israelites] and are not, but lie -- indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you (Revelation 3:9)."

According to Benjamin Freedman the Khazars' conversion to Judaism was first precipitated by their monarch's abhorrence of the moral climate into which his kingdom had descended. Freedman has claimed -- and other historians confirmed -- that the "primitive" Khazars engaged in extremely immoral forms of religious practices, among them phallic worship. Animal sacrifices were also included in their rites.

The Khazar religious structure centered around a shamanism known as Tengri, which incorporated the worship of spirits and the sky as well as zoolatry, the worship of animals. Tengri was also the name of their "immortal god who created the world," and the primary animal sacrifices made to this deity were horses. [1]

The actual mechanics of the Khazarian kingdom's turn to Judaism was, most historians agree, rather well thought out -- from a humanistic perspective at least -- rather than random and capricious as some have believed.

According to George Vernadski, in his book A History of Russia, in A.D. 860 a delegation of Khazars were sent to Constantinople (now known as Istanbul), which was then what remained of the ancient capitol of the old Roman Empire turned Christian under the Emperor Constantine. Their message was:

"We have known God the Lord of everything [referring here to Tengri] from time immemorial...and now the Jews are urging us to accept their religion and customs, and the Arabs, on their part, draw us to their faith, promising us peace and many gifts." [2]

This appeal, in all its implications, was obviously made for the purpose of drawing the Christian Roman Empire into the debate with an eye perhaps toward a balanced argument amongst the major monotheistic religions.

Brook makes the observation that "this statement reveals that the Jews were actively seeking converts in Khazaria in 860." He also adds that "in the year 860, [Christian] Saints Cyril and Methodius were sent as missionaries to the Khazars by the Byzantine emperor Michael III....since the Khazars had requested that a Christian scholar come to Khazaria to debate with the Jews and Muslims." [3]

Inasmuch as the world has seldom (or perhaps never) witnessed any culture of people more adept at the art of religious debate than rabbinical Jews, the Khazar's conversion to Talmudic Judaism is not a surprising outcome, given that such a forum was to be the determining factor in their choice, rather than purely spiritual perceptions. The outcome was even further assured by the fact that the Christian representatives in the debate came from a church in the latter formative years of the Holy Roman Empire in which, by that time, spiritual sensitivity had become somewhat rare to nearly extinct.

It was at that period of time (about A.D. 740) that King Bulan of Khazaria was reputed to have converted to Judaism. In the debate amongst the Islamic mullah, the Christian priest and the Jewish rabbi, each presented to the king the advantages and truths of his own precepts of faith. This king, however, according to some accounts of history, had his own logic for determining which he should embrace. He asked each representative in turn, which of the other two faiths he considered superior. The result was that the Muslim indicated Judaism over Christianity, and the Christian priest chose it over Islam. The king then concluded that Judaism, being the foundation upon which both of the other monotheistic religions were built, would be that which he and his subjects should embrace. The Khazars, themselves being monotheistic, had also apparently expressed reservations about the pagan polytheistic nature of the Trinity doctrine of the Christians. [4]

So as not to exclude the Islamic account of these events, the following is taken by D. M. Dunlop from al-Bakri's eleventh century work the Book of Kingdoms and Roads:

"The reason for the conversion of the king of the Khazars, who had previously been a heathen, to Judaism was as follows. He had adopted Christianity. Then he recognized the wrongness of his belief and began to speak with one of his governors about the concern with which he was filled. The other said to him, O king, the People of the Book form three classes. Invite them and enquire of them, then follow whichever is in possession of the truth. So he sent to the Christians for a bishop. Now there was with him a Jew skilled in debate, who disputed with the bishop, asking him, What do you say about Moses, son of Amram, and the Torah which was revealed to him? The other replied, Moses is a Prophet, and the Torah is true.

"Then said the Jew to the king. He has admitted the truth of my creed. Ask him now what he believes. So the king asked him and he replied, I say that the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is the Word, and that he has made known the mysteries in the name of God. Then the Jew said to the king of the Khazars, He confesses a doctrine which I know not, while he admits what I set forth. But the bishop was not strong in bringing proofs. So he invited the Muslims, and they sent him a learned and intelligent man who understood disputation. But the Jew hired someone against him who poisoned him on the way, so that he died. And the Jew was able to win the king for his religion." [5]

Koestler presents an interesting alternative to these views. His position was that the king's conversion was essentially a political decision. "At the beginning of the eighth century," he writes, "the world was polarized between the two super-powers representing Christianity and Islam. Their ideological doctrines were welded to power-politics pursued by the classical methods of propaganda, subversion and military conquest."

It may be observed here that it is quite evident modern [Catholic] Christianity has well learned this same form of statecraft (propaganda, subversion and military conquest) inasmuch as they have torn a page directly from the first millennium history of the church.

"The Khazar Empire represented a Third Force," Koestler continues, "which had proved equal to either of them, both as an adversary and an ally. But it could only maintain its independence by accepting neither Christianity nor Islam -- for either choice would have automatically subordinated it to the authority of the Roman Emperor or the Caliph of Baghdad." [6]

Although they suffered no want of protracted efforts by either Islam or Christianity to convert the Khazars to their respective religions, it resulted in no more than an exchange of political and dynastic courtesies (i.e., intermarriages and shifting military alliances, etc.). It was clear that the Khazars were determined to preserve their supremacy as a "Third Force" in the world, and undisputed leader of the countries and tribal nations of the Trans-Caucasus. They saw that the adoption of one of the great monotheistic religions would confer upon their monarch the benefit of both prelatic and judicial authority that their system of shamanism could not, and that the rulers of the other two powers clearly enjoyed. [7]

J. B. Bury concurs: "There can be no question," he says, "that the ruler was actuated by political motives in adopting Judaism. To embrace Mohammadanism would have made him the spiritual dependent of the Caliphs, who attempted to press their faith on the Khazars, and in Christianity lay the danger of his becoming an ecclesiastical vassal of the Roman Empire. Judaism was a reputable religion with sacred books which both Christian and Mohammadan respected; it elevated him above the heathen barbarians, and secured him against the interference of Caliph or Emperor." [8]

It would be illogical, however, to think that the Khazarian rulers had embraced Judaism blindly without intimate knowledge of what they were accepting. They had encountered the faith numerous times throughout the preceding century from traders and refugees fleeing persecution at the hands of the Romans, and, to a lesser degree, Jewish flight from the Arab conquests of Asia Minor.

Benjamin Freedman expresses differently the science behind the process of choosing a national Khazarian religion. He claims they were much more informal and random, and not nearly so intellectual in their approach.

It matters little what the mechanics were of the conversion of the Khazar kingdom to Judaism. It matters only that it happened -- and that it happened with a clanging historical ring that resounds to the present age!

"The religion of the Hebrews," writes John Bury, "had exercised a profound influence on the creed of Islam, and it had been a basis for Christianity; it had won scattered proselytes; but the conversion of the Khazars to the undiluted religion of Jehovah is unique in history." [9]

It is indeed a unique historical event, as Bury claims; however it is also interesting that he should refer to their conversion to Talmudic Judaism as "to the undiluted religion of Jehovah." It is evident that present-day Ethiopian Jews would disagree with Mr. Bury on this matter since they do not adhere to the precepts of the Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash or any of the extra-biblical writings that have arisen since the close of the Old Testament canon. These Jews of North Africa claim only Torah as their scriptural authority. And, unlike their distant "brothers" of the Talmud, they practice their religion quietly and with relatively no involvement in worldly politics.

According to an ancient document entitled King Joseph's Reply to Hasdai ibn Shaprut, Joseph (a later Khazarian king) stated that, "From that time on the Almighty God helped him [King Bulan] and strengthened him. He and his slaves circumcised themselves and he sent for and brought wise men of Israel who interpreted the Torah for him and arranged the precepts in order." [10]

There appears to be as many historical accounts as to how King Bulan was converted to Judaism as there are historians and mystics to present them. Many of them involve visions of angels, such as the tale by a Sephardic Jewish philosopher detailing a dream in which an angel told the king that his "intentions are desirable to the Creator" but the continued observance of shamanism was not. [11] In the aforementioned document, King Joseph's Reply, its author claims that in that same dream God promised King Bulan that if he would abandon his pagan religion and worship the only true God that He would "bless and multiply Bulan's offspring, and deliver his enemies into his hands, and make his kingdom last to the end of the world".

It is believed by scholars that the dream was designed to simulate the Covenant in Genesis and meant to imply "that the Khazars too claimed the status of a Chosen Race, who made their own Covenant with the LORD, even though they were not descended from Abraham's seed." [12] [emphasis supplied]

Ashkenaz in Asia Minor (Turkey), along with Togarma, Meshech and Tubal -- Baker's Bible Atlas

King Joseph corroborates this in his document as he claims to have positively traced his family's ancestry back, not to Shem the father of the "Shemites" or Semite peoples, but to another of Noah's sons. "Though a fierce Jewish nationalist, proud of wielding the 'scepter of Judah'," Koestler says, "he cannot, and does not, claim for them Semitic descent; he traces their ancestry...to...Noah's third son, Japheth; or more precisely to Japheth's grandson, Togarma, the ancestor of all Turkish tribes."

Koestler adds a footnote to King Joseph's genealogical claims that is piercingly relevant to this study: "It also throws a sidelight on the frequent description of the Khazars as the people of Magog. Magog, according to Genesis 10:2-3 was the much maligned uncle of Togarma." Add to this that two other of the sons of Japheth, the progenitor of the Khazars, are Meshech and Tubal, central figures in biblical prophecies of the end times.

King Joseph's Reply also revealed that the successor to King Bulan, his son Obediah, "reorganized the kingdom and established the [Jewish] religion properly and correctly," bringing in numerous Jewish sages who "explained to him the twenty-four books [the Torah], Mishnah, Talmud, and the order of prayers."

This entrenchment in the Jewish religion outlasted the kingdom itself and was transplanted, whole cloth, into the Eastern European settlements of Russia and Poland. [13]

Whatever the religious machinery (and/or chicanery) that was set in motion to accomplish the task, the consequence is historically undeniable that the Khazarian king was indeed converted to Talmudic Judaism. And the temporal consequences of that conversion have rung down through history like a warped and distorted bell, answering clearly to prophetic declarations of the last days of earth's history.

The Decline of the Khazars and the Emergence of the Ashkenazim

The Khazarian kingdom reached its peak of power and world influence in the latter half of the eighth century. The death knell of their empire was eventually seen in the dragon-headed ships of the Vikings who were to cross and navigate all the major waterways in their onslaughts. Even the legendary ferocity of the Khazars was outdistanced by these Norsemen who "did not deign to trade until they failed to vanquish; they preferred bloodstained, glorious gold to a steady mercantile profit." [14] They were also called Rus, from which descended, among others, the Russians.

Because historical Scandinavian literature did not begin until after the time of the Vikings, little of actual fact is known of them, with much of it apocryphal and contradictory and almost none of it laudatory. Of their military powers, however, virtually all accounts are in harmony. In his book, The Magyars in the Ninth Century, C. A. Macartney quotes the Arab historian, Ibn Rusta:

"These people are vigorous and courageous and when they descend on open ground, none can escape from them without being destroyed and their women taken possession of, and themselves taken into slavery." [15]

There was even coined a specific term for the Viking ferocity: berserksgangr, from which is derived the English word berserk.

"Such were the prospects," says Koestler, "which...faced the Khazars."

Even in light of their viciousness and military prowess, these Norse Vikings focused their pillaging assaults on the Byzantine Roman Empire, preferring to trade with the Khazars rather than to tangle with them. Though eventually outmatched in ferocity, the Khazars were still able, for a while, to exact their ten percent taxes even from the Vikings on all of their "cargo" (more correctly spelled plunder) that passed through their land.

An interesting story emerges from this period of the Khazar Empire that gives a clear vignette of the emerging cultural schematic that was eventually to be scattered throughout the world.

In 912 the Rus Vikings, with an armada of 500 ships, each manned by 100 warriors, were set on invading and plundering the Muslim lands south of the Khazars, with whom the Khazars had a loose alliance of protection due to the thousands of loyal Muslims in the Kagan's army. The Rus commander sent a letter to the Kagan asking permission to pass through his territory, to which the Khazar king acceded on condition of receiving half of the spoils upon their return.

On the Viking's return from their bloody mission, and paying the tribute required by the Khazars, the Muslims loyal to the Khazarian monarch, who lived in the eastern part of his kingdom, requested of the Kagan that they be permitted to fight the Vikings in retaliation for what they had done to their brethren to the south. The king granted them permission to do so, which resulted in the complete eradication of the Rus force -- except for five thousand who escaped and were subsequently killed by the Butas and Bulgars to the north.

Here pictured is a classical perspective of what was to become the Khazar/Jewish heritage in nearly all their dealings -- business, social or cultural: a king who becomes a willing though passive confederate of marauding Rus/Vikings, claims half of the loot they have taken in their bloody assault, licenses a retributive attack against them by Muslims under his own command, but then informs the Vikings of the imminent reprisal he himself has authorized! [16]

The weakening of the Khazar military influence had a very wide and unexpected influence in that it greatly hastened the extinction of the Byzantine Empire. They no longer had a powerful force on their eastern borders to prevent the Vikings, Mongols and others from invading an already weakened dominion. This, and internal factions within Khazaria, was the prolog to the scattering of the Khazar/Jewish seed throughout Russia and eastern Europe -- and eventually, as shall be shown, to the reshaping of world history.

The swan song of the Khazar kingdom was not a precipitous decline in a climactic or decisive series of battles, but rather a gradual, evolutionary succumbing to superior forces over a protracted period of time.

"In general, the reduced Khazar kingdom persevered," says S. W. Baron. "It waged a more or less effective defense against all foes until the middle of the thirteenth century, when it fell victim to the great Mongol invasion set in motion by Jenghiz Khan. Even then it resisted stubbornly until the surrender of all its neighbors....But before and after the Mongol upheaval the Khazars sent many offshoots into the unsubdued Slavonic lands, helping ultimately to build up the great Jewish centers of eastern Europe." [17]

"Here, then," remarks Arthur Koestler, "we have the cradle of the numerically strongest and culturally dominant part of modern Jewry."

The ancient Hebrew nation had started branching into the Diaspora long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Ethnically, the Semitic tribes on the waters of the Jordan and the Turko-Khazar tribes on the Volga were of course "miles apart", but they had at least two important formative factors in common. Each lived at a focal junction where the great trade routes connecting east and west, north and south intersect; a circumstance which predisposed them to become nations of traders, of enterprising travelers, or "rootless cosmopolitans" -- as hostile propaganda has unaffectionately labeled them.

But at the same time their exclusive religion fostered a tendency to keep to themselves and stick together, to establish their own communities with their own places of worship, schools, residential quarters and ghettoes (originally self-imposed) in whatever town or country they settled. This rare combination of wanderlust and ghetto-mentality, reinforced by Messianic hopes and chosen-race pride, both ancient Israelites and mediaeval Khazars shared -- even though the latter traced their descent not to Shem [S[h]emites] but to Japheth." [underscore supplied]

This more recent "Diaspora" resulted in a strong, oftentimes politically overwhelming, Khazar/Jewish influence in especially Hungary and Poland, but also in the whole of Eastern Europe. Jews were found in positions of power and political influence in virtually every major category of life, business and society. There may have already been a small population of what Koestler calls "real Jews" living in that region, "but there can be little doubt that the majority of modern Jewry originated in the migratory waves of...Khazars who play such a dominant part in early Hungarian history".

The Khazar influx into the Hungary/Poland region was only a small part of an overall "mass-migration" from their homeland to Eastern and Central Europe. They were employed as "mint-masters, administrators of the royal revenue, controllers of the salt monopoly [at that time salt was a valuable commodity often used in place of money. From this comes the saying "worth his salt"], tax collectors and 'money-lenders' -- i.e., bankers." [18]

Western European Jews historically displayed such a talent and acumen at trading and as usurers (money lenders) that in virtually any society and culture in which they found themselves, they became the possessors of and controlling influence over large portions of that nation's wealth. "In the 'dark ages' the commerce of Western Europe," wrote Cecil Roth in the 1973 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, "was largely in Jewish hands, not excluding the slave trade, and...Jew and Merchant are used as almost interchangeable terms."

"The floating wealth of the country," Roth continued, "was soaked up by the Jews, who were periodically made to disgorge into the exchequer [national or royal treasury]" [19] It was evident that the ruling class periodically became intimidated by the mass of their nation's wealth accumulating to the hands of so small a minority -- and a very clannish minority at that. This would logically give any ruling authority cause for concern -- when a particular group virtually controls the nation's economics while at the same time appearing to have a tenuous allegiance to the country in which they reside. Such a course of events evidently led to the creation of a stereotyping blueprint for Jews and Jewish communities that has been expressed -- and reacted to -- in various cultures for centuries.

"The nucleus of modern Jewry," remarks Koestler, "thus followed the old recipe: strike out for new horizons but stick together." [20] This, as previously mentioned, was the course of Western European Jews, but the similarity between them and the Khazarian Jews is striking, especially in their unequalled aptitude at things economical and political.

This mass of historical data "has lead several historians to conjecture that a substantial part, and perhaps the majority of eastern Jews -- and hence of world Jewry -- might be of Khazar, and not of Semitic origin."

The far-reaching implications of this hypothesis may explain the great caution exercised by historians in approaching this subject -- if they do not avoid it altogether. Thus in the 1973 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica the article "Khazars" is signed by Dunlop, but there is a separate section dealing with "Khazar Jews after the Fall of the Kingdom", signed by the editors, and written with the obvious intent to avoid upsetting believers in the dogma of the Chosen Race. [underscore supplied] [21]

Abraham N. Poliak, Tel Aviv University's post-war Professor of Mediaeval Jewish History, wondered at "how far we can go in regarding this [Khazar] Jewry as the nucleus of the large Jewish settlement in Eastern Europe. The descendants of this settlement," Poliak declares, "those who stayed where they were, those who emigrated to the United States and to other countries, and those who went to Israel -- constitute now the large majority of world Jewry." [emphasis supplied] [22] Some historians, such as Austrian Hugo Kutschera, assert that Eastern European Jewry was not part, but entirely of Khazarian origin. [23]

The Language of the Khazars

Still further proof that the Jews of Eastern Europe had no origins in the West is Yiddish, the language commonly used by the Eastern Jews. Yiddish was, until the latter part of the twentieth century, a dying language. It is an amalgamation of several tongues, primarily Hebrew, and written with Hebrew characters, but which includes much of mediaeval German and components of other languages like Slavonic. The German elements incorporated into Yiddish have been clearly shown to have originated in the east of Germany where it joined the Slavonic regions of Eastern Europe. Yiddish is a sort of linguistic "sponge" in that it readily absorbs and incorporates whatever words or idiomatic expressions best suit its purpose. It would therefore naturally have become a cultural marker for whatever region in which it was spoken, absorbing the telltale indicators of dialect like a tattoo. [24]

When Khazars in the first century B.C. invaded eastern Europe their mother-tongue was an Asiatic language, referred to in the Jewish Encyclopedia as the "Khazar languages." They were primitive Asiatic dialects without any alphabet or any written form. When King Bulan was converted in the seventh century, he decreed that the Hebrew characters he saw in the Talmud and other Hebrew documents were thereupon to become the alphabet for the Khazar language. The Hebrew characters were adopted to the phonetics of the spoken Khazar language. The Khazars adopted the characters of the so-called Hebrew language in order to provide a means for providing a written record of their speech. The adoption of the Hebrew characters had no racial, political or religious implication.

The western European uncivilized nations which had no alphabet for their spoken language adopted the alphabet of the Latin language under comparable circumstances. With the invasion of western Europe by the Romans, the civilization and the culture of the Romans was introduced into these uncivilized areas. Thus the Latin alphabet was adopted for the language of the French, Spanish, English, Swedish and many other western European languages. These languages were completely foreign to each other yet they all use the same alphabet. The Romans brought their alphabet with their culture to these uncivilized nations exactly like the rabbis brought the Hebrew alphabet from Babylonia to the Khazars when they introduced them in the form of the Talmud's alphabet.

Since the conquest of the Khazars by the Russians and the disappearance of the Khazar Kingdom the language of the Khazars is known as Yiddish. For about six centuries the so-called or self-styled "Jews" of eastern Europe have referred to themselves -- while still resident in their native eastern European countries -- as "Yiddish" by nationality. They identified themselves as "Yiddish" also. There are today in New York City many "Yiddish" newspapers, "Yiddish" theatres, and many other cultural organizations of so-called or self-styled "Jews" from eastern Europe which are identified publicly by the word "Yiddish" in their title.

Before it became known as the "Yiddish" language, the mother-tongue of the Khazars added many words to its limited ancient vocabulary as necessity required. These words were acquired from the languages of its neighboring nations with whom they had political, social or economic relations. Languages of all nations add to their vocabularies in the same way. The Khazars adapted words to their requirements from the German, the Slavonic and the Baltic languages. The Khazars adopted a great number of words from the German language. The Germans had a much more advanced civilization than their Khazar neighbors and the Khazars sent their children to German schools and universities.

The "Yiddish" language is not a German dialect. Many people are led to believe so because "Yiddish" has borrowed so many words from the German language. If "Yiddish" is a German dialect acquired from the Germans, then what language did the Khazars speak for the 1000 years they exited in eastern Europe before they acquired culture from the Germans? The Khazars must have spoken some language when they invaded eastern Europe. What was that language? When did they discard it? How did the entire Khazar population discard one language and adopt another all of a sudden? The idea is too absurd to discuss. "Yiddish" is the modern name for the ancient mother-tongue of the Khazars with added German, Slavonic and Baltic adopted and adapted numerous words.

"Yiddish" must not be confused with "Hebrew" because they both use the same characters as their alphabets. There is not one word of "Yiddish" in ancient "Hebrew" nor is there one word of "Hebrew" in "Yiddish." As stated before, they are as totally different as Swedish and Spanish which both likewise use the same Latin characters for their alphabets. The "Yiddish" language is the cultural common denominator for all the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in or from eastern Europe. To the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in or from eastern Europe, "Yiddish" serves them like the English language serves the populations of the 50 states of the United States. Their cultural common denominator throughout the 50 states is the English languages, or wherever they may emigrate and resettle. The English language is the tie which binds them to each other. It is the same with the "Yiddish" language and so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world.

"Yiddish serves another very useful purpose for so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world. They possess in "Yiddish" what no other national, racial or religious group can claim. Approximately 98% of the world's so-called or self-styled "Jews" living in 42 different countries of the world today are either emigrants from eastern Europe, or their parents emigrated form eastern Europe. "Yiddish" is a language common to all of them as their first or second language according to where they were born. It is an "international" language to them. Regardless of what country in the world they may settle in they will always find co-religionists who also speak "Yiddish." "Yiddish" enjoys other international advantages too obvious to describe here. "Yiddish" is the modern language of a nation, which has lost its existence as a nation. "Yiddish" never had a religious implication, although using Hebrew characters for its alphabet. It must not be confused with words like "Jewish." But it is very much.

The Direction of the Migration

Another respected Austrian historian, Matisyohu Meises, questions, "Could it be that the generally accepted view, according to which the German Jews once upon a time immigrated from France across the Rhine, is misconceived?" Meises, who knew virtually nothing about the Khazars, was perplexed at the fact that no Yiddish linguistic roots whatever could be traced to Western Europe. He also noted that, inexplicably, there was a large geographical gap clearly delineating the Yiddish spoken by the Eastern Khazar transplants from any spoken in Western Europe. [25]

"The evidence," Mr. Koestler nicely summates, "...adds up to a strong case in favor of those modern historians -- whether Austrian, Israeli or Polish -- who, independently from each other, have argued that the bulk of modern Jewry is not of Palestinian, but of Caucasian origin. The mainstream of Jewish migrations did not flow from the Mediterranean across France and Germany to the east and then back again. The stream moved in a consistently westerly direction, from the Caucasus through the Ukraine into Poland and thence into Central Europe. When that unprecedented mass-settlement in Poland came into being, there were simply not enough Jews around in the west to account for it; while in the east a whole nation was on the move to new frontiers." [26]

With the overwhelming evidence that the modern Jewish population is of Khazar origin, Koestler remarks that this would clearly indicate that "their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race; and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." This conclusion would then logically render the epithet "anti-Semitism" "void of meaning," Koestler says.

The latter conclusion is a position Palestinian Arabs might well dispute with Mr. Koestler due to the fact that this revelation ironically places the modern Jew, currently occupying Palestine, in the unenviable position of, themselves, being anti-Semitic -- an historical mockery of somewhat amazing proportions. [27]

What Happened to the Real "Jews"?

But what, one may ask, became of the greater part of the population of "real Jews"?

Often overlooked is the fact that the vast majority of the tribe of Judah ended up in the western confines of the Roman Empire! Among the Saxon invaders of Britain were the JUTES, a people who came (under the leadership of the brothers Hengist and Horsa) from a part of Denmark still called JUTLAND, to settle in Kent and the Isle of Wight. This occurred in the year 449 A.D. Those of the Tribe of Judah were known as Jutes and made their way through Jutland to Britain where the Zarah tribe had previously migrated.

This becomes clear when we remember the great change which took place in the languages of northern Europe some time previous to 100 B.C., whereby a great many words which had previously had in them the sound of our letter "d" changed this to the sound of "t". (Grimm's Law). As this change occurred during the years in which the Saxons were migrating to Western Europe from their old home east of the Black Sea, it is obvious that the people who arrived in Denmark as Jutes must have started out as JUDES or Judai.

Further, as all of the Saxon tribes, including the Jutes, were descended from the SACAE (Sacasene) of Media, it follows that the Sacae must have had among them a tribe called Judes or Judai even before they left Media.

We have, therefore, seven known facts to consider: (1) that when the Israel people were deported to Media by the Assyrians, part of the people of the Kingdom of Judah were taken with them; (2) that, as a consequence, there was among the Israelites in Media a group of Judahites, Judai, or Judes; (3) that following the Jewish-Roman wars of 70 and 135 A.D., as many as possibly 80,000 Judahite slaves were dispersed to the Iberian peninsula by the Romans; (4) that among the Saxons who came into Britain there was a tribe called Jutes; (5) that during the time they were migrating westward across Europe the 'd' in their language became 't'; (6) that the Saxons were descended from the Sacae of Media; and (7) that Sacae is the name by which the Israelites in Media were known to the Persian historians.

It is certain, therefore, that the JUTES were originally called Judes or Judai, and that they were the descendants of that part of the people of JUDAH which the Assyrians carried away with Israel to Media.

The Result of the Crusades

Towards the close of the ninth century the Jewish settlements of Germany, who were nearly all of Semitic origin, had been virtually wiped out by the "mob-hysteria" that resulted from the First Crusade in 1096. The Encyclopedia Britannica on the Crusades vividly sets forth the mindset of the crusaders:

"He might butcher all, till he waded ankle-deep in blood, and then at nightfall kneel, sobbing for very joy, at the altar of the Sepulcher -- for was he not red from the winepress of the Lord?" [28]

The Jews who found themselves in that "winepress" significantly assisted in their own demise. Like those of Masada who committed mass suicide rather than surrender to the armies of Rome, a great many of the Jews of the Rhineland and surrounding countries, when presented with the choice of baptism into "Christianity" or death at the hands of their captors, chose neither, opting for the Masada solution.

Imitating on a grand scale Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac, fathers slaughtered their children and husbands their wives. These acts of unspeakable horror and heroism were performed in the ritualistic form of slaughter with sacrificial knives sharpened in accordance with Jewish law. At times the leading sages of the community, supervising the mass immolation, were the last to part with life at their own hands. In the mass hysteria, sanctified by the glow of religious martyrdom and compensated by the confident expectation of heavenly rewards, nothing seemed to matter but to end life before one fell into the hands of the implacable foes and had to face the inescapable alternative of death at the enemy's hand or conversion to Christianity. [29]

Of the German cities of Worms and Spires, being somewhat representative of the whole of Western European communities that were devastated by the Crusades, Salo Baron writes, "the total Jewish population of either community had hardly exceeded the figures...given for the dead alone". [30]

The most common historical concept, before the modern revelation of the existence of Khazaria, was that the 1096 Crusade literally "swept like a broom" virtually the entire German Jewish population into Poland. This was an invention of apparent necessity because those historians could account by no other means for the inexplicably large population of Eastern European Jews. They concluded this in the face of the total absence of any historical account of a mass migration of Jews to eastern Germany and certainly not Poland.

By the close of the 1300s much of Western Europe was, for all practical purposes, completely empty of any perceivable Jewish population. What the Crusades failed to accomplish in the eradication of Western European Jewry the "Black Death" -- the Bubonic Plagues of the bacilli Pasteurella pestis -- virtually completed. Those Jews of that era suffered doubly; from the plague itself and from the proliferation of superstitious rumors that they were responsible for the disease by poisoning wells, just as they were blamed earlier for "the ritual slaughter of Christian children." This resulted in the burning alive of Jews in great numbers over the whole of Europe. [31] Later some of the Sephardic Jews of Spain immigrated northward, accounting for some of the smaller Jewish populations of Western Europe.

Defining the Term "Jew"

"Because of the long and varied history of the Jews," says the 2001 edition of World Book Encyclopedia, "it is difficult to define a Jew. There is no such thing as a Jewish race. Jewish identity is a mixture of religious, historical, and ethnic factors." Thus, those who might have truly claimed to be of the genealogy of Abraham and of true Semitic origin became extinct in eastern Europe as a discernible race, being replaced by the white Khazars of the Trans-Caucasus, none of whose ancestors, as Benjamin Freedman phrases it, have ever placed a foot in the land of Palestine. This causes a serious problem with modern Christianity's infatuation with the Jews and their "return to their Homeland," begging the question: How can one return to a place where they have never been?

Modern Jews are essentially divided into two major categories, ethnically and culturally: Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

The former are primarily of Spanish origin; the name Sephardim being derived, as we have seen, from Sepharad, the Hebrew word for Spain, and are likely the closest to actual Semitic Jews that can be established apart from the Jutes. They were expelled from Spain toward the beginning of the sixteenth century and immigrated to the eastern Mediterranean and Balkans.

As late as 1960s the Sephardic Jews numbered only about 500,000, compared with the Ashkenazim of the same period estimated at approximately twelve million. [32]

In defining the origins of the Ashkenazim, Alan Brook states that "The geographic location of the Ashkenaz, based on references in the Torah, may be centered around southern Russia, Armenia, and Asia Minor. The ashkaenoi (askae or askai) were the people also known as Phrygians or Mysians (Meshech)." Some historians claim that the name Ashkenaz applies exclusively to German Jews. However, more recent evidence shows that they had immigrated from the southern regions of Russia and western Asia and Asia Minor -- that region clearly identified as the location and origin of the ancient Khazars. The name originally indicated Iranians and was later given as the name of the god of Meshech, Men Askaenos. "It should also be pointed out," Brook adds, "that Ashkenaz did not become a definite Jewish designation for Germany until the eleventh century." [33]

"According to the explanation by the Talmud," writes Hugo Freiherr, "Ashkenaz thus means a country near the Black Sea between Ararat and the Caucasus, within the original region of the Khazar empire." [34] This, again, is precisely the geographic locality of the Khazarian empire. The Talmudic observation is abetted by Scripture which names Ashkenaz as descending not from Shem but from Japheth through Gomer, and whose uncles were Magog and Tubal (See Genesis 10:3).

Ashkenaz (alt. spelling: Ashchenaz) is mentioned in but one scripture other than 1 Chronicles 6:1, which is only another reference to the genealogy as descending from Japheth. In the book of Jeremiah the prophet, God announces that Israel is to call upon other nations as allies in bringing His judgments against Babylon. Among those allies, who are NOT part of Israel or Judah, and therefore could not be numbered as Jews, is Ashchenaz (See Jeremiah 51:27).

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, published a series of booklets entitled, The Race Question in Modern Science, in which one of the authors, Harry Shapiro, states:

"The wide range of variation between Jewish populations in their physical characteristics and the diversity of the gene frequencies of their blood groups render any unified racial classification for them a contradiction in terms. For although modern racial theory admits some degree of polymorphism or variation within a racial group, it does not permit distinctly different groups, measured by its own criteria of race, to be identified as one. To do so would make the biological purposes of racial classification futile and the whole procedure arbitrary and meaningless....despite the evidence efforts continue to be made to somehow segregate the Jews as a distinct racial entity." [35]

Thus, attempting to claim the existence of a "race" of Jews has been proven to be an anthropological impossibility. Though their God consistently warned them against intermingling themselves amongst non-Jewish races, their miscegenistic tendencies are well documented, and has resulted in their complete erasure as a distinct, genetic peoples.

When, inevitably, there was mixing of Western European and Khazarian Jews, there was a notable difference between the educational levels of the two Jewish sub-cultures. The Khazars greatly admired their vastly less numerous but far more learned Western (German speaking) brethren and quickly adopted their language, education and cultural practices. This resulted, also, in an assimilation of their other talents in the area of economics, business and things politik.

"The Khazars were not descended from the Tribes," says Koestler, "but, as we have seen, they shared a certain cosmopolitanism and other social characteristics with their co-religionists." [36]

A National Homeland

Somewhere in the historical roots of the Ashkenazi Khazars there incubated a desire to possess a national Jewish homeland. That desire expressed itself in the form of a Messianic movement in twelfth century Khazaria that took on the texture of a "Jewish crusade" whose goal was the forcible subjugation of Palestine. A Khazar Jew named Solomon ben Duji instigated the movement and began an international correspondence with all the Jews of surrounding nations.

It seems that ben Duji was possessed of messianic delusions of his own in that he claimed that "the time had come in which God would gather Israel, His people from all lands to Jerusalem, the holy city, and that Solomon Ben Duji was Elijah, and his son the Messiah." [37]

This desire for a Jewish homeland echoed down the centuries and found expression again. "It was among Ashkenazi Jews," says the Encyclopedia Americana, "that the idea of political Zionism emerged, leading ultimately to the establishment of the state of Israel....In the late 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews numbered some 11 million, about 84 percent of the world Jewish population." [38]

At times Arthur Koestler, in his broad and extensive treatment of this subject, appears, as a Jew himself, to wrestle with the glaring contradiction that the Jews, who have no genetic or true ethnic identity, are entitled to land they have never, by any right of descent, owned or possessed, and whose ancestors have never occupied. Then, claiming to be the state of Israel, created by United Nations fiat, they arbitrarily removed that land from the possession of those who have legitimately owned and occupied it for thousands of years. Mr. Koestler claims that such right "is not based on the hypothetical origins of the Jewish people, nor on the mythological covenant of Abraham with God; it is based on international law -- i.e., on the United Nations' decision in 1947 to partition Palestine...[actually declared, May 14, 1948.]" [39]

Thus he eliminates what would logically seem to be the most legitimate grounds (if there are any at all) for the establishment of Israel (possession by racial lineage), and bases his argument on the vaporous contention of what he calls "international law".

What the United Nations did in 1948 was arguably to make its first official act a violation of its own charter in the dispossession of over four million Palestinians for the purpose of creating a nation that had no ancestral or current right whatever to the land.

The apparent conflict in Koestler's mind becomes evident in an apparent contradiction as he concludes that the faith of Judaism "transformed the Jews of the Diaspora into a pseudo-nation without any of the attributes and privileges of nationhood, held together loosely by a system of traditional beliefs based on racial and historical premises which turn out to be illusory." [40] Succinctly stated, he maintains that the idea of a Jewish national identity is based on an illusion created by a history that does not exist.

It will be shown that the influx of what we now know to be Jews of Khazarian origin constituted the first "invasion" of Gog from the land of Magog, as prophesied in Biblical scripture. The fascinating aspect of it is that, as with virtually all other prophecies, those claiming theological pre-eminence in their knowledge of Scripture completely missed the fulfillment -- just as did the Jews at the first coming of the Messiah.

Gog, Magog and the Ashkenazim

It has long been the belief of twentieth (and now twenty-first) century Christianity that near the end of this world's history as outlined in the Bible, Gog from the land of Magog, defined by those Christians as Russia -- the "King of the North" -- would invade the Holy Land of present-day Israel.

World and local ministries of the conservative Christian persuasion spend inordinate amounts of time in attempts to "decode" such prophecies as found in Ezekiel 38 and 39, Daniel 11 and Revelation 20 -- and virtually all of them have come to the above stated conclusion. In most cases, belief in the invasion of Israel by Russia and the defeat of anti-Christ in the subsequent war of Armageddon is accompanied by the fact that there will be a one-thousand year reign of peace after the Messiah returns to the earth.

Representative of this almost universal belief are such as Grant Jeffrey, Tim LaHaye (principle co-author of the Left Behind book series), the Jack Van Impe ministries, etc.

Van Impe, a widely known radio and television evangelist, has published volumes of literature on Biblical prophecy and much on the matter of Gog and Magog.

"When Russia heads south to do battle," writes Van Impe in an article entitled Armageddon: The End or the Beginning? "she will be a mighty force as she comes against the Antichrist's army with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships. This is the first military wave," Van Impe continues, "of the three-pronged Armageddon campaign mentioned in Daniel 11:40 when the king of the south (Egypt and her Arab Federation) and the king of the north (Russia) begin their pincer movement. Ezekiel 38:16 says, 'And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.' Once Russia has made her move, the Antichrist will be furious. He will enter the 'glorious land,' Israel."

"Immediately," concludes Van Impe, "he situates himself in Jerusalem."

In reference to former Russian President Boris Yeltzin and other Russian leaders, Van Impe asks, "Could one of these above leaders be the 'Gog' of Ezekiel 38:2?"

This scriptural perspective of Gog invading Israel from the north at some future time is also largely held by Jewish theologians. For example in an October, 1996 Jerusalem Post article entitled "All a-Gog", columnist Moshe Kohn addresses the subject:

"The war to end all wars is to be launched against Eretz Yisrael by 'Gog of the land of Magog, chief prince of Meshech and Tuval' as foretold in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

"We don't know what or who Magog, Meshech, Tuval and Gog are; we only know that Gog and his allies are to come down on Eretz Yisrael from the north. God will then destroy the invaders, and 'I will restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole House of Israel...and I will not hide my face from them any more.'

"The New Testament also mentions the Gog/Magog War, in Revelation 20, as the final battle between the rulers of Earth led by Satan and the forces of God. In that version, this war may also be what is known in Christian tradition as the Battle of Armageddon, a place mentioned in Revelation 16:16." [41]

Notice how some historians view the origins of Gog and Magog:

Flavius Josephus claimed that 'Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians.' [42]

Josephus lived and died a half-millennium before the founding of the Khazar kingdom and therefore could not connect those in the region of the Scythians with the Khazars. The Catholic Encyclopedia observes that "Josephus and others identify Magog with Scythia, but in antiquity this name was used to designate vaguely any northern population." [43]

However Josephus does have an interesting comment on Tubal, the brother of Magog and Meshech, which sounds as if it were tailored specifically for their descendents, the Khazars: "Tubal exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances." [44]

Vasiliev in The Goths in the Crimea quotes from the Life by Saint Abo of Tbilisi, who claimed that "the Khazars were savage 'sons of Magog' who had 'no religion whatever, although recognizing the being of a sole god.'" [45]

References made by Rabbi Petakhiah in his travelogue Sibbuv ha-Olam, concerning the conversion of King Bulan to Judaism, makes mention that the kingdom was that of ancient Meshech. [46]

Much in harmony with Biblical prophetic terminology, Koestler writes that the Persians and the Byzantines referred to Khazaria as the "Kingdom of the North" with whom nearly all modern theologians connect Gog and Magog. [47]

Ibn Fadlan, the noted Arab traveler of the 700s made the comment in his journals that "the Khazars and their king are all Jews. The Bulgars and their neighbors are subject to him. They treat him with worshipful obedience. Some are of the opinion that Gog and Magog are the Khazars."

"Westphalian monk, Christian Druthmar of Aquitania, wrote a Latin treatise Expositio in Evangelium Mattei, in which he reports that there exist people under the sky in regions where no Christians can be found, whose name is Gog and Magog, and who are Huns; among them is one, called the Gazari [Khazars] who are circumcized and observe Judaism in its entirety." [48]

"After a century of warfare," Koestler notes, the Arab chroniclers "obviously had no great sympathy for the Khazars. Nor had the Georgian or Armenian scribes, whose countries, of a much older culture, had been repeatedly devastated by Khazar horsemen. A Georgian chronicle, echoing an ancient tradition, identifies them with the hosts of Gog and Magog -- 'wild men with hideous faces and the manners of wild beasts, eaters of blood'". [49]

The Talmud -- Avodah Zara 3B states: "The war of Gog and Magog [Russia] will be one of the key events to usher in the Messianic Era." The Jerusalem Targum claims that, "At the end of days, Gog and Magog shall march against Jerusalem, but perish by the hand of Messiah."

Simply speaking, "Gog is a symbolic name, representing the leader of the world powers antagonistic to God." (The Imperial Bible Dictionary)

In response to those who believe that Gog in the land of Magog is specifically Russia, Revelation 20:8 provides a clarification as to the true geographical region of Gog in the last days: "the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog,..." This world force, from "the four quarters of the earth" is ubiquitous, not existing in Russia only; not just exclusive to the area of the compass north of Palestine. The names Gog and Magog appear to be used only as an indication of their origins, not their final location.

There is but one identifiable group which fits that "ubiquitous" designation of occupying "the four quarters of the earth"; a group whose religious-cultural identity has remained intact, though their ethnic origins have vanished in antiquity; that, in spite of two thousand years of being decimated by persecution, forced emigration, disease and war, have still survived; whose roots are precisely where prophetic Scripture says they would be -- in the northland of Magog, the southern steppes of Russia.

Just as the Jews, by misinterpreting Scripture to suit their nationalistic desires, missed the first coming of their Messiah, so also have Christians, in the same way, reinventing the same mistakes, missed the prophetic issues of the last days -- and -- the future appearance of the Messiah. They have placed the invasion of Palestine as being sometime in the future when it has already taken place, and in such an unexpected manner as to have come upon them, as does the Messiah, like "a thief in the night."

As one nineteenth-century prophet wrote: "The world is no more ready to credit the message for this time than were the Jews to receive the Savior's warning concerning Jerusalem." [50] This is clearly as much the case now as when those words were penned.

A Homeland for Gog and Magog

"If the present trend continues for another 37 years in the same direction and at the same rate traveled for the past 37 years, the Christian faith as it is professed today by Christians will have disappeared from the face of the earth. In what form or by what instrumentality the mission of Jesus Christ will thereupon and thereafter continue to make itself manifest here on earth is as unpredictable as it is inevitable" -- Benjamin H. Freedman.

"In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America" -- The Seventh Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion.

"It is not my intention in this letter to expose the conspirators who are dedicating themselves to the destruction of the Christian faith nor to the nature and extent of the conspiracy itself. That exposure would fill many volumes. The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy. The Christian clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspiracy than other Christians. The Christian clergy may be shocked to learn that they have been aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of the Christian faith" -- Freedman.

"Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion: as to other religions we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them. We shall act clericalism and clericals into such narrow frames as to make their influence move in retrogressive proportion to its former progress" -- The Seventeenth Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion.

"What secret mysterious power has been able for countless generations to keep the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom out of history text-books and out of class-room courses in history throughout the world? The origin and history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom are certainly incontestable historical facts" -- Freedman.

"Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it -- The First Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Benjamin Freedman, as mentioned earlier, was an Ashkenazic Jew who was highly placed in the American government in the early to middle part of the twentieth century and had rather free access to presidents and statesmen up to the Kennedy Administration.

Mr. Freedman, once a wealthy Jewish businessman, became disillusioned with his Jewish heritage after learning of their origins and their political machinations worldwide. Breaking with organized Jewry he spent the majority of his great wealth in attempts to reveal to the world the true driving force behind the establishment of the nation of Israel by the United Nations -- as well as other historical misconceptions concerning the Khazarian roots of modern Judaism.

In a compelling narrative of the world history of that era, Freedman relates the fomenting of the treachery he witnessed in the manipulation of the outcome of WWI.

Germany, according to Freedman and other historians, was apparently winning, and had virtually won, the war, when they made, in the summer of 1916, a very surprising and magnanimous offer to Great Britain. England was in a very precarious position at that time; essentially out of ammunition with food supplies for about one week remaining, to be followed by national starvation; German submarines, taking the Allies completely by surprise, had cut off all shipping convoys. Then came the most unexpected of all -- Germany offered terms for peace.

"At that time," says Freedman, "the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed."

"Not a shot had been fired on German soil" Freedman continues. "Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany" yet they offered peace. And not the ordinary peace of the conqueror to the conquered. The Germans proposed a status quo ante peace settlement -- meaning that both sides would return to the same status as before the initiation of hostilities.

With the enticement of such an offer, and with all other options effectively eliminated, Britain had little choice but to accept. However, there arose another offer, much more attractive to the British ego, which would bring about a victory heretofore impossible.

While Germany was attempting to end the war in a more-than-equitable manner, German Zionists, representing Zionists from Eastern Europe, approached the British War Cabinet and offered them an alternative to merely pretending that a war had never happened.

At this point, it would be well to define "Zionist". Those were (and are) Jews whose dominant purpose was the establishment of a "Jewish Homeland" -- a proposition that the majority of Jews at that time did not endorse. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "Zionism" as "an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel."

At the time that the United Nations decreed Israel to be a legitimate state, May 14, 1948, the most conservative of Jewish sects, the Hasidim, strongly opposed the establishment of a secular state of Israel, claiming that it was wrong to do so apart from the Messiah's coming.

The offer made to the British at the time of Germany's near total victory, consisted of a proposal to bring the United States into the war on Britain's side and thus insure an Allied victory. This was contingent on the British, after the defeat of Germany, agreeing to secure a large section of Palestine as a Jewish homeland -- keeping in mind that this cabal was being created by those who had no connected ancestry, whatever, to the Semitic tribes of ancient Israel, and therefore no ancestral right to fabricate even a remote claim to the region.

Freedman makes the observation that England had no more right to promise Palestine to the Jews than "the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland" -- but that is precisely what they did. This promise resulted in the drafting of a small historical document called The Balfour Declaration. The following is the text, in its entirety, of this short and concise historical document:

"Foreign Office
"November 2nd, 1917

"Dear Lord Rothschild,

"I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

"I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

"Yours sincerely,
"Arthur James Balfour"

Note the second sentence (which is also the second paragraph) which claims that "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Was it perhaps not considered at that time that the forcible dispossession of other persons from their land and property -- namely the Palestinian Arabs -- was a violation or prejudicial to their "civil and religious rights"? That does seem a bit of a stretch.

An interesting point in Freedman's presentation is that the German Jews were very well treated in their land, many of them having fled persecution from Russia and other Eastern European countries. As Freedman puts it, "the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany." Nearly all of the great industrial giants of that time, the Rathenaus, the Balins, Bleichroder, the Warburgs, and of course, the Rothchilds (to whom the Balfour letter is addressed), were Jews and resided in Germany.

What the Zionists did was nothing less than a classical "sell out" of their German homeland. The methods used to bring the United States into the war against Germany also appear to be classical in that it was a pattern for many other such inducements for the US to enter wars it had no business fighting. As with the Serbian conflict and many others of this age, where fabricated atrocities against ethnic minorities, women and children were used to gain the agreement of the American Congress and citizens, so also was that device used to bring the US into WWI.

Freedman notes that the American media, which prior to that had been somewhat pro-German, began reporting that the Germans were engaged in the commission of atrocities which, it was later proven, were utterly false: atrocities such as the shooting of Red Cross nurses and cutting off babies hands, etc.

During Freedman's involvement with matters of state he attended the Paris Conference in 1919, where Germany was presented with demands for reparations. In that conference, according to Mr. Freedman, there were 117 Jews present, being represented by Bernard Baruch, presenting their demands for the partitioning of Palestine as a Jewish homeland.

As to what made it possible for the actual establishment of the State of Israel as opposed to a mere political declaration by the United Nations, Mr. Freedman expounds. "It is a well-established and an undeniable historic fact," he writes, "that the active participation of the United States in the conquest of Palestine, on behalf of the Zionists, was the factor responsible for the conquest of Palestine by the Zionists. Without the active participation of the United States," Freedman reemphasizes, "it is certain that the Zionists would never have attempted the conquest of Palestine by force of arms."

The rest, as it is said, is history.

When one considers all of that history which has been involved in shaping the world and especially the Middle East as it is today, it becomes less of a mystery as to why the Palestinian Muslims are possessed of such an animosity and hatred of those who, according to all that has been presented here, literally stole their lives and lands. It also seems to remove the mystery from the question the American president asked as to why they hate America as much as they do -- America, who has been the chief military supplier and financier of Gog and Magog in the Khazarian usurpation of Palestine. As Mr. Bush has said, "If you support terrorists, you are a terrorist;" so also can it be said by the Muslims, "If you support our enemies who steal our land and our dignity and our history, you are also our enemies."

That message should have rung loud and clear on September 11, 2001 when even two of America's top Christian evangelists (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) claimed that the act was Divine retribution for the sins of America. They, of course, abandoned that unpopular position when public sentiment turned against them. One would have to ask if, in that instance, those two men had effectively defined the terms conviction and commitment for the followers of their brand of "Christianity".

Epilog

Many historians, some cited within this work, quote widely from Arthur Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe as a credible literary resource for a comprehensive history of the Khazars. This writing has also leaned heavily on Mr. Koestler's tome as well as several other Jewish historians and academics. It is interesting to note that of the Jewish scholars citing The Thirteenth Tribe in their historical accounts, virtually none quote such comments of Koestler, previously cited, as "The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated." One would have to ask if such omissions are not intentional and do not amount to a de facto censoring of many unpopular aspects of this interesting and far-reaching history.

Koestler, himself an Ashkenasic Jew, expressed these sentiments in an apparent disappointment with the history of his own faith and the essentially deleterious effect it has had upon the world. Yet he did not forsake the religion of his fathers, nor is it implied in this thesis that he should have.

For a non-Jew, such as this writer, to quote him and use his work to such an extent, incorporating it so as to illustrate that biblical prophecies concerning the evils of Gog and Magog clearly point to the Talmudic Khazarians, risks the accusation of anti-Semitism. Such a response, however, should have been clearly shown to be vacuous at best, considering the proofs herein presented that those Jews who hold political rule over Palestine are not even remotely descended from Semitic tribes!

One cannot, however, help but stand in awe at the consummate ability of these peoples who, comprising from one to six per cent of the average population of countries outside of Israel, have managed to acquire positions of power and influence far exceeding their representation in the general populace of those nations.

Mr. Freedman, as mentioned, was an Ashkenazic Jew. In his disgust with what he witnessed his brethren doing he has used rather forcible language outlining their actions and origins.

Concerning them he unequivocally states:

"There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, 'You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews.' But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them 'people of the Holy Land,' as it would be to call the 54 million 'Chinese Moslems Arabs.'"

The plain, blunt conclusion to the matter is that Gog and Magog have clearly and stealthily -- albeit, in a slow-motion tidal wave -- invaded from the north as per Biblical prophecy. Invaded not only Palestine, but the entire world; every nation on the "four quarters of the earth" has come within the pale of their influence. These descendants of the "pagan Khazars" who profess to be the true and original people of God have insinuated themselves into every bastion of power on earth. If there are any exceptions to that fact, they are as insignificant, in their estimation of things, as a fly to a rhinoceros.

They (the race of Gog) control fully ten percent of the United States Senate, arguably the most powerful and influential legislative body on earth. They have skillfully controlled the U.S. Administration and the Department of Defense and again involved this nation in a war in which it has no business. This extraordinarily ingenious and talented race have placed spectacles astride the noses of politicians and Christians alike that cause it to appear to them as if this conflict is justified; to elicit statements, as from the U.S. President, that those with whom this nation has declared war are haters of democracy and freedom, when all they truly wanted was to be left alone to worship under the tenets of their own religion, unmolested by those who have already stolen nearly everything they have -- and done so with the money, influence and guns of the United States of America.

This writer spent some time in Israel witnessing personally the injustices perpetrated there by a people who had no rightful claim to the land, upon a people who did. Having gone there with a somewhat "pro-Israeli" bias, it soon became evident that any ruling class that skillfully engineers an economy where one segment enjoys an average 15 to 1 income advantage over another, under the same cost of living, cannot feign innocence when they experience the hatred and animosity from those whom they oppress.

The "spirit of Gog" did say it would use the "guns of America" to accomplish its purposes, and now it is clearly seen, in Afghanistan, as they spill the blood of whom they will, to accomplish what they will, that they were not at all jesting in that assertion.

Another fascinating element that inspires wonderment is the remarkable manner in which Biblical prophecy has been so accurately fulfilled -- AND -- how thoroughly modern "Christianity" has missed that fulfillment. At the outset it seems strange that these Biblical "scholars" have mislaid the lessons of history: primarily, that prophecies have never been interpreted in advance of their fulfillment, except by the prophets who gave them, as to what they would look like. Yet they continue to try, and the result is entertaining at best, and tragic at least, for they are left to follow interpretations of their own devising -- sparks of their own kindling. They have been so hypnotized and "drugged" by the idea of supporting and funding the marvelous "return of the Jews to their homeland" that they are as lemmings being willingly herded into the sea.

Yes, Gog and Magog have invaded the entire world, and what is even more astonishing is that it was done with not only the blessing of professed Christianity, but with their financial support and liturgical encouragement. They have truly dug their own ecclesiastical graves.

"Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the LORD God; this is the day whereof I have spoken" (Ezekiel 39:8).