Highlights of this article:
Interestingly enough, the Khazar theory was launched, and is still to this day, driven primarily by Communist Jews and other Jews who promote it in the Gentile community as a refutation that the Jews can’t be racist because they are not a race!
One thing that I did not know then was that Koestler, the communist Jew who popularized the Khazar Theory bragged in a Jewish magazine that he advanced the theory as way to fight against anti-Semitism.
“Should this theory be confirmed, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ would become void of meaning,”
Part I: The Scientific Evidence—Twelve DNA Studies Which Disprove the “Khazar Theory”
Even though Elhaik’s work is the only single paper (as opposed to literally dozens of opposing DNA studies), written by a single Jewish individual (as opposed to the other papers which were written by dozens and dozens of scientists from around the globe, Jewish and non-Jewish alike), it has quickly become the most-quoted “proof” of the “Khazar Theory.”
The most important error in Elhaik’s paper, however, is actually openly admitted: namely that there is actually no “Khazar DNA” in existence, against which any sort of measurement can be taken.
Elhaik himself admits this in his paper: the “Khazars have been vanquished and their remains have yet to be sequenced. . .”—in other words there is no record of what exactly Khazar DNA might have been. Finally, Elhaik’s methodology in comparing the DNA samples is, to make an understatement, unique to him. As Marcus Feldman, director of Stanford University’s Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, said, “He [Elhaik] appears to be applying the statistics in a way that gives him different results from what everybody else has obtained from essentially similar data.” Jewish Supremacist Behavior Through the Millennia Disprove the “Khazar Theory”
Another piece of the jigsaw which disproves the Khazar theory, is that Jewish Supremacist behavior has remained constant throughout the millennia—from biblical times right through to the present day. [Duke goes through several.] All of these events pre-date the supposed “Khazar conversion” by centuries—yet it can be seen that the identical behavioral patterns are on display before and after the supposed “Khazar” infusion.Logic dictates that if the racial make-up of Jews changed substantially after the year 700 AD, then their behavioral traits would also have changed. I have come to believe that the Khazar theory is one more piece of controlled opposition as illustrated in Orwell’s 1984 where Emmanuel Goldstein is supposedly Big Brother’s opposition, but in fact he is part of the Big Brother apparatus. Bear in mind, the problem we face is not a “Khazar” problem, it is a Jewish problem, it is a problem of extremist Jewish racism and supremacism which continually plunges our world into war, hatred, tyranny and degradation. When people tell us the threat of Ashkenazi Jews it confuses people on the subject to no end. It deflects from the fundamental fact that the Jewish establishment, i.e. every major Jewish organization of all types of Jews– is working for our genocide.
whenever i see you post about history i take the time to read it. I don't always agree but you seem to actually know quite a bit about Russian Slavic Turkic history.
whats your take on A.T. Fomenkos work? have you come across it?
I just try to provide some context mostly unknown for Western people who have information about Russian history only from the worst enemies of Russia. Not that I insist on or push Russian version of history as the only true one, just knowing different point of view is always useful, regardless of its acceptance in whole.
As for Fomenko-Nosovsky books, I read them all. Initially, those guys brought to surface a tons of very uncomfortable for official history out-of-time facts and artifacts and it was an absolutely great job. But then, when their first book become a bestseller, at least in Russia, they fall to stretching everything to questionable narrative for profit and that completely ruined their initial work. Instead of further developing and research of found inconsistencies and pusing official historians to admit and accept them, they become no different from official historians, just with different narrative. They began to ignore facts that contradict their version of history, just like official historians.
However, I highly recommend their first book as a source of legitimate questions to the official history that have to be rised and answered.