It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debunking the 'Fake Jew' AKA The 'Khazarian Jew' Myth.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by Chilled1

Which essentially means that their isolationism has led to their beliefs of racist supremacy... I know jews that say "Oh- I'm Ashkenazi Jew and we're the smartest race of people".. to that I say go (blank) your racist self. It's also disturbing the way you reference these "views" are used by anti-semites- well, honey, that is ploy- if anyone is to raise any of these views you are a racist, anti-semite, nazi, blah blah blah blah.. because I'm a jew blah blah blah blah.. It's really quite a pathetic ploy to denounce and suppress any intelligent dialog .

Fake jew or non-fake jew your argument doesn't paint any better picture and as one other poster stated- certainly doesn't justify their actions against the helpless Palestinian people that they have been starving and imprisoning with in the Gaza borders, prior to and following Israel's military attacks. Rocket and tanks versus stones and home-made rockets.. 417+ lives vs 6 Israeli lives.. Give me a break.. We pro-Palestinian posters still have a lot to be upset about.

I should probably read the whole thread to see if anyone replied to this yet, but I'm feeling a bit lazy and churlish.

Could you please clarify a bit of what you have written here? Was it Ashley that you were calling 'honey'? Were you claiming that she identifies herself as a Jew? Is it your contention that this thread and especially the OP were not a catalyst for intelligent discourse?

Are you having difficulties in separating this thread from the issue of the current state of the Israel/Palestinian conflict? Do you really think that anyone is saying that pro-Palestinian posters don't have anything to be upset about or that the op is an attempt to mute dialog? Or was that just a very obvious strawman argument?

I apologize in advance if I'm just being dense here.


Hey Eric,

I would love to stick to the issue of the thread here, but why is it that when anyone ever writes an article about Jews or Jewry, they have to mention anti-semitism..??? I wasn't stating or even believing that Ashley was a Jew! But she is coming from the same pro-Christian angle that this article is to rationalize why Jews should have their own state- It's as clear as day!.. She should .. Oh let me address her actually- Ashley, you should buy yourself one of those "jump to conclustion" board games like from the movie "Office Space", because you provide no Religious support, and because 13 of these chromosomes have all of these mix of races, mixed in with jewish people, doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and your conclusion reads as such:

In light of all evidence, most scholars and historians have rejected or abandoned the conspiracy theory altogether. The remaining proponents of the theory generally consist of various groups and organizations seeking to undermine Israel's sovereignty, its citizens right to the land, and to propagate anti-semitic information.

Sorry, snip when you talk about undermining Israel's sovereignty, and it's citizens right to the land... I beg to differ... I was not the one originally going off topic..snip

I could raise Terriers for 500 years, and every 2nd or 3rd generation, through in a chihuahua or a poodle, then cross-breed that back with Terriers, and the occasional chow.. After 500 fricken years, there will be DNA from those Terriers, who may be mixed with other types of Terriers.. (ie. everyone from the middle-east) ... Your argument doesn't hold water, or in your case, water into wine.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory - Please Review This Link

[edit on 3/1/2009 by Sauron]

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by AshleyD

Mazal Tov!

I want to thank you for starting this thread. I have been trying to inform people about this Khazar fallacy for some time, but you managed to do so much more eloquently than I. I hope this helps inform some people.

At the same time I know that no matter what you do there will be people on ATS and in the real world that will remain ignorant and prejudiced no matter what. I don't know if it is mental illness that drives these people or something for lack of a better term, demonic.

They cannot be reasoned with. As you can see, some of those people have already tried to deflect and misdirect the thread. There is no point in arguing with them.

For those who are objective minded I think it will inform and provide insight. At the same time it will expose those who refuse to accept reality.

Again I appreciate your efforts.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:45 AM

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Why are the Khazars and the Khazarian Empire not mentioned in any history books?

*emphasis mine

You will need to explain what you mean by 'any' history books. If you are referring to text books used in schools, I can't say either way- it's been awhile for me. If you are claiming there are no books of the historical genre exploring the history of the Khazar and Kharzarian Empire whatsoever, then that is obviously false.

Why have Jewish historians and authors like Arthur Koestler meticulously documented the Caucasian ancestry of Ashkenazim Jews if it wasn't true?

Why Koester, a Jew by ancestry and atheist by faith, did this is somewhat understandable. First of all, he lived during WWII and was an outspoken critic of Nazism and Nazi atrocities. His ultimate goal was a noble, in my opinion, but still incorrect. His goal was to separate European Jews from Biblical Jews in order to curb the antisemitic hostility being focused on European Jews during WWII.

Koestler stated that part of his intent in writing the book was to defuse anti-Semitism by undermining the identification of European Jews with the Jews of the Bible, rendering anti-Semitic epithets such as "Christ killer" inapplicable. Arthur Koestler himself was a Hungarian Ashkenazi Jew by ancestry.

Koestler himself was sympathetic to Zionism on secular considerations, and did not see alleged Khazar ancestry as diminishing the claim of Jews to Israel, which he felt was based on the United Nations mandate, and not on Biblical covenants or genetic inheritance. In his view, "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago ... is irrelevant to modern Israel". In addition, he was apparently "either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made to the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century." Nevertheless, in the Arab world the Khazar theory has been adopted by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites; such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists.

Response to his work:

No modern mainstream scholars support Koestler's hypothesis. As Bernard Lewis wrote:

This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.

Koestler's historiography has been attacked as highly questionable by many historians; it has also been pointed out that his discussion of theories about Ashkenazi descent is largely unsupported; to the extent that Koestler referred to place-names and documentary evidence his analysis has been described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources.[6] Commentators have also noted that Koestler mischaracterized the sources he cited, particularly D.M. Dunlop's History of the Jewish Khazars (1954).

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by dreamer01

Hey Dreamer. I just found this while responding to the above poster. This might help answer your question. Apparently they are also tracked by mitochondrial DNA, which of course is traced by maternal lineage:

A second study (2006) by Behar et al, based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), also indicates that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE.

That excerpt is from Wiki but here is a PDF file fully explaining the study:

Hope that helps answers your science question about paternal vs. maternal lineage.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 01:26 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:20 AM
You cant debunk any myth with wikipedia...

especially with such a staunch opinion based off of wiki and popular opinion.

The truth will eventually be known but if things remain they will be hidden like the rest of history. Unless you have a time machine you will never truly 100% know what actually happened and what is exactly what.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:43 AM

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 05:41 AM
The most important, hidden history you have never read is linked below.

Most desire to know who is behind the bloodstained curtain and why. Others would rather remain ignorant and bliss.

Knowledge is power though 'action' is power manifest.

Your time is fleeting and so are your rights.

If your patient and read through the entire link, your life will never be the same for you may see the world as it was not 'meant' to be seen.

Receipt of this information comes with an obligation unto yourself and fellow man.

Forbidden knowledge

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Perseus Apex]

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 05:44 AM
I must admit I am out of my depth on this subject.

But I was wondering if it's the interest of the Jewish people to define themselves as a race and not just a religion.

1. It's easier to label someone as a racist than as a "religionist"
2. Races tend to have their own land and generally religions don't

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 05:48 AM
Even an 'honest' rabbi will tell you this, "Only Moses knows who the true Jew is".
Of course this does not go well with the whole Zionist movement, so they will then go into the bit, "for now the current jewish law states..." - but for those not caught up in propaganda its quite clear what is being said.

No one knows who is of the mixed multitude, etc.
Sorry, Christians resources are limited, and I doubt you will get much out of an Orthodox Rabbi...but what do I know. (I have witnessed a conversation between a rabbi friend of mine, and a Charismatic Christian which was revealing indeed.)



[edit on 3-1-2009 by dAlen]

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by AshleyD

Exactly, matrilineal dna goes from mother to daughter only. (Well, the son gets it but does not pass it on). In the old testament, Issac as well as, I think Jacob, were sent to their mother's family to find a wife. It is science and tradition. If we are to believe the time line, this would date the original lineage much further back then the first or second century. I have understood their heritage to be matrilineal but their society to be patriarchal

So what is it about matrilineal dna that makes one Jewish? And how did they know? Of course, I have my own thoughts but they are only circumstantial.

Good work finding the matrilineal documentation by the way

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 09:14 AM
Certainly, the (op) deserves cudos for bringing forth the information on the "who is jew" question. The present and the future activities of relatives is based on this heritage. It was surprising for me to bathed in american propoganda as that you would believe arab was backed by communist. This is not the case, arab just happens to be feuding relative. So in our present position has the U.S. fighting one faction of jew while supporting another. This can be seen in the over 25 factions of peshewar, each, at one time, have been the ally of the U.S. When the U.S. tries to play peace keeper it must try to be fair. Support of one side or the other is not economical. You can understand that the U.S. has ok'd weapons sales by a private missle mfg to syria. The U.S. needs to support the jewish family on all sides. A heritage of the genocide of jews is all that can be supported at this time. Its just a family way, started at best, by the devine creator. Until the family decides to come to peace, we will not be able to argue "who is jew".

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:04 AM
Well, why are the Zionists not looking for a homeland in modern-day Kharzia instead of 'going back' to the Middle East??

Rather interestingly enough I could not find a single hit on 'Kharzia' even though it was supposed to have been an kingdom back in the day.

This is incredibly strange. For an kingdom that never seemed to have existed, some scholars seem to have a lot of info on it

I have read accounts that only 10-20 percent of Israelis can claim ancestry to the area containing Israel, the rest are from abroad who came by the masses after WW2.

The point is... Why are the Zionists looking to expand their territory in the Middle East when they should be looking at the places the Nazis kicked them out of (Europe)

But I suppose we know what happens to countries who try to declare independence in Europe. They get a can of whoop-ass opened up on them.

But the Palestinians... they just have rocks and rifles and basic rockets.

The answer should be pretty obvious.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by star in a jar]

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by star in a jar
Rather interestingly enough I could not find a single hit on 'Kharzia' even though it was supposed to have been an kingdom back in the day.

Spelling it correctly will help:


posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:40 AM
So what the OP is trying to say is that being a "Jew" really has nothing to do with race whatsoever, and has everything to do with religion.

If a non-Jewish person can be converted to Judaism and then be considered a full "Jew" you would think this would go against all religious documents.

The whole idea is contradictory in a religious stand point because Yahweh chose the HEBREW RACE to be his chosen people.

So he must have fancied their DNA.

If a gentile (non-Jew) converts to Judaism, Yahweh will not accept said person as a Jew, because said person does not have the DNA.

And, gentiles are suppose to be following Christ, because Christ came to save the world, gentiles were not suppose to be able to convert to Judaism because the gentiles had to go through Christ to be saved by God

So is Judaism a race or is it a religion?

If it is a race, you can call yourself a Jew all day long but your genetics will say otherwise.

If Jewishness is based upon religion, then that is like taking a very dangerous shot in the dark.

You can pretend to follow the tenets of a religion all day, but if I watched a Gentile convert to Judaism and then claim to be Jewish, I would probably just giggle to myself.

Because that person would still just be pretending to be Jewish.

And that would make him/her a fake Jew.

Just like King Bulan.

And the Rothschilds.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by AshleyD
Spelling it correctly will help:


Ah, thanks!

I'd love to see the Zionists try and retake this area in this day and age

[edit on 3-1-2009 by star in a jar]

[edit on 3-1-2009 by star in a jar]

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

to augment your post... that there is indeed a difference between the Shephardic 'Jews'
who remained indigenous in the Levant, Palestine, Galilee

and the eastern-european Ashkenazi converts some 600 years after the Diaspora of 70AD

we will need to go beyond the 'wikipedia' resource in the OP...

What are "Jewish" genetic disorders?

The "Jewish" genetic disorders are a group of conditions which are unusually common among Jews of eastern European (Ashkenazi) descent. Although these diseases can affect Sephardi Jews and non-Jews, they afflict Ashkenazi Jews more often - as much as 20 to 100 times more frequently.

Why are certain disorders more common among Ashkenazi Jews?

Scientists believe that certain disorders became more common among Ashkenazi Jews because of at least two processes: the "founder effect" and "genetic drift." The "founder effect" refers to the chance presence of these genes among the "founders" or ancestors who immigrated to eastern Europe at the time of the Diaspora (70 A.D.). Prior to this time we presume that these disorders were no more common among Jews than among any other people. "Genetic drift" refers to the increase in frequency of the genes for these disorders in this group, as a result of chance. Because Jews tend to not marry outside of their faith and community, the relatively high frequency of these genes among Jews did not pass into other communities, nor was the frequency lessened by the introduction of other genes from outside the Ashkenazi Jewish community.

[click the link to read the last paragraphs & see graph...]

anything to help...

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by dalan.
So what the OP is trying to say is that being a "Jew" really has nothing to do with race whatsoever, and has everything to do with religion.

No, that is not what I have said. Not once. Allow me to explain this one final time:

1). I have already pointed out the definition of ethno-religious on the first page.

2). If I personally only believed Jews were Jews by religion, I never would have pointed out what I did above: An author who was Jewish by heritage but atheist by faith.

3). If I was only interested in the religious aspect of what determines a Jew, I never would have bothered researching the paternal DNA tracing in the original post and the maternal mitochondrial DNA in a follow up post to answer someone's question.

4). As I have already explained, the point of bringing up the religious aspect was due to the fact that even if scientific evidence was not in favor of my case, Jewish converts are still considered Jews according to the Jewish law.

Hope that helps.

[edit on 1/3/2009 by AshleyD]

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:56 AM
Originally posted by AshleyD
Originally posted by dalan.

As I have already explained, the point of bringing up the religious aspect was due to the fact that even if scientific evidence was not in favor of my case, Jewish converts are still considered Jews according to the Jewish law.

When was that law put into effect?

Pre or post the state of Israel, because that is interesting.

Will Yahweh accept converts? Or is it just the Ashkenazi who decided to make that law?

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by dalan.
When was that law put into effect?

Pre or post the state of Israel, because that is interesting.

Before the state of Israel. As in, 3,600-2,600 years ago, depending on whether or not you accept the Mosaic authorship of the Torah or if you subscribe to the documentary hypothesis.

When I say 'Jewish Law,' I am referring to the Laws in the Torah and how converts are to be accepted.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in