Khazar Theory and a New Chronology

I am not sold on the Khazar Theory 100%, I'm stating maybe there is some value to it if we look at history from a different perspective. There seems to be a mathematical foundation to Fomenko's theories and unless he can be mathematically disproven he has a solid argument.

Also, counter recent genetic and linguistic evidence.

Look if Jews are actively trying to write themselves as histories first people, that is fucking significant.

NewChron is just a slav-centric view of history… in that nothing happened until Slavs appeared. No history in Western Europe prior to the 14th century. No Rome, Charlemagne, Anglo-Saxons, no crusades to jerusalem etc.

Slavs were Rome-Byzantium-Jerusalem-Jesus-Mongolians-Christianity-Greece all rolled into one. Slavs had a super-empire that broke up, and then evil west yuropoors made up a whole new history to look good and make slavs look bad.

For some reason, the byzantine orthodox church agreed to this revision of history despite knowing the truth.

It's their version of "We wuz kangz".

The Israelites were white.

got some questions to understand you. what would you call a jew who converted 2000 years ago when he saw jesus christ? what would you call his descendants today?

you are right there are two OTs, the one written after jesus by talmuds and the one before. The AD one is used by protestants, everyone else uses the original. fyi the AD one is called masoretic text and the original is called the septuagint.

mediterranean was quite white before fall of rome/muhammad.

Disprove the math. Your diversion is classic kike tactic.

Also, it doesn't say none of that didn't happen, just that it didn't happen the way we were told it happened. He doesn't dispute the Czar being killed and we all know the Czar wasn't Slavic soooo there goes your "we wuz kangz" attempt to slander Slavs.

And that could be true, if the word Slavs is just the old church slavonic translation of some other name.

If the Jews of today are really descended from Khazars, not from the "real Jews" of the Bible, then why are the Jews of today acting like they did in ancient Egypt and Babylon?

"Jews of the bible" they are if they were involved in writing their own history at the time they "converted". Think of it like all the faggot fandoms of today except aristocracy so they have immense cultural influence. (((SJW))) faggotry is an obvious attempt of replicating this effective strategy.

I'm more familiar with the theory than you fags. Spent years actually believing it until I researched archaeology.

There are ruins 3 layers deep in Western Europe that confirm all the traditional history… or did the jesuits just bury all these cities 500 years ago.

Khazar theory is incorrect I think, at least in the sense that was the origin of what we refer to as Jews today. The origins predate the Khazar empire, which is not to say the Khazar empire did not exist ( I'm not sure either way ).

aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/The-Golem-Miguel-Serrano1.txt

It's an alternate character reading of "Hwan". Slavs are Ancient Koreans confirmed.

The origin of slav just means "warrior" or something like that. But that all people east of Germany are 'slavs' is just Soviet imperial propaganda. In reality they vary a lot genetically, some have very little relation at all.

Provide proofs then. He has mathematically proven that current chronological methods are false. Other mathematicians, even professors in the USA, have backed his math.

"Slav" means speaker as in speaker of the Slavic language (as opposed to niemcy, meaning non speaker). Slavs are a linguistic group that mostly comprises Iranic Scytho-Sarmatian peoples.

...

This isn't all directed at you, but:

If you're talking about Arthur Koestler's 13th Tribe, the Khazar stuff was around way before that book was written.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe
The Thirteenth Tribe is a 1976 book by Arthur Koestler, in which he advances the thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a Turkic people.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4279-chazars
archive.is/yzngu

That article is from the 1906 jewish encyclopedia.

People are poo-pooing the khazar theory because they think it somehow lets jews get out of being dicks, which it doesn't. Jews want to disprove it because they think it breaks their connection to the bible.
The whole "the bad jews of today are really khazars and are not the true jews" is a game people play when they don't have the courage to just say "it's the jews".
I've seen scientific studies that say it is true and it isn't true. This is like the Solutrean theory, it's going to piss people off, so there's going to be a lot of "debunking" going on.

Jews are a race. An "anti-race" of mongrels. The whole Khazaria story fits right in with that.

Right. They are fucking with timelines and history because if they can establish they were FIRST, then they get to claim all has come from them. The "chosen people" narrative is there and who can deny it? Goddamn kikes.

That's a lot of claims that don't actually connect with each other. There's plenty of evidence that Khazaria existed, but the Jews didn't all originate there, some migrated there from north-east Turkey, where Jews came from Persia and mixed with local Greco-Romans and Persians. Most likely going back far enough they originated from the Pharisees, who were the ruling class rabbi's during the time of Jesus. Before that, they have their origins in the Babylonian Exile. Most likely some mixture occured during the exile, plus input from the various evil pagan religions of Babylon, because when they returned from the exile is when their evil corruption really began. The Israelites before that, as well as the non-Pharisees during Jesus's time, really showed no particular sign of the kind of evil we see from modern Jews, but the Pharisees match them perfectly. And modern Rabbinical Jews themselves admit that they come entirely form the Pharisees. That's not to say the old Israelites were perfect or anything, but you can't pretend that they were on the same level of evil as the Pharisees unless you know absolutely nothing about them.

The early Christians believed that after Jesus, the Jews modified their Hebrew OT to try to deny that he's the Messiah. But the Greek translation of the OT, written before Christ, still exists, and along with the NT (which was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek by the proto-Orthodox church) it's the basis for Orthodox Christianity. Later on, after the schism of the Roman Catholic church followed by the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants started to make their own Bible translations into English and other modern languages. But when it came to translating the OT, they didn't use the Greek OT, but rather they translated it from the "original" Hebrew… but of course, their source for this "original" Hebrew was modern Jewry, which means that if they had chosen to modify it since then, then this would affect the Protestant interpretation of it. And indeed, these translations have significant differences from the Greek OT used by the Orthodox church, differences that would very much benefit the Jewish agenda to pose themselves as the good guys and create their "Judeo-Christianity" meme.

Could you give an example of differences.

Sure, here's a few examples.

Consider for example in the King James Version NT, in Acts 7:43, where Stephen quotes from the book of Amos in the OT, reading:

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them."

And yet, when you actually look up Amos 5:26 in the KJV OT translation, it reads totally differently:

"You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves."

So clearly, Stephen, living in the time of Jesus's ministry, was reading a different OT than what Protestants are reading today.

Here's the same line translated to English from the Latin Vulgate, which is the version used by the Roman Catholics:

"But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves."

Still doesn't quite match, but clearly closer than the KJV. Now let's look at an English translation of the Septuagint, which is the Greek OT written before the time of Christ:

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves."

Why would the Jews want to censor this part? Because it explicitly calls them out as worshippers of Moloch/Satan. In addition, the star of Remphan is the hexagram, which today they falsely call the "Star of David"; it too is a symbol of Satan/Saturn worship. And by having Stephen's claims differ from the OT, they can flip it around and claim that it's the Christians that have interpreted it wrong, and the NT that must be corrupted, because the Jews are supposedly the "true authority" on the OT.

Another example is the word "Jew", which should more properly be translated as "Judean", meaning someone who comes from the province of Judea (which was a multiethnic and multireligious area after the Babylonian occupiation). It had no connection to the Talmud worshippers of today, who in the Bible are actually called the Pharisees, and are the subject of many great bantz by Jesus whenever he encounters them. He decries them as the sons of the devil, a den of vipers, the Synagogue of Satan, etc. He also directly states that they will claim to be Judeans (translated in modern bibles as "Jews"), but warned that they are only pretending for evil purposes.

Yet another example is the Hebrew word "goy", which in modern English translations is translated as "gentiles". Today, we think of "goy" and "gentile" as meaning "non-Jews", but that's not actually what it meant originally, that's just the Jewish corruption of it. The word "goy" in Hebrew actually just means "nation", and so the plural "goyim" means "nations". Now, back then the concept of nations was a bit different to how it's thought of today, in that it was inherently tied into ethnicity. In fact, in the Greek Septuagint, it's translated as "ethnos". So it might more accurately be translates as "peoples" or even "races". In the Latin Vulgate translation, the word was sometimes translated as "nationes", but othertimes as "gentile". This word was generally used by the Romans to refer to those who are not Roman citizens, and held the connotation of "barbarians". This is because often in the OT the word "goyim" is used in the context of distinguishing between Israel and other nations. So since Jews see themselves as the sole inheritors of the Hebrew religion, and at that time only Israelites followed that religion, and since Jews see non-Jews as heathens/pagans/barbarians, this resulted in Jews considering the word "goyim" to be synonymous with "non-Jews", and in the English translation becoming "gentiles", which itself originated as a similarly derogatory term by the Romans. But it's important to note that there's many uses of the word "goy" in the OT that doesn't fit that definition at all, like referring to Israel as "goy kadosh" ("holy nation"), or when God tells Abraham his descendants will form a "goy gadol" ("great nation"). And so there's no actual legitimate reason to interpret the other uses in the OT as intending to be derogatory or as referring to non-Jews, but rather just referring to nations/peoples/races in general, depending on the context.

7/7 post

Why do you think the Jews agreed?

It looks to me that Judaism became a converting rather than an ethnically based religion, and that the converted then needed a new story and a new holy language, to show how the converted were the original.

If what you're saying is true then this is the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world.. bigger than the Holohoax. It also means that Jews are half-white.

counter