Why is it that the countries that have been involved in direct conflict over these past few years, just happen to coincide with the countries that are tied to the fall of the Khazarian Empire?
(Ukraine) - The Khazarian Empire encompassed what is now Ukraine and parts of Eastern Europe.
Khazarians at the time were known by those living in bordering countries to generally be liars, deceivers,cons, robbers, road warriors, murderers, identity thieves and social parasites of the worst variety. And to make matters worse, their ruler did nothing to reverse this because he too was like them. They repeatedly preyed on travelers at their borders or anyone who tried to travel through Khazaria, usually a fatal mistake.
(Russia and Iran) -
Russia and Persia (Present day Iran) had repeatedly instructed Khazarian leadership that Khazaria as a nation and people had to change from its evil, inhuman ways and stop parasitizing its neighbors, or suffer complete destruction.
This ultimatum was that Khazaria as a nation had to immediately change its ways, and to do this, King Bulan must select one of the three Abrahamic religions and institute it as the official required Khazarian state religion. King Bulan was told in no uncertain terms that the religion chosen must be indoctrinated in all Khazarians to serve as rules of conduct and as a basis for integrity and ethics that were previously completely absent.
King Bulan agreed and selected Torah Judaism as Khazaria’s official religion. This worked somewhat for a while, but soon Khazarians were drifting back to their old ways of national banditry, murder and gross parasitism of others from surrounding nations.
Instead of working to establish morals and ethics in his nation by making a serious attempt to practice Torah Judaism, King Bulan and his top staff actually were inducted into the Black Arts and Black Magic of Babylonian Talmudism, better known as Baal worship or Satanism. Externally this looks a lot like Torah Judaism and can be used as false cover, which it was.
Khazaria was finally destroyed in about 1250 AD by Russia and Persia(Current day Iran) as it had been literally terrorizing, robbing, murdering and parasitizing neighbors and travelers for over 500 years.
(Israel) - 80% of Israel is owned by the Rothchilds. In fact it was Lionel Walter Rothschild who had the British Support in 1917 by decree of the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration (“Baflours promise” in Arabic) declared by Britain in 1917 statement of British support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
The Rothchild's ancestry goes back to the Khazarian Empire.
The Khazar empire had a small but powerful group of Jewish bankers in Kiev as early as the 10th century.” – The Regime: Usury, Khazaria and the American Mass, Matthew Johnson. The Rothschilds were Ashkenazi Jews, Khazarians, “they’re arguably the most influential Nephilim Hosts of the Common Era,” Sangar said, “the Rothschild family and their Khazarian mafia have gained a foothold in almost every country since the mid-1700s.”
A Nephilim host such as the Rothchilds - “Nephilim Hosts are individuals who have partnered with the spiritual forces of darkness to carry out the Nephilim agenda.” An agenda to defile the human genome through the propagation of a hybrid race, the purpose of which is to overthrow God’s Kingdom.
(Palestine) - Having secured the support of the British government for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, on May 14, 1948, as soon as the British Mandate expired, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel, triggering the first Arab-Israeli war. (known as the Nakba) The Zionist military forces expelled at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and lands and captured 78 percent of historic Palestine, with the remaining 22 percent was divided into what are now the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip.
Some other interesting details that might explain the desired ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, ties back to the Khazarians again.
Khazarians’ origin is believed to have been a hybridization between Turks and Mongols, with absolutely no genetic ties to the ancient Hebrews. It is truly interesting that these Khazarians have absolutely no ancient Hebrew Blood at all, none, although their leaders usually claim to carry ancient Hebrew Blood and to be Semites, when they are not Semites at all, and have absolutely no ancestral rights to any land in the Mideast.
About 80% of the Palestinians carry ancient Hebrew Blood and thus are true Semites, and hold an un-abandoned, absolute ancestral right to all of Palestine, despite any Khazarian claims, which are all based on lies and political intrigue.
Feel free to comment on what i shared here today. My thoughts are that the Khazarians have had a long time hate for both Russia and Persia (Present day Iran.) They still have a score to settle with the both of them. They have used the West to help finance their retaliation war against Russia, and are now pushing the notion that it is Iran, who is responsible for the recent attacks made by Hamas. This is obviously setting the stage up for the Khazarians retaliation war against Iran.
This doesnt surprise me though. When you look at Biden's executive branch, it is full of Askenazi/Khazarian Jews. (Blinken, Yellen, Garland, Nuland) These individuals have bent over backwards to ensure that Ukraine was supported against Russia, and now that Israel will be supported against Iran.
The Palestinians on the other hand must be eliminated as they hold Hebrew blood and are the true Semites. This makes them a threat to the Khazarian wanna be Jews.
https://geopolitics.co/2017/09/08/khazarians-then-khazarians-now/
Still not clear.
What I will say is this:
When we are talking about language, and especially many languages, it gets tricky.
The original books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The New Testament in Greek.
None of it was written in English, which did not exist.
There is no "j" in Hebrew or Greek. When Wycliff did the first translation into English, in the year 1345, the world "jew" did not exist.
Originally, he wrote "gyu," and this evolved over many translations into "jew" (same pronunciation as gyu). He had to make it up because it was the first syllable of the sound of the Hebrew and Greek words used for the residents of Judea.
By the time of Christ, there was no more Kingdom of Israel or Kingdom of Judah. It was the Roman Empire province of Judea. The people living there were of several different ethnicities. It was a "diverse" culture. It was no longer only the Israelites.
The word "jew" was used in the English versions of the Bible to describe SOME of these people living in Judea.
They were the people who were NOT of Israelite blood, but who were claiming to be. Jesus knew who was who, and who was a fake. He called them out for their lies ("hypocrisy").
Beyond that, I don't care what this rabbi does or does not have to say about it.
I'm gonna say to both of you that THIS is how to dialog... I don't remember seeing in this thread one ad hominem attack... you are both going at it like scholars ... so far and for the most part... keep at it.
Fighting it out with logic / old stuff from old books / etc is worthwhile... saying hooray for my side / thinking we all have it figured out is dogma...
Keep fighting in the arena of ideas and shake hands afterwards...
Thanks.
Yes, I wish GAW had more discussions of ideas and less rah-rah ... yo mama!
Really?
But you are wrong. Hand writings are of paleo-hebrew origin. Here is the tetragrammaton: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Devine_name_in_PaleoHebrew.svg
Are you arguing that the divine name JHVH or YHVH is incorrect?
What Wycliffe knew or did not know, is totally irrelevant. What the Greek scriptures contain is: Ioudaios or in Latin Iudeas, which happens to be the Spanish modern notion.
Late 12th century Giw or Jeu (= game/play/ploy) Anglo/French was a reflection of expulsion and revulsion which was felt regarding financial practices and perhaps the blood libel. Hence, my pont: jew = pejorative. Which is later reinforced by: opprobrious behavior.
Even worse admitting that Wycliffe had to make stuff up. Transliterations exist for a reason.
This also leads to the correct indication in their own language: Yehudim. Whether it be Aramaic, Arabic, Modern Hebrew.
The reason it is important is because that is what they are called. You see, using the label Jew is an insult.
This then is now being shoved in our faces. 24/7. And if you do not bow to the programming, you get your ass thrown in jail.
I can see you have not read my comment on voat, or at least have learned nothing from it and closing your mind. Pitty.
You seem to be arguing with me while agreeing with me. It's kinda weird.
We must be talking past each other.
The letter "I" in Hebrew/Greek was used for the "J" sound. I said there was no "J," which I believe is true.
When Wycliff made the first translation into English, he made up a word that did not exist (in English). That word became "jew" but that word is also misused in the modern English versions of the Bible.
It is used to describe certain people living in the Roman province of Judea who were NOT of Israelite blood.
Jesus called them out on this isssue.
This helps us understand who they were/are.
They are called today "Jew." If calling them by their name is an insult, then so be it. Maybe they have earned it.
The language of the Old Testament was Hebrew.
Yiddish is a modern perversion of Hebrew.
If we go back 1,000 years or so, the people who did the translations were under immense pressure to MISTRANSLATE.
That is because the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity for a long time. They had THEIR OWN doctrines.
Notice, there is no pope in the Bible. Catholiscism took over Christianity and created their own doctrines, whether or not they agreed with the Bible.
If anyone, including a transcriber, said or wrote anything that was against church doctrine, they were guilty of heresy, and could be burned alive at the stake.
Therefore, it should be common sense to understand that many translators MIGHT have made some false translations to appease the pope and the cardinals, etc., even if they knew the Bible's original texts said something different.
This is what lead to "jew" being used in the modern English Bibles to describe people who have since been mislabeled as "God's Chosen People."
Actually, I did, but your point about the jews was not clear.
My understanding is this:
Judah = Son of Jacob/Israel, and patriarch of the Judahites, which is part of the Israelite family tree
Judahite = A direct descendent of Judah, the man (his sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, etc.).
Judean = A person resident in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of the Roman Empire, when Jesus was alive; not necessarily a Judahite or Israelite, but merely one who resides in this particluar Roman province.
Jew = A word created more than 1,000 years later, to describe these Judeans, since the Hebrew and Greek words used "I" to make the "J" sound, and that did not work for the English translation that Wycliff was doing.
Why you seem to think that "jew" is necessarily a derogatory word is not clear, though maybe they have earned such a distinction with their horrific behavior over the centuries.
After all, you don't get kicked out of 100+ countries over 1,000+ years for no reason.
Yes, indeed. Exactly this!
I brings to mind that scene in the movie: Life of Bryan .... https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HrcbCW4y9Dw
The emphasis on jew was a bit too much not arouse attention.
See my post on voat. It happens more often than you would think. Usually, it starts with some peculiarity that is generalized or stereotyped. There is also an interesting relationship with Phoenicians.
But indeed, there is a history of expulsions for a reason.