GOG, MAGOG AND THE KINGDOM OF THE KHAZARS

GOG, MAGOG AND THE
KINGDOM OF THE KHAZARS

Part I

PROLOG

"Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog,
the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and
prophesy against him." Ezekiel 38:2

---

Introduction

    "A THOUSAND YEARS before the establishment of the Modern State of Israel, there existed a Jewish kingdom in the eastern fringes of Europe, astride the Don and Volga rivers..." So begins a thesis by Jewish author Kevin Alan Brook. The kingdom of which he speaks appears at first consideration to be comprised of nearly as much disinformation, misinformation, "myth"information, and, curiously, NO-information as there is actual provable historical fact. Yet upon closer scrutiny this kingdom, known as Khazaria, or the Kingdom of the Khazars, is clearly revealed in a vast body of historical evidence, much of which has come to light only in the last three to five decades.

    This mysterious kingdom, which has sculpted our modern world to an astounding (and alarming) degree, once occupied an immense land area of over a million square miles extending from western Hungary/Austria eastward to the Aural Sea, north to the Upper Volga, and its southern region extending to the Caucasus Mountains between the Black and Caspian seas. It was at that time literally the largest country on earth. It has only been in the last several decades, however, that greater documented evidence from ancient manuscripts has come to light and revealed the astonishing historical truth of this ancient kingdom and its connection to the origins of modern-day Israel.

    Though little known to the West, and, for that matter, to even those currently occupying its ancestral land, the Khazar kingdom has been responsible for substantially shaping the history and political landscape of Europe and specifically Western Asia, but also to a remarkable degree the entirety of human events on this planet.

    Arthur Koestler, author of The Thirteenth Tribe, easily the most expansive single work on the subject, states, "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." 1

    This is the story of a kingdom of belligerent, warlike Caucasian nomads, having no linked ancestry with anything Israelite this side of Noah, yet adopting Talmudic Judaism and becoming the dominant -- and virtually only -- current force in twenty-first century international Jewry.

    During the course of this work salient facts and issues will be presented without a too-extensive reliance on tedious historical documentation. However, considering the delicacy of the subject -- especially in this modern age where any divergence from certain agendas for "political correctness" can result in epithets of racism or anti-Semitism -- and for the obvious sake of accuracy, reasonably comprehensive documentation is necessary.

    In this it will be shown that the cry of "anti-Semitism" hurled against those who do oppose the international actions of ones calling themselves Jews, would be much like an immigrated Scotsman to America deciding to live on an Apache Indian reservation, coming to dominate its politics and economics, and then claiming that anyone disagreeing with his political and social agenda is racist and anti-Apache in their beliefs.

    What under different circumstances could prove to be a dry treatise on Eastern European Jewish history is, if closely examined, actually a narrative of events that have laid a sequential pathway to, and beyond, the destruction of the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This historical time line has been fixed in its present course, which, by all appearances and in a most unexpected manner, is culminating in the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies of Armageddon. But then, it has always been so with prophecy. The most consistent aspect in the nature of prophetic fulfillment is that it is consistently surprising. God has invariably worked to complete His desires, prophetically, in ways that have not been understood until revealed in retrospect -- in the light of their actual happening.

An Historical Perspective

    Shortly after the death of Mohammed in AD 632, according to Columbia University Professor, D. M. Dunlop, Arab armies began a campaign northward, sweeping "through the wreckage of two empires and carrying all before them till they reached the great mountain barrier of the Caucasus. This barrier once passed," Dunlop observes, "the road lay open to the lands of eastern Europe." 2 Had the Caliphate (the armies of the Muslim Caliph) surmounted that immense geological deterrent unchallenged, the history of Europe and, indeed, the rest of the Judeo-Christian world would have been vastly different than it now is.

    It was at the Caucasus, however, that the Arabs encountered the Khazars, initiating a war that lasted over a century and effectively prevented Europe from becoming Islamic. So powerful, socially and militarily, were the Khazars that, as Kevin Alan Brook relates in his work The Jews of Khazaria, "a 10th-century emperor of the Byzantines [Roman Empire], Constantine Porphyrogenitus, sent correspondence to the Khazars marked with a gold seal worth 3 solidi - more than the 2 solidi that always accompanied letters to the Pope of Rome, the Prince of the Rus, and the Prince of the Hungarians." 3

    Rutgers University Professor Peter Golden, referred to by Brook as "one of the principal authorities on the Khazars," wrote, "Every schoolchild in the West has been told that if not for Charles Martel and the battle of Poitiers there might be a mosque where Notre Dame now stands. What few schoolchildren are aware of," Golden emphasizes, "is that if not for the Khazars...Eastern Europe might well have become a province of Islam." 4

    The Khazarian mounted forces, with a soldiery of mainly Turkic and pagan origin, could at times and when accounted for, show a disastrous fierceness and cruelty to the enemies of Khazaria. They were also probably the most disciplined, as well as tactically and strategically the most potent, martial power at that time and in that region. Evidence that they were supremely calculating in their approach to international matters lay in the fact that, in contrast to their brutality, Khazar officials were often consulted as diplomatic emissaries and mediators by all the political powers surrounding Khazaria. The Khazars and their empire were at that time both highly respected and greatly feared -- with good reason. 5

    At the peak of their empire it is believed that the Khazars had a permanent standing army that could have numbered as many as one hundred thousand and controlled or exacted tribute, astonishingly, from thirty different nations and tribes inhabiting the vast territories between the Caucasus, the Aral Sea, the Ural Mountains and the Ukrainian steppes. 6 , 7 During their zenith, Khazaria completely girded the lands of what are currently Astrakhan, Kalmykia, Daghestan, Volgograd, Rostov, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarsk, North Ossetia, and Chechnya. "At its maximum extent (in the ninth century)," says Brook, "Khazaria not only encompassed the northern Caucasus and the Volga delta, but also extended as far west as Kiev [Russia]." 8

    Soviet archaeologist M. I. Artamonov states that, for a century and a half, the Khazars were the supreme masters of the southern half of Eastern Europe and presented a virtually impenetrable bulwark, blocking the Ural-Caspian gateway from Asia into Europe. During that entire period, they held back the onslaught of the nomadic tribes from the East. 9

    Until recently, a great part of the problem with the historical obscurity of ancient Khazaria lay with the fact that the geographical area of the country was part of the Soviet Union, which insisted on interpreting archaeological data "within the framework of Marxist historical materialism." 10 This Iron Curtain version of historical revisionism caused the Soviets to interpret that data in such a way as to present as fact that which was well fabricated -- but wrong.

    This peculiar and obscure race inhabiting that land were described as blue-eyed and of very fair complexion. Commonly they had long reddish hair and were reported as very large of stature and fierce of countenance. 11 Other sources have added observations that there were "Black Khazars" and "White Khazars," noting that the latter were "light-skinned and handsome, while the former were dark-skinned." This has, however, been rather conclusively refuted by scholars who have established that the distinction was not racial but social. The "Black" or "Kara" Khazars constituted the lower strata or caste, while the "White" or "Ak" Khazars were of the noble or royal classes. This type of class distinction was fairly common in Eastern Europe as evidenced by the more commonly known terms "Black Russian" and "White Russian," denoting not skin color but class. 12

    In his book An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Peter Golden claims that the Chinese T'and-shu chronicle describes the Khazars, generally, as "...tall, with red-hair, ruddy-faced and blue-eyed. Black hair is considered a bad omen." 13

THE KHAZARS OF CONQUEST AND WAR

    Of the ferocity and warlike tendencies of the Khazars there is little doubt and much historical evidence, all of it pointing to a race of people so violent in their dealings with their fellow men that they were feared and abhorred above all peoples in that region of the world.

    The Arab chronicler Ibn-Said al-Maghribi writes, "they are to the north of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime, having over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land is cold and wet. Accordingly their complexions are white, their eyes blue, their hair flowing and predominantly reddish, their bodies large and their natures cold. Their general aspect is wild." 14

    The ninth-century monk Druthmar of Aquitaine, in his commentary on Matthew 24:14 in Exposition in Matthaeum Evangelistam, stated that the Gazari, or Khazars, dwelt "in the lands of Gog and Magog." 15

    Legends and stories abound, some of which are true according to the above quoted Aquitaine monk, that center around Alexander the Great and his attempt to enclose the Khazars and quarantine them, due to their violent and barbaric nature, from the rest of the civilized world. This endeavor apparently failed, Druthmar claimed, and they escaped. Some legends even claim they were cannibals. 16

    After the kingdom's conversion to Judaism, the term "Red Jews" came into usage out of the superstition of medieval Germans, who equated their red hair and beards and their violent nature with deceit and dishonesty. It is also well documented that they heavily taxed those passing through their lands, for none dared refuse them. 17

    According to Benjamin H. Freedman, himself a Jew and an apparent long-time associate and confidant of presidents and statesmen, in an address presented in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Khazars were so belligerent and hostile that they were eventually run out of Asia and scattered amongst the nations of Eastern Europe. Heinrich von Neustadt, around 1300, wrote of them as the "terrifying people of Gog and Magog." 18

    The territory of the Bulgars, themselves legendary for their fierceness in battle, was conquered by the Khazars in AD 642. A portion of them fled westward to the region of the Danube in the Balkans and formed what is now modern-day Bulgaria. 19 Even in modern times, Muslim history recalls the Khazar raids and the terror of those inhabiting that land. To this day they call the Caspian, Bahr-ul-Khazar -- "the Khazar Sea." 20

    It is not difficult to determine some of the motivating factors behind the legendary Khazar ferocity in war. "When the bek [the Khazar head of the military and second in command only to the Kagan himself] sends out a body of troops, they do not in any circumstances retreat. If they are defeated, every one who returns to him is killed....Sometimes he cuts every one of them in two and crucifies them and sometimes he hangs them by the neck from trees." 21

    Logically it seems that this would not likely happen more than once, since reason would reveal to even the dullest soldier that defeat was not an option. Such a practice would also have provided a strong impetus to the legend of Khazar fierceness since, when faced with the choice of winning in battle or facing a worse death at home, the options -- and the rational responses to them -- become painfully distinct.

    All of these facts, mingled with the semi-factual legends of Alexander the Great and his attempts to wall up the Red Jews and isolate them, has led to the numerous mythologies of the coming escape, at the end of time, of Gog and Magog from the area enclosed by the Caucasus Mountains. This, as the legends say, in order to fulfill Bible prophecy in the final destruction of the world. Indeed, even Islam has such legends in its mythology.

    In a writing by the Imam Ibn Kathir, he asserts that the prophet Mohammed has claimed, "Every day, Gog and Magog are trying to dig a way out through the barrier [the Caucasus mountains]. When they begin to see sunlight through it, the one who is in charge of them says, 'Go back; you can carry on digging tomorrow,' and when they come back, the barrier is stronger than it was before. This will continue until their time comes and Allah wishes to send them forth." 22

    As shall be shown, the Muslims to the south of the Khazarian kingdom had good reason to attach such legends to their ferocious northern neighbors.

    However, no nation can long survive,no matter how strong, by being exclusively belligerent, and the Khazars were not an exception to this. As a vital addition to their brutality they were possessed of a native, calculating wisdom in knowing, as the gambler's creed says, "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em". This prescient political sense became evident in their diplomatic encounters with the Romans. The Roman Emperor Heraclius, in 627, formed a military alliance with the Khazars for the purpose of a final defeat of the Persians. Upon the first meeting of the Khazar king, Ziebel, with the Roman Emperor, the Khazars displayed, in full array, their skills at diplomatic flattery -- skills that would serve them well and would not disappear with their kingdom. He "with his nobles dismounted from their horses," says Gibbon, "...and fell prostrate on the ground, to adore the purple of the Caesar." So enamored was the Byzantine Emperor with this display of obeisance that it eventually led to the offer, along with many riches, of the Caesar's daughter Eudocia in marriage. 23 That union never took place due to the death of Ziebel while Eudocia was enroute to Khazaria. However, after the final defeat of Islam's designs on the Northern Kingdom in AD 730, a marriage between a Khazar princess and the heir to the Byzantine Roman Empire resulted in an offspring who was to rule Byzantium as Leo the Khazar. Thus the "King of the North" had skilfully managed to place himself on the throne of the Roman Empire. 24

    After the defeat of the Persians a new triangle of power emerged, consisting of the "Islamic Caliphate, Christian Byzantium and the newly emerged Khazar Kingdom of the North. It fell to the latter to bear the brunt of the Arab attack in its initial stages, and to protect the plains of Eastern Europe from the invaders." 25 Because of their unique geographical location within the cusp created by the Caspian and Black Seas on either side, and the frightful stone barrier of the Caucasus Mountains along their southern border, defending their land was made considerably easier. This situation of geography was, according to historians, one of the major factors in shaping the history of Eastern Europe, the European continent, and ultimately the world.

    The Khazars had, for years, been venturing forth southward, in their marauding raids on the Muslim countries south of the Caucasus. Now, in the early part of the seventh century, Islam came northward through the same Kasbek Pass the Khazars had used, and began a long war with the "Northern Kingdom." The major attempt of the Muslim armies to take control of the Transcaucasus came in 622 while Mohammed was still leading Islam. They conquered "Persia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and surrounded the Byzantine heartland (present-day Turkey) in a deadly semi-circle, which extended from the Mediterranean to the Caucasus and the southern shores of the Caspian." This began a long series of incursions by both sides (Khazaria and Islam) that lasted for another thirty years. These wars eventually saw the Arabs defeated at every advance, finally ending in 652 with the death of four thousand Arab soldiers, including their commander, Abdal-Rahman ibn-Rabiah, and the Arab armies in complete disarray.

    This inability to traverse the Caucasus successfully, made it logistically impossible for the Muslim armies to create an effective siege against the Roman capital of Constantinople. "Had they been able to outflank the capital across the Caucasus and round the Black Sea," says Arthur Koestler, "the fate of the Roman Empire would probably have been sealed." 26 It was this fortuitous situation, coupled with the military barrier presented by the Khazars themselves, that prevented Europe from coming under the crescent moon of Islam and creating a very different history than that which has been.

    Following this expulsion of the Arabs from the Khazar homeland, the kingdom began to war for territory rather than spoil, "incorporating the conquered people into an empire with a stable administration, ruled by the mighty Kagan [the title given the Khazar king, sometimes spelled Khagan], who appointed his provincial governors to administer and levy taxes in the conquered territories. At the beginning of the eighth century their state was sufficiently consolidated for the Khazars to take the offensive against the Arabs" rather than merely defending themselves against Muslim attacks. 27

    There was a brief period of Muslim incursion into Khazaria where the Caliph Marwin II, in a surprise, two-pronged attack, drove the Khazars as far back in their own land as the Volga region. His only terms for peace were that the Kagan convert to the "True Faith" -- Islam -- with which the Khazar king complied, but apparently only long enough for the Muslim Caliph to withdraw back across the Caucasus. This incident preceded by only a few years the Khazar monarch's conversion to Judaism. Most historians agree as to the motivation behind the Caliph's withdrawal. The Muslim ruler apparently realised that, unlike the more civilised Persians, Armenians or Georgians, the barbaric Khazars could not be kept under military rule at such a distance.

    As mentioned previously, most historical accounts credit Charles Martel and his Francs for saving Europe from Islam. This Anglicanized version of history does not, either by ignorance or design, consider the fact that the Franco defence of Western Europe would have been futile had not the Khazars stopped the Muslim onslaught from the east.

    The astounding historical result of all this is that the Khazar kingdom was able, eventually, to set up and depose an emperor from the throne of the greatest ruling power on earth at that time, The Roman/Byzantine Empire. 28 This, apparently, was only the beginning, though the records of antiquity, until recently, have largely lost sight of this historically obscure but immensely influential people.

    An interesting side note to the legendary Khazarian ferocity again reveals their budding nature as negotiators and consummate politicians, a talent that only intensified under Talmudic Judaism. In The Thirteenth Tribe, Koestler tells of the Byzantine Emperor, Theodosius II, who was intent on securing the friendship of the warrior race, "but the greedy Khazar chieftain, named Karidach, considered the bribe offered to him inadequate, and sided with the Huns. Attila defeated Karidach's rival chieftains, installed him as the sole ruler of the Akatzirs [a name given the "White Khazars"], and invited him to visit his court. Karidach thanked him profusely for the invitation, and went on to say that 'it would be too hard on a mortal man to look into the face of a god. For, as one cannot stare into the sun's disc, even less could one look into the face of the greatest god without suffering injury.' Attila must have been pleased, for he confirmed Karidach in his rule."

    The death of Atilla the Hun, however, precipitated the collapse of the Hunnic empire and left an Eastern European power-vacuum which the Khazars eventually filled. They then proceeded to subjugate all other surrounding tribes to the extent that, shortly after their defeat, those tribes went virtually unmentioned in subsequent historical accounts. The Khazars had just swallowed them up, historically speaking. The most difficult time they encountered in their conquests was from the Bulgars, who were "crushingly defeated" around AD 641, with a great many migrating westward toward the Danube, and as previously mentioned, eventually establishing what is now modern Bulgaria. 29

THE KHAZAR KINGDOM'S CONVERSION TO JUDAISM

"A warrior-nation of Turkish Jews must have seemed to the
[western] rabbis as strange as a circumcized unicorn." A. Koestler

    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. 30

    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 AD 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. 31

    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." 32

    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 AD 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 polytheistic nature of the Trinity doctrine of the Christians. 33

    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 recognised 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." 34

    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 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." 35

    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 Transcaucasus. 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. 36

    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." 37

    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." 38

    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." 39

    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. 40 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." 41 [emphasis supplied]

    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 'sceptre 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. 42

    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." 43 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." 44

    There was even coined a specific term for the Viking ferocity: berserks gang, 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 authorised. 45

    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 neighbours....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 centres of eastern Europe." 46

    "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 travellers, or 'rootless cosmopolitans' -- as hostile propaganda has unaffectionately labelled 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 "mintmasters, 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".] , taxcollectors and 'money-lenders' -- i.e., bankers."47

    Western European Jews historically displayed such a talent and acumen at trading and as userers (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]" 48 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." 49 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] 50

    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] 51 Some historians, such as Austrian Hugo Kutschera, assert that Eastern European Jewry was not part, but entirely of Khazarian origin. 52

    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. 53

    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. 54

    "The evidence," Mr. Koestler nicely summates, "...adds up to a strong case in favour 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." 55

    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. 56

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

    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 Sepulchre -- for was he not red from the winepress of the Lord?" 57

    The Jews who found themselves in that "winepress" significantly assisted in their own demise. Like those of Massada 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 Massada 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. 58

    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". 59

    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 rumours 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. 60 Later some of the Sephardic Jews of Spain immigrated northward, accounting for some of the smaller Jewish populations of Western Europe.

    "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 as a discernible race, being replaced by the white Khazars of the Transcaucasus, 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?

Part II

THE KHAZAR ORIGIN OF THE ASHKENAZIM

"Judah...hath married the daughter of a strange god. The
Lord will cut off the man that doeth this." Malachi 2:11, 12

---

    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 from Sepharad, the Hebrew word for Spain, and are likely the closest to actual Semitic Jews that can be established. 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. 61

    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." 62

    "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." 63 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 Gen. 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 Jer. 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. 64

    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." 65

    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." 66

    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." 67

    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.]" 68

    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." 69 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 fulfilment -- 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 & 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 idea that there will be a one-thousand year reign of peace after Christ 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." 70

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." 71

• Josephus lived and died a half-millenium 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." 72

• 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 descendants, the Khazars: "Tubal exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances." 73

• 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.'" 74

• 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. 75

• 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. 76

• Ibn Fadlan, the noted Arab traveler of the 700's 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." 77

• "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'". 78

• 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 second coming of 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 Saviour's warning concerning Jerusalem." 79 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 Messiah's coming.

    The offer made 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 favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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