REC  #1    HATONN

SAT., MARCH 30, 1991   7:23 A.M.   YEAR 4, DAY 226

WHO  WERE  THESE  KHAZARS?

Who were these remarkable people—remarkable as much by their power and achievements as by their conversion to a reli­gion of out­casts?  The descriptions that have been spread around to you origi­nate in hostile sources, and must not be taken as truth for the delib­erate deceit be­gan long before you can count.

An Arab chronicler makes an interesting statement:

“As to the Khazars, 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.”

It is obvious that after a century of warfare, this Arab writer 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, (PAY ATTEN­TION!) WITH THE HOSTS OF GOG AND MAGOG—”WILD MEN WITH HIDEOUS FACES AND THE MAN­NERS OF WILD BEASTS, EATERS OF BLOOD”.   An Armenian writer refers to “..the hor­rible multi­tude of Khaz­ars with inso­lent, broad, lashless faces and long falling hair, like women”.  Lastly, the Arab geographer Istakhri, one of the main Arab sources, has this to say: “The Khaz­ars do not re­semble the Turks.  They are black-haired, and are of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars, (Black Khazars) who are swarthy verging on deep black as if they were a kind of In­dian, and a white kind (Ak-Khazars) (Ashkanazi), who are strikingly hand­some.”  (Movie stars and politicians, per­haps?)

The latter is more flattering, but ONLY adds to the confusion.  For it was cus­tomary among Turkish peoples to refer to the ruling classes or clans as “white”, to the lower strata as “black”, and thus you can see how “terminology” is of tremen­dous importance in deciphering truth.  Thus there is no reason to believe that the “White Bulgars: where “whiter” in color than the “Black Bulgars”, or the “White Huns” (the Ephtalites) who invaded India and Persia in the fifth and sixth centuries were of fairer skin than the other Hun tribes which invaded Europe.  Is­takhri’s black-skinned Khazars—as much else in his and his col­leagues’ writings—were based on hearsay and legend, and you are none the wiser regarding the Khazars’ physical appear­ance, or their ethnic ori­gins.

The last question can only be answered in a most vague fashion from historical documenta­tions.  But it is equally frustrating to those who inquire into the ori­gins of the Huns, Alans, Avars, Bul­gars, Mag­yars, Bashkirs, Burtas, Sabirs, Uigurs, Saragurs, Onogurs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Tarni­aks, Kotragars, Khabars, Zabenders, Pechenegs, Ghuzz, Kumans, Kipchaks, and dozens of other tribes of people who at one time or another in the life­time of the Khazar Kingdom passed through the turnstiles of those migratory playgrounds.  Even the Huns, of whom you know much more, are of uncertain origin; their name is derived from the Chinese Hi­ung-nu, which desig­nates war­like nomads in general, while other na­tions applied the name Hun in a similarly indis­criminate way to nomadic hordes of all kinds, in­cluding the “White Huns” mentioned above, the Sabirs, Magyars and KHAZ­ARS.

Note that while the British at the time of World War I used the term “Hun” in the same pejora­tive sense, in Hungary schoolchildren were taught to look up to “our glorious Hun fore­fathers” with patriotic pride.  Attila is still a popular first name in that area and a very ex­clusive “rowing club” in Budapest was called “Hunnia”.

In the first century AD, the Chinese drove these disagreeable Hun neighbors westward, and thus started one of those periodic avalanches which swept for many centuries from Asia to­wards the West.  From the fifth century onward, many of these west­ward-bound tribes were called by the generic name of “Turks”.  The term is also supposed to be of Chinese origin (apparently de­rived from the name of a hill) and was subsequently used to refer to all tribes who spoke lan­guages with certain common characteristics—the “Turkic” language group.  Thus the term Turk, in the sense in which it was used by medieval writ­ers—and often also by mod­ern ethnologists—refers primarily to language and not to race.  In this sense the Huns and Khazars were “Turkic” people (but not the Magyars, whose lan­guage belongs to the Finno-Ugrian language group).

The Khazar language was supposedly a Chuvash dialect of Turkish, which still survives in the Autonomous Chuvash Soviet Republic, between the Volga and the Sura.  The Chuvash people are actually believed to be descendants of the Bulgars, who spoke a dialect simi­lar to the Khazars.  From this original lan­guage inte­grated into the more recently accepted Arab/Hebrew dialect—came “YIDDISH”.  Do you feel the trail getting hotter and hotter?

The origin of the original name “Khazar”, and the modern deriva­tions to which it gave rise, came from the Turkish root gaz, “to wander”, and simply means “nomad”.  And now, hold your breath: the really interesting derivations from it are the Russian Cossack and the Hungarian Hussar—both signifying mar­tial horsemen; and also the German KETZER—”HERETIC, I.E.: JEW!”

I would herein say that this information has GREAT IMPACT on what is going on in your world this day!

fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J039.pdf

Feb. 7, 2011