The Forgotten Diaspora (2)

February 3, 2023 Category: Uncategorized


The Ashkenazim clearly have a different background from other European Jews.  If this fact were quite clear to most people until the modern age (as we’ve seen, this was no secret to anyone during the Middle Ages), then wherefore the proliferation of misconceptions NOW?

We might start by asking: How, exactly, did the (unwitting) misconceptions and (deliberately fabricated) historiography about Ashkenazi origins begin?  The myth that the Ashkenazim somehow migrated from the Promised Land through southern and/or western Europe–at some undisclosed point in the past, for unspecified reasons, under circumstances that remain unclear, via utterly inexplicable means–was likely started in the 16th century by the Polish mystic, Elijah ben Aharon Yehudah “Ba’al Shem” of Chelm / Lublin.  He did this, in part, by harking back to the ancient myth of Noah’s grandson via Japeth: Gomer.  After all, in Judaic lore, Gomer was traditionally associated with the Cimmerians / Scythians.

How did this “just-so” story work?  Gomer–as a Japethite–was said to have sired “Ashkenaz”.  He also sired “Ripath” (likely named after the fabled Riphean Mountains, and vaguely associated with the “Huns”; later, the Scythians) and “Togarmah” (purported to have been progenitor of the Turkic peoples).  Presto: Different lineages, all traceable to Abrahamic patriarchs, that account for disparate Judaic communities appearing in the appropriate geographical regions! {42}  To engage in such retroactive taxonomic chicanery is a blatant case of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.

Even if we are to take this farcical genealogy seriously, it still begs the question: How is it that the Slavic progeny of Gomer’s eldest son should be considered Semitic? There is no explanation for this leap.

Of course, there was probably no Gomer; and certainly no son of Gomer named “Ashkenaz”.  As mentioned, that moniker was likely based on an Assyrian term for the people of the Eurasian Steppes: “Ashkuza”…who were expelled by the Assyrians in the 7th century B.C. Recall that the Torah was originally composed in Babylonian Aramaic during the Exilic Period.

To review: The Halakah (doctrinally) and the Talmudic tradition (more generally) were not reconciled with Ashkenazic Judaism until the mid-16th century–largely as a result of Joseph ben Ephraim Karo’s work in the 1550’s. This means that it is EXCLUSIVELY the period between the downfall of the [k]Hazar Empire (in the late 10th century) and the advent of this reconciliation that serves as the relevant timeframe for our inquiry.

With respect to pre-1000 A.D., when we look to records of East Frankia (spec. the “Annals of Fulda”, which chronicled the entire 9th century), we find no mention of Jews in eastern Europe.  (The Abbey of Fulda was in Hesse.)  That material—which was primarily concerned with Carolingian exploits—begins with accounts by the Benedictine monk, Einhard; then by the Benedictine monk, Rudolf of Fulda; and by myriad others thereafter.  Much of the writing was done in Mainz (where people spoke a Frankish dialect known as “Ripuarian”), Lorsch (which was just 10 kilometers east of Worms), and Regensburg (in Bavaria).  The annals end with the tenure of Arnulf of Carinthia, who ruled from Worms…and conducted engagements with the pagans of Moravia and Bohemia; and even with the Magyars of the Carpathian Basin.

This period was followed by the Ottonians (919 to 1024), then the Salians (1024 to 1125).  A chronicle composed by the Saxon bishop, Thietmar of Merseburg (c. 1018) as well as the chronicle of “Sancti Pantaleonis” (c. 1237) are historiographies of the Ottonian dynasty (the former put emphasis on the Slavic campaigns around Magdeburg; the latter focused on Cologne)…spanning the early 10th to the early 11th centuries. Meanwhile, the “Gesta Pincipum Polonorum” (c. 1016) chronicles the events around early Poland (spec. the Piast dynasty) during that time.

The Sephardic preoccupation with “Kohenim” (the priestly caste, defined by bloodlines) did not catch on in Ashkenazi communities until much later. Hence the proliferation of surnames like “Coh[e]n” amongst Sephardim during the early Middle Ages, but not amongst Ashkenazim until the modern age.

The delimited scope of Revisionist Zionist propaganda reveals its glaring deficiencies. The preponderance of their material on the Ashkenazic-Sephardic dichotomy pertains to the post-Karo period (that is: beginning in the late 16th century); material which is entirely beside the point when it comes to our purposes here.  To ascertain the credence of the present thesis, anything that occurred later than the “Shul[c]han Arukh” is largely irrelevant.  For by c. 1563, much of the evidence for the [k]Hazarian provenance of the Ashkenazim would have dissipated.  And there was certainly no longer any incentive to highlight the Turkic provenance of the Ashkenazim.

The “catch” is that ANY documentation on this matter becomes suspiciously sparse much before the temporal threshold c. 1500.

In sum: Many of those who now claim “Jewish” heritage who hail from Eastern Europe (i.e. the Ashkenazim) are primarily descendants of the [k]Hazars. That is: They are of Turkic–rather than of Semitic–origin. This includes the Krymchaks and Karaites of Crimea–who openly embrace their Turkic roots. It also includes a significant portion of the Ashkenazi population: a people who, according to Judaic lore, were Gomerites who eventually ended up in Eastern Europe. {36}

It is only for ideological purposes that many Ashkenazim now fashion themselves as pristinely Semitic.  Doing so enables them to posit a fanciful genealogy that serves their agenda: staking a claim on Palestine as their ancestral homeland.  The confabulation furnishes those with Zionist designs with the illusory provenance requisite for their claims of blood and soil. Hence the ethno-nationalism that undergirds their brazen asseverations about “eretz Israel” is given a quasi-plausible etiological buttress.  The obduracy with which this claim is asserted is designed to elide its spuriousness.

The point here has been to show the extent to which ideologues are willing to engage in programatic obfuscation in order to maintain the positions on which they’ve staked their claim.

Again, we find hidebound Reactionaries digging in their heals; as their ideological commitments are tethered to certain conclusions—spurious assertions that are necessary if they wish to uphold their proclamation of “lebensraum” in Palestine (based on ethnic “birthright”).  A fabricated heritage provides Revisionist Zionists (esp. those who use the “aliyah” as an excuse to engage in the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestine) with a rational to “return” to their “homeland”.  How so? Contrived legacy begets contrived destiny. In reality, if the Ashkenazim really wanted to return to their ancestors’ “homeland”, they would be going back to the Pontic Steppes. Of course, that does not serve the Revisionist Zionist agenda, which requires the conflation of “Beth Israel” with a chimerical “eretz Israel” in order to rationalize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. {80}

Considering the treatment of Jews in much of Europe during much of the Middle Ages, the paucity of surviving documentation pre-dating Karo’s “Shul[c]han Arukh” is unsurprising.  For example, in 1243, at the behest of the Pope, King Louis IX of France ordered the burning of over 12,000 Jewish manuscripts (much of it Talmudic writings, but anything that the authorities could get their hands on). A tremendous amount of historical documentation was surely included in this massive cache, all of which was lost forever. Hence the paucity of evidence for ANYTHING happening (vis a vis Jews in Europe) prior to this time.

The destruction of historical evidence continued into modern times. The Russian Tsars were certainly not deferential to their Jewish subjects. Crimean Tatars–both Jewish and Muslim–were purged by Joseph Stalin after the Second World War. Their records were largely destroyed…along with evidence for their ancestral origins. (Stalin did the same with ALL Turkic peoples, as well as with the Mongols farther east.)

As I discuss at length in my essay on “The Land Of Purple”, the world’s Jews had myriad homelands. And for thousands of years, that was fine. After all, Israel was a people; not a place. Beth Israel was comprised of a resplendent variety of ethnicities, each of which called a different country “home”.  It was a mosaic, not a monolith.

It was only in the advent of Revisionist Zionism that the brazen claim started to be made that the ONLY “true” homeland for the world’s Jewish people was a certain tract of land in the Levant; and that this singular ethnic group had an exclusive right to it (a right that trumped the claims of anyone else). This claim was legitimized by appeals to divine ordinance…and to the historical veracity of the Hebrew Bible.

In order to be legitimized, the Jewish ethno-State had to have theocratic underpinnings. After all, ethno-nationalist movements ALL require national origin myths to give themselves an air of legitimacy, and justify their claims of “lebensraum”. This invariably entails pogroms against—and eviction of—an indigenous population that is seen as coming from the wrong stock. When it comes to claims of blood and soil, the formula is always the same–whether it is Judeo-nationalists contra indigenous Palestinians in the Levant or Bamar nationalists contra Rohingya / Chin in Burma.  The fetishization of ethnic purity never ends well.

The point is worth repeating: It is helpful to note how incredibly easy it would be to DIS-prove the present thesis, were it errant in some significant way. Indeed, a single piece of incontrovertible evidence could negate it. Yet…of all the possible countervailing evidence that could–and, most likely WOULD–exist if the Ashkenazim were Semitic, literally NONE exists. This fact alone speaks volumes. {6}

With all this in mind, let’s assay the ramifications of the present thesis.

Even as they are every bit as Judaic as the rest of Beth Israel, the Ashkenazim are “racially” more Turkic than Semitic. This is GOOD news for those wishing to fight anti-Semitism (i.e. racism against ethnic Jews); as it reminds us that Faith transcends ethnic background. More to the point, it shows that the “race” for which anti-Semites have contempt is a chimera. Even in the Hebrew Bible, we find the fixation on bloodlines is misplaced when it comes to what it means to be Jewish. In the Book of Ruth, the (eponymous) protagonist is a Moabite women who—felicitously—becomes part of Beth Israel.

The realization that Ashkenazim originated from primarily non-Semitic peoples eliminates the RACIAL basis of anti-Semites’ animus. As it turns out, the object of their scorn is–oftentimes–not even Semitic. (!) If racists aim to derogate Ashkenazim based on race, they must–by the same logic–include every other ethnic group with a Turkic and/or Slavic background…and possibly even Persians and Caucasians. (Not that their bigotry is internally consistent anyway. When Christian, anti-Semites often forget that they worship a Palestinian Jew. And when Christian Zionist, the virulent anti-Semitism is often dismissed as a minor technicality so long as they support Revisionist Zionism politically.)

Moreover: One would think the fact that the [k]Hazar Empire was a respected and thriving, cosmopolitan society that championed pluralism and religious tolerance (plus the fact that it was the only sovereign Jewish Empire in history) would be something to CELEBRATE, not to obfuscate. Indeed, the [k]Hazarian roots of the Ashkenazim should be a point of pride for Progressive Jews the world over. The only genuinely democratic Jewish kingdom in history would furnish Beth Israel with a legacy to emulate.  (The short-lived Hasmonean dynasty in Palestine was a vassal State of the Roman Imperium.)  Suffice to say: Echoing the ideals of the [k]Hazar Empire in Palestine would be a welcome departure from the theocratic ethno-State that is presently called “Israel”.

By the same token, this is bad news for Judeo-Supremacists; as it undermines their ethno-centric worldview. {2}  More to the point: Revisionist Zionists can no longer use the charge that critics of their deranged ideology are “anti-Semitic”; as the Palestinians they persecute are–it turns out–far more Semitic than most of them! (Who, then, are the REAL anti-Semites?) The lesson here is an important one: When evaluating the virtue of one’s own community, bloodlines are patently irrelevant. There is no “birth-right” in civil society; there are only HUMAN rights. We are all fellow humans; and–at the end of the day–that is all that matters.

Generally speaking, those who are caught in the thrall of ethno-centricity are tempted to occlude the actual history of their own tribe, espousing a contrived “sacred history” (read: faux history) in its place. This is often done in a gambit to uphold illusions of ethnic purity; and thereby propound an exalted heritage that exists only in their own imaginations. This unabashed tribalistic conceit is invariably based on a raft of strategically-tailored farce. (Such hubris is standard for those who fixate on bloodlines.)

For the present purpose, it should suffice to point out that there are several other ethno-centric myths that deign to tie some exalted in-group to the fabled Israelites–even non-Jewish versions like British “Israelism” and the American “Christian Identity” movement. ALL of it is, of course, as racist as it is illusory.

Another case in point is the Prussian Supremacy touted by G.W.F. Hegel, who invoked his own version of (divine) Providence to rationalize his brazen claims. That played into the myth of Teutonic Supremacy. {37}  A dozen other notable instances of this delusive mindset:

  • North Koreans fancy themselves as exalted “Choson”–per their ethno-nationalist ideology, “Juche”.
  • Chinese who are obsessed with “Zhong-hua min-zu” fancy themselves as progeny of the exalted “Hua-Xia”. (Both terms have palpably ethno-centric connotations.) There are also hints of Han Supremacy undergirding Chinese nationalism (as with their treatment of the Uyghurs and Tibetans as subalterns), a supremacy that also undergirds their perfidious designs on Hong Kong and Taiwan.
  • Japanese who are obsessed with “Kokutai” indulge in fantastical etiological myths about an exalted Nihon- jin of yore. This ethos fueled the hegemonic militarism of Imperial Japan. 
  • Burmese ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as exalted “Bamar”, relegating all other ethnic groups to sub-human status.
  • Turkish ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as progeny of the Hittites–which makes no sense, as the existence of that Bronze-Age people antedated the category “Turkic” by over a thousand years…and certainly had nothing to do with the Ottoman glory days. (This is analogous to present-day Iraqis deeming the Sumerians part of their national heritage; or present-day Egyptians deeming themselves inheritors of the Pharaonic legacy.) 
  • Italian ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as exalted “Romanitas” (progeny of the Romans, hailing from the fabled Alba Longa); though which medieval Italic kingdom had the TRUE “Italians” depends on who one asks.
  • Romanian ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as progeny of the Dacians (viz. proto-Chronism), who dwelled northeast of the Danube. 
  • Croatian ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as progeny of the Illyrians. 
  • Polish ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as progeny of the Sarmatians…even as their ancestors—the Polans—were much too far north to have been related to Scythians who dwelled south of the Carpathian mountains.
  • German ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as exalted “Herren-volk”: a pristinely Nordic / Teutonic master-race.
  • Hungarian (Magyar) ethno-nationalists fancy themselves as exalted “Turan”: a pristinely Uralic people who were somehow, magically, Roman Catholic. {38}
  • Persian ethno-nationalists harken back to Zoroastrian lore, in which the “Airyana Vaejah” [Aryan expanse] is the mythical homeland of the ancient Iranians; and thus the axis mundi.

This conceit is ubiquitous; as Exceptionalism is invariably tied to some kind of Providentialism. American ethno-nationalists (esp. WASPs) exhibit what is best described as the Mayflower syndrome–thereby fancying themselves as more authentically “American” than American citizens of alternate ethnic backgrounds. (It’s as if being descended from Europeans who arrived in the New World earlier somehow conferred upon them a more exalted status.) Add Christian Dominionism to the mix, and one ends up with what is effectively an American brand of ethno-nationalism.

In sum: This is a common phenomenon.  (For a discussion of ethno-nationalism, see my essays on “The Many Faces Of Fascism” and “The Land Of Purple”.)

Irrespective of the in-group, calls for a theocratic ethno-State are always wrong for the same reasons. Exceptionalism is invariably tied to some sort of self-serving national origin myth.  The reputedly Semitic background of Ashkenazim (as progeny of god’s “chosen people”) is but one of many examples of fabricated heritage, by which the exalted in-group peddles a gilded legacy based largely on bespoke farce.  That legacy is then used as a cudgel to push this or that ethno-centric (viz. nationalistic) agenda.

Manufactured history almost always serves an ideological purpose. Otherwise why go to the trouble of manufacturing it?  (A question one might always ask of a sacred history: IF the world were to take this as incontrovertibly true, then cui bono?  The answer is often as revealing about contrived historiographies as “follow the money” is informative about ulterior motives in politics.)

This scheme is especially divisive when it is used to lay claim to land–as with Israeli nationalists viz. Palestine, Tamil nationalists viz. Sri Lanka, Turkish nationalists viz. Kurdistan, and Chinese nationalists viz. Xin-jiang and Tibet.  In each case, the ideologues are obliged to re-write history (creating just-so stories) to rationalize their odious agenda.  The message is that the OTHER (be they Arab Palestinians vis a vis Jewish Israelis, Sinhalese vis a vis Tamils, Kurds vis a vis Turks, or Uyghurs / Tibetans vis a vis Chinese) is not even a LEGITIMATE PEOPLE, and so has no claim on the coveted land. End of discussion.

Anglo-Saxon settlers thought of the indigenous population of North America and Australia as such; Spanish and Portuguese “Conquistadors” thought of the indigenous population of South and Central America as such; and ALL Europeans thought of indigenous Africans as such.  The perpetrators may change; but the atrocity is the same.  (Crimes against humanity are not crimes because they happen to be against any particular group.)  When crafting sacred histories, both embellishment and selective omission are standard operating procedure; as the aim is to get what happened in the past to legitimize certain “rightful claims” in the present.  Legacy augurs destiny; so to get the latter, fabricate the former.

The racist notion, “yikhus” (noble descent; i.e. special bloodlines) coupled with a raft of specious (Biblical) dogmas about Beth Israel force ideologically-driven Ashkenazim to insist on a Semitic ancestry…lest their house of cards completely collapse.  Dismayingly, the illusion underlying Judaic lebensraum continues to have purchase amongst a surprising segment of Beth Israel. As I’ve shown, in their flailing attempt to retain a veneer of credence, such interlocutors end up exposing their hubris…and their bigotry. (I discuss this matter in my essays: “Genesis Of A People” and “The Land Of Purple”.)

While historiographers are busy burnishing a contrived legacy for the anointed in-group, those of us concerned with (actual) history are obliged to debunk whatever “received wisdom” happens to prevail.  Such a thankless enterprise will invariably be met with stern resistance–nay, outright scorn–from obdurate ideologues; as setting the record straight denies them their casus belli.

True Believers will countenance their coveted historiography (esp. when it is a foundation myth) not because it is TRUE, but because it is USEFUL. (It’s not so much about believing it is true; it is BELIEVING IN the belief that it is true.)  Being pragmatic creatures, dogmas are based more on utility than on veracity.  A narrative vehicle for the promulgation of an ideology is adopted because it is compelling.  By wrenching the chassis from their narrative vehicle, one is depriving True Believers of the means by which they rationalize their agenda.  I hope to have done that here.

There’s a downside to this enterprise.  Anyone with the audacity to bring ACTUAL history to light is held in contempt; and summarily vilified for upsetting the sacred applecart. So far as the X-supremacist is concerned, bringing into question the historiographical underpinnings of X-based Exceptionalism is seen as a sign of anti-X bigotry.  For Revisionist Zionists, this comes in the form of (spurious accusations of) “anti-Semitism”.  Hence the flippant dismissal of the “Khazar theory” by those who are fine not actually knowing anything about the relevant history.  It suffices to scoff at those who mention it; basking in the warm froth of their own sanctimony.

Sometimes, it is not so much the myth itself to which proponents cling…as it is the ideological perks that come with it.  Pretending it is an incontrovertible “truth” furnishes one with all the etiological claims one needs to justify whatever it is one wants to do.  By debunking the myth, hidebound ideologues are deprived of those precious emoluments. Thus: In order to maintain the illusion that their delusions of Exceptionalism are warranted, this house of cards must be left alone.  Sacred apple-carts mustn’t ever be upset. {8}

Yet another salient example of indulgence in faux history (in the service of ethnic fiction) pertains to what is now known as “Hungarian”. Hungarians are descendants of the Magyars, whose origins–it turns out–were also in the Eurasian Steppes. Those who remain in the region to the present day are known as the “Mansi”; yet Magyar pride is reticent to concede that Hungarians and Mansi have shared origins.  This is another reminder that dissimulation is de rigueur for ethno-nationalism.

It is worth reviewing the historical background of the Magyars, as it offers a striking parallel to the background of the Ashkenazim.  During the Dark Ages, the Magyars–who were ALSO a Turkic people–migrated to the Carpathian basin (known at the time as Pannonia; roughly corresponding to the region of that is now dubbed “Hungary”), and christened the land “Etil-Köz” (using the terms for “river” and “middle” to indicate a land in the midst of the Dniester, Prut, and Siret Rivers).  Subsequently, they ALSO mixed with the indigenous (Hellenic, Turkic, and Slavic) peoples; and–as a matter of course–adopted their own (novel) ethnic identity.  Being as they were located within the orbit of the (Christian) Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, these early “Hungarians” were obliged to fancy themselves a pristinely European people.  Yet, to this day, the residue of their non-European ancestry can be found in their language: Hungarian is a Uralic-Altaic language that originally used Old Turkic runes for its script; and–via Chuvash influences–included many Turkic words in its vernacular.  Tellingly, early Hungarian (i.e. Magyar) folklore exhibited many features of Siberian shamanism.

It was not until the 11th century (sound familiar?) that the Hungarians eschewed their pagan roots and adopted a new religion (in their case: Roman Catholicism).  Records indicate that this was done during the reign of King Ladislav (a.k.a. “Laszlo”).  It makes sense, then, that most Hungarian CHRISTIAN terms are Slavic (indicating a concomitance of lingual and religious influences) even as its older lexicon retains a Turkic etymology.  The Old Church Slavonic in which Eastern Orthodox scripture was re-written was a sop to the Slavic peoples of the region, who would have had little affinity for the original liturgical language of the Byzantines: Koine Greek.

Here’s the clincher: Hungarians can ALSO trace much of their lineage back to the [k]Hazars. (!)  Indeed, their Magyar origins can be traced to a “kende” [ruler] who was a vassal of the [k]Hazar Empire: Almos.  (More on him in Postscript 1.)

Unsurprisingly, few Hungarians today recognize their non-Occidental (i.e. pagan Turkic) heritage; as doing so would undermine the magnificently Occidental (read: Christian-centric) foundation myths they so ardently covet.  This is a familiar routine. {38}  Note that the Ashkenazi surname, “Kertesz” is Magyar for “garden”, which was an important term in the Torah (Hebrew: “Gan”).  It strains credulity that a Jewish family with a Semitic background would have opted for a Turkic moniker in lieu of such an auspicious Hebraic term.  Naturally, a Jewish family with a Uralic background was apt to use a Uralic lexeme. {111}

Onomastic elision is not uncommon amongst Hungarian Jews. Take billionaire, George Soros, for example.  He is a descendent of a family of Jewish Magyars who’s surname had been “Schwartz” during the Pale of Settlement.  “Soros” (meaning “dark-skinned”) was a replacement for the more overtly Ashkenazic moniker, which itself would have transplanted a Turkic moniker centuries earlier.  (I discuss another famous example in Postscript 1.)  When it comes to residual onomastics, note that the “Tosh” / “Tash” dynasty of Hassidim was founded in the 18th century (in the tradition of Baal Shem Tov) by a disciple of the Ruthenian rabbi, Yitzchok Ayzik of Komarno. {50}  The dynasty was an eponym for the town in which it began–located in former Magyar territory.

Lo and behold: “Tosh” / “Tash” was Turkic for “stone”; and had played a role in certain onomastic conventions throughout the Middle Ages.  (It continues to be part of the Uzbek language.)  The term was used in Tabaristan (northeastern Persia near the Caspian sea) for such places as Tash-e Olya and Tash-e Sofia; as well as for Tash-Kand[a] farther to the east (eventually rendered “Tashkent”).  “Kand[a]” was the Sogdian / Turkic term for city. Why in heaven’s name would a Hassidic dynasty name itself using a Turkic lexeme?  Unless…

A final point: To acknowledge that Ashkenazim are not GENETICALLY Semitic does not entail that they are not–in a sense–CULTURALLY Semitic. They are, after all, Jewish (which is a traditionally Semitic Faith). Hence: To hold that they are not Semitic in terms of ancestry is NOT to suggest that they are not genuinely Jewish. The point is: One can be Jewish without being Semitic…just as one can be Semitic without being Jewish (e.g. Muslim Palestinians, Assyrians, and Lebanese Druze).

Ignorance on such matters is often not deliberate. In many cases, those acceding to conventional wisdom are not intentionally getting it wrong; they just don’t know any better. It is the haughtiest dogma- traffickers (especially those who have an ax to grind) who end up being the loudest voices. Others are cowed into playing along.

It is an irony that the most zealous Revisionist Zionists (Judean Settlers, who are typically Haredim / [c]Hassidim) hail from the LEAST Semitic part of Beth Israel.  As we’ve seen, though, to suppose that the Ashkenazim were somehow descendants of a Semitic peoples, one is forced to take a gigantic leap…while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.  Such Reality-denial does the Ashkenazim no favors.  The suggestion that one is not GENUINELY Jewish unless one can trace one’s ancestry to a certain haplo-group is ITSELF bigoted–based as it is on racialist criteria.  It is revealed to be a patently anti-Semitic position once one recognizes that the majority of Beth Israel today CANNOT, in fact, trace their ancestry back to the Levant.

As we’ve seen, gilded legacies often require the fabrication of sacred histories.  This invariably involves the programatic obfuscation of ACTUAL history.  There is a staunch vested interest in upholding the anointed narrative, lest the rationalization for the designated agenda disintegrate.  So once established, it is deemed taboo to countermand the “official story”–regardless of how groundless it might be. Consequently, those who simply seek the truth of the matter (and are fine with letting the chips fall where they may) are rendered personae non grata—or even vilified.

A question worth asking: What would be so bad about Ashkenazim having Turkic blood?  Unless I’m missing something, it would seem that the only reason to be vociferously against the present thesis is some sort of anti-Turkic sentiment.  Ideally, it wouldn’t matter whether or not Ashkenazi Jews had Turkic ancestry.  One can’t help but wonder: Is Semitic provenance supposed to make them more legitimately Jewish?  Well, yes, if one’s primary criterion is bloodlines.  It is entirely predictable, then, that Revisionist Zionists bridle at the prospect that the faux history on which they base their national origin myth be exposed.  (See my essay, “The Land Of Purple”.)

Is having Turkic ancestry a BAD thing?  Of course not.  Is ancestry irrelevant when it comes to according esteem?  Of course.  The suggestion that Semitic ancestry is somehow superior to Turkic ancestry—or is otherwise requisite for being Jewish—is not only absurd; it is bigoted.

There is an important caveat to the present thesis: We cannot be absolutely certain it is true.  Indeed, it is POSSIBLE that all the [k]Hazars were entirely killed or entirely died off or entirely converted out of the Faith…and subsequently dissipated into the surrounding populations; and that all the Ashkenazim DID migrate from elsewhere…and thus DID descend from the original Jewish diaspora in Late Antiquity.

In other words, the primary problem with the present theory is that it is, well, just a theory.  Be that as it may, given the available evidence (and an ample dose of deductive reasoning), it is–by far–the most likely explanation. And–to reiterate–it is easily falsifiable.

But here’s the thing: What is important is NOT whether or not it is true. The point here is that there regrettably exist some people who desperately wish it were untrue…lest the confectionary historiography on which their ethno-centric ideology is based be rendered null and void.

There are certainly key insights that I have missed; more dots to connect. I urge those who are curious to investigate this matter further, and without prejudice. {53}  The present disquisition is not a verdict; it is a point of departure.  My effort here to set the record straight comes not from a fixation on genetic lineage (a dunderheaded predilection that is the source of so many problems), but from a sincere interest in, well, just getting history right. Only those obsessed with “blood and soil” would be opposed to such an effort.

Lo and behold: Revisionist Zionists are vociferously–nay, militantly–opposed to certain facts coming to light. I devoted so much ink to the topic not because I care one way or the other what the verdict happens to be. It really doesn’t matter. Rather, I did so to demonstrate how much information some ideologues feel obligated to obfuscate when they depend on everyone believing that something isn’t true; even when it IS true. {8}

Progressives throughout Beth Israel rise above this illusory (non-)predicament. No less a figure than Abba Solomon Eban noted in his acclaimed book, “My People: The Story Of The Jews”: “It is likely too that some Khazar progeny reached the various Slavic lands where they helped to build the great Jewish centers of Eastern Europe”. That was in the 1960s. Alas. Such an admission by a top Israeli official would be unheard of today. 

It bears worth repeating: An absence of pristinely Semitic ancestry does not make a Jewish person any less Jewish. If that were the case, the majority of Beth Israel TODAY would not qualify as properly “Jewish”.

The famed Ashkenazi writer, Isaac Asimov may have put it best in his memoir, “It’s Been A Good Life” when he speculated: “It is possible that my [Jewish] ancestry might not move in the direction of ancient Israel at all… After 965, the Khazars were finished as an organized power, but Judaism may have remained. And it may well be that many East European Jews are descended from Khazars and the people they ruled. I may be one of them. Who knows? And who cares?” {107}


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 - 2010-2019 -
Developed by Malagueta/Br
Note to readers: Those reading these long-form essays will be much better-off using a larger screen (not a hand-held device) for displaying the text. Due to the length of most pieces on our site, a lap-top, desk-top, or large tablet is strongly recommended.


Download as PDF