Merkel a Polish Jew?

[Staropramen]

BTW, David Duke does not say the Jews of today are Khazars. He says they are the Jews of the Bible.

Indeed that is his position.

[worms]

Here is another site that says Merkel is a Jew:

http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/politik/12984-merkel2

It is a Polish site and I had to use a browser translator to read it. It claims Merkel is Jewish via her mother who was a Polish Jew from Galicia and that her grandfather fought against Germany in WWI. The article implies she is Communist.

I looked at that article, but it was written in German, not Polish--I ran it through translator from three different websites and got three different translations saying slightly different things. But it did bring up words such as "supposed" and "rumored" and "unconfirmed".

While the article seems to allege that Merkel is part jewish through her mother, it offers no documented evidence to support that claim. Galicia is a buzzword often used by people who want to suggest jewishness because so many jews came from that area, though it was predominantly ethnically Polish.

That Merkel's Polish grandfather fought against Germany in WWI is irrelevant. The Poles have a long history of fighting against any invading forces. That certainly doesn't prove he must have been jewish.

The red flag in this article that should make you highly skeptical of its agenda is that it seems to repeat an unconfirmed rumor that Merkel is actually the illegitimate daughter of former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl. This is the equivalent of those in the "patriot movement" who claimed that Bill Clinton was the illegitimate son of Lawrence Rockefeller.

One of the ironies of this whole controversy surrounding Merkel is that a number of her ancestors come from Poznań (Posen in German), whose patron saint is Paul of Tarsus.

I don't know if Merkel is Jewish or not. I only know that she is acting in a way that would be considered Jewish in my way of thinking. Her actions are those of the Jew. She is purposely destroying true Judah. I know the Apostle Paul was a true Judahite, but was a Talmudic demon prior to his conversion. IMHO, regardless of whether Merkel is a Khazar or not, she would qualify as a Talmudic proselyte and two fold more a child of hell than a Khazar. This would, in my opinion make her worse than a demon Jew. BTW, I admit that when I see extreme Talmudic action coming from someone, I suspect a Khazarian lineage. Dont think that will change for me. I have a problem with people blaming everything on the Jew when the Word is clear that we are our own worst enemy and God is using those demons to bring about his promises on us for disobedience. It's us! Not them that's the problem!

How can anything or anyone be possibly worse than a literal descendant of Satan?

I suspect Merkel is really white, unfortunately she is also a brainwashed, liberal jew-puppet. But if she is really white then she isn't worse than a Jew, she is just severely misguided.

[worms]

If the jew could suddenly become 6,000,000 times more wicked than it already is it wouldn't matter one whip if White people simply obeyed Yahweh.

Staro, that's my point exactly, and I couldn't have said it better.

Meggie, i would caution you in using the term "Khazar", especially conceding it to the jews. The Khazars were originally White Israelites, not biological jews. To allow the jews to claim Khazar ancestry is no different from allowing them German ancestry. And even if many Khazars converted to judaism, that does not make them biological jews, any more than Paul of Tarsus became a biological jew by becoming a Pharisee.

Obviously, some White Khazars inter-married with jews, and their demon descendants were all forever jews. However, my guess is that most of the original Khazars were absorbed by the invading Rus and/or absorbed into the mongol/turk invaders. Some White Khazars probably moved west and were absorbed into the slavic nations.

Either way, the jews are not Khazars, regardless of what David Duke claims. They may have some Khazar blood, but then again many jews have Israelite blood inter-mingled with their ever-present blood of Cain.

I didn't know the Khazars were originally white Israelites, I will think again before calling Jews Khazars

[Kentucky]

The Khazars were originally White Israelites, not biological jews.

Ezra, your sources would be most welcome in establishing the identity of the Khazars, being that that's what we do in Identity. Most of what I've read say they were from Japheth, not Shem.

Mark

[Staropramen]

How can anything or anyone be possibly worse than a literal descendant of Satan?

Devils do what they do by nature. Whites who act like them do it by choice. The scripture says he who doesn't take care of his own is worse than the devil. I believe that this is the reason.

[brucebohn]

The Khazars were originally White Israelites, not biological jews.

Ezra, your sources would be most welcome in establishing the identity of the Khazars, being that that's what we do in Identity. Most of what I've read say they were from Japheth, not Shem.

Mark

From Japheth, was my understanding as well.

[Staropramen]

How can anything or anyone be possibly worse than a literal descendant of Satan?

See also;

So Jews can be Jews and practice Judaism exclusively in Israel, but Jews in Europe insist that Whites surrender both their religious exclusivity and their racial homogeneity to non-Whites. Such Jewish hypocrisy is an innate feature of their character, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 23 that Jesus Christ had told the Jews of His time:

“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”

While it is evident with such a remark that Jews would rather destroy the Kingdom of Heaven than do what it takes to have a part in it, it is further evident where Christ continued to speak, that those who would follow the Jews become twice as corrupted as the Jews themselves:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

http://christogenea.org/articles/camp-saints-revisited

[EzraLB]

Mark,
I understand that a lot of people in CI traditionally believe that the Khazars were descendants of Japheth, just as many claim that the Slavs were also from Japheth. As far as the Khazars are concerned, the evidence most often cited, besides Josephus, is an alleged letter written circa 950 AD by the Khazar king, Joseph, to a Spanish jew in which Joseph claimed Japheth ancestry. Given the source, we should all raise a collective eyebrow.

I should be obvious why those who promote the Khazar-Jew theory insist on the connection to Japheth--because it allows them to connect the Khazars to Ashkenaz, thus identifying the legitimate OT origins of the ashkenazi jews. I believe it is wrong to cede that point to the jews both historically and scripturally.

And yet we have the Spanish historian, Isadore of Seville, 200 years earlier, claiming that virtually all European nations can trace their origins back to Japheth. In support of Isadore of Seville's contention, even the British early on claimed Japhethite ancestry, as shown in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part Two, act 2, scene 2, where he writes, "...they will be kin to us, or they will fetch it from Japhet."

This contention that Japheth dispersed all across Europe directly contradicts traditional--and rather facile-- Christian Identity claims that the different Tribes of Israel settled into particular European nations, such as the tribe of Dan becoming the Danes, Joseph becoming the British, and Judah becoming the Germans, etc., while central and eastern European nations are Japheth. As Bill has pointed out on a number of occasions, the real history of the settlement of Europe cannot be put into such a nice, clean package. And the archaeological record seems to contradict these cut and dry distinctions.

i do recall reading on a British Israel site which contended that the Khazars were indeed, at least in part, Israelites, and gave historical information in support of that idea--but unfortunately I don't have that information handy right now, but if I can find it, I will post it. However, it is ironic that this site made this point to prove that european jews were not descendants of the Khazar jews.

I also recognize what Josephus wrote about the legendary dispersion of Japheth, and part of that dispersion coincides with what eventually became the Khazar empire. However, given the geographical location of Khazaria, it is inconceivable to me that a portion of the Israelites did not settle in that region after the Assyrian captivity. Obviously a lot more research needs to be done on this issue, as one issue seems rather clear, to me at least--that the dispersions of Japheth and Shem are not as easy to distinguish as some would like to believe.

[Staropramen]

This contention that Japheth dispersed all across Europe directly contradicts traditional--and rather facile-- Christian Identity claims that the different Tribes of Israel settled into particular European nations, such as the tribe of Dan becoming the Danes, Joseph becoming the British, and Judah becoming the Germans, etc., while central and eastern European nations are Japheth. As Bill has pointed out on a number of occasions, the real history of the settlement of Europe cannot be put into such a nice, clean package. And the archaeological record seems to contradict these cut and dry distinctions.

I thought that Japheth did disperse across Europe and were already in those places that the tribes of Israel later settled and built up into the nations of Europe?

[Kentucky]

As far as the Khazars are concerned, the evidence most often cited, besides Josephus, is an alleged letter written circa 950 AD by the Khazar king, Joseph, to a Spanish jew in which Joseph claimed Japheth ancestry. Given the source, we should all raise a collective eyebrow.

I understand the necessity to scrutinize sources. This then would go to the motive of the letter. Was it disinformation in the hopes that identifying the Khazars as Shemitic would cause some kind of problem either then or later in the future? Or is the letter itself a fabrication, not being authenticated as an artifact of antiquity? Where is the letter today, in a museum, university, private collection? Why would someone use this letter to promote the idea that Khazars are Japhetic, if it were in error?

I should be obvious why those who promote the Khazar-Jew theory insist on the connection to Japheth--because it allows them to connect the Khazars to Ashkenaz, thus identifying the legitimate OT origins of the ashkenazi jews. I believe it is wrong to cede that point to the jews both historically and scripturally.

Most everything I've read on the subject from Christian Identity expositors promotes the premise, but I've never entertained the thought that the promotion was or is inherently dishonest to deceive or misdirect our community. We obviously promote it, because we think it's the truth. I agree that it's wrong to cede or surrender anything to the jews such as the mindless Paul-bashing that goes on in certain Identity camps. But, I'm having difficulty understanding your point... what is it that's so bad, that we're relinquishing?

And yet we have the Spanish historian, Isadore of Seville, 200 years earlier, claiming that virtually all European nations can trace their origins back to Japheth. In support of Isadore of Seville's contention, even the British early on claimed Japhethite ancestry, as shown in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part Two, act 2, scene 2, where he writes, "...they will be kin to us, or they will fetch it from Japhet."

This contention that Japheth dispersed all across Europe directly contradicts traditional--and rather facile-- Christian Identity claims that the different Tribes of Israel settled into particular European nations, such as the tribe of Dan becoming the Danes, Joseph becoming the British, and Judah becoming the Germans, etc., while central and eastern European nations are Japheth. As Bill has pointed out on a number of occasions, the real history of the settlement of Europe cannot be put into such a nice, clean package. And the archaeological record seems to contradict these cut and dry distinctions.

It only takes a little bit of leaven to leaveneth the whole lump, unless we are vigilant against Trojan horses. This 'Japheth is White people' claim has been floating around Christian Identity for at least 25 years and it has never taken root, not only because it's absurd, but because it's never been proven. I believe it would be wrong to seed that plant.

i do recall reading on a British Israel site which contended that the Khazars were indeed, at least in part, Israelites, and gave historical information in support of that idea--but unfortunately I don't have that information handy right now, but if I can find it, I will post it.

You just said above, "Given the source, we should all raise a collective eyebrow." Why would a British Israel source be given a free pass? It should be mentioned that not all BI sects today carry the old baggage of Judah being the jews, but the older the source the more jew-friendly it gets.

However, it is ironic that this site made this point to prove that european jews were not descendants of the Khazar jews.

Why is it ironic?

I also recognize what Josephus wrote about the legendary dispersion of Japheth, and part of that dispersion coincides with what eventually became the Khazar empire. However, given the geographical location of Khazaria, it is inconceivable to me that a portion of the Israelites did not settle in that region after the Assyrian captivity. Obviously a lot more research needs to be done on this issue, as one issue seems rather clear, to me at least--that the dispersions of Japheth and Shem are not as easy to distinguish as some would like to believe.

If more research needs to be done, then why is it inconceivable? Prophetically, the tribes of Israel were to migrate north and west, which they did, rather than east in the direction of the southern steppes of Russia. I like to believe that the majority of migrations went in a traceable direction and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of minor splinters and anomalies. Let me ask you, what is it that you like about the idea of Israelites, a "portion" of them, migrating out of their Assyrian captivity and into the very same region that would later become the Khazar empire?

I've been ruminating about this for a week, because it's such an enormous monkey wrench being thrown into the foundational premise of Christian Identity, when explaining to neophytes why jews are not Israel, that somehow we got it wrong for the last 40-50 years and the new epiphany thrown into the mix (pun intended) is that there was an Israelite presence in Khazaria at the time of their conversion to judaism in the 9th century AD, because they had migrated to that geographic location about a thousand years earlier. What does this mean? It means that some modern day jews may not be mongrel at all, but as White as you and me. That some jews may be 100% White???? Wow, does that AMPLIFY discerning the wheat and tares or what? If your premise were to ever take hold in Christian Identity, I'd say it would be the beginning of the end for an increasingly softening position on jews, because then it would be even more difficult to discern who is who. Perhaps a new denomination would arise called judeo-Identity. Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Mark