Monday, January 28, 2013

The Majority Are Always Wrong

New Genetic Study Confirms Suppressed Truth That Is Centuries Old


All races of people with strange mythologies about being descended from a ruling class who worshipped serpents, were noted for their large melon-shaped heads, changed names frequently and survived by large scale criminal enterprise. Refused to do honest work even living on some of the richest soils in Europe. Survived by means of all sorts of graft, rent-seeking, tariffs, extortion and grifting. All three peoples maintained a monopoly on the world slave trade by force. Attempted repeatedly every few centuries to switch religions, alter their names and reappear in other parts of world pretending to be completely unrelated to the previous generation of their people.

A history parallel to the Hebrews but not intersecting it until 800 years ago when Khazars could not leave their country for fear of their lives. The Khazars at this time had phallic serpent statues dotting their country at such frequent intervals that writers of this era said that standing near one of these statues you could always see a dozen more in any direction. The Khazars were said to physically resemble snakes because of the preference amongst them for mates with serpentine features. They wore armor designed to look like snake scales, had helmets like snake heads with fangs, hissed like serpents when they charged in battle.

A tapestry from the Middle Ages shows knights having their ears sealed with wax before a battle and the writing beneath it reads "To mute the lies of the Khazars when they go to war with them." It was believed that the Khazars could whisper to their enemies in the heat of fighting and cause them to attack their own comrades.

It was said of the Khazars that if they suspected any of themselves to be too clever or intelligent they would decide it was better for this one to serve the serpent, so they would take him to the nearest tree and hang him. This was said to be one of the reasons they were crafty but never what you would call bright. The truly bright ones died at a young age at the hands of their fellows.

Most historians believe these people came from deposed rulers of Akkadian-Sumerian ancestry who fled Sumeria when they were overthrown in a slave revolt there. They became wanderers because they refused to settle anywhere and be subject to the people who lived in that country, feeling their destiny was always to rule and subjugate others.

The Scythians wore large pointed caps to suit their large pointed heads. They believed that they had come from a race of rulers separate from the rest of mankind and it was beneath them to ever do common work, rather they were justified in earning their living through crime, slavery and domination over the other races. The Scythians believed the great serpent had given them power over all the lower races, making them the "true men" but all other races were poorer siblings created to serve them. The Scythians have also been traced to deposed rulers from Sumeria and much earlier kingdoms. It was said of the Scythians both by Roman writers and New Testament writers that Scythians could cause conflict amongst other people simply by being in the room. It was said by many that a Scythian was always capable of raising points of contention between people and amplifying their animosities to bring about dissension in their ranks.

One wonders if it was these men "who do not wish to be named" and "those who go unchallenged" that the mighty Enkidu defied and was punished for helping to overthrow.

The most important thing to know about all three races of people is that they are all considered different flavors of European Caucasian. Real Hebrews, men who trace their lineage back to the original Hebrew priesthood and therefore the only people we can say for certain are children of Abraham, are extremely rare. Even the majority of Sephardic people are converts from the Spanish Berbers. The tiny percentage of Sephardic people with levite ancestry are the only actual "Hebrews" we know of that can be genetically identified as a distinct group.


njartist said...

O.T. on this thread, but relates to your Sandy Hook article: a very interesting analysis of the Sandy Hook shooting forensics.

The blog is worth keeping an eye on.

njartist said...

This confirms that modern Jewry is not Israelite. Judaism is not Hebrewism; Judaism is the vile Talmudian religion brought back from Babylon by returning Judean captives plus accompanying Babylonians. This is the Tradition of the Elders which Yashua condemned. When the Khazars – descendants of Gomer BTW – converted they converted to the Talmudic religion which became known as Judaism.
The Scythians were Israelites – the exiled Ten Tribes including the Judeans who remained in captivity by Babylon -who conquered Greece. founded Troy, and founded Rome; in Rome the Israelite Prince Brutus self-exiled – accidentally killed his father on a hunt – went to Greece and by force of arms took back captured Trojans, took ships as tribute, and sailed to the British Isles landing at what is known as Brutus Rock; he then founded New Troy later renamed London.

iese_83 said...

Your own story here, is cool. The most interesting i think i´v read, possibly ever. It´s funny how "the Khazaar Theory" is every now and then proven, and then again it´s ´proven´to be utter shait :).
Anyway to ==> njartist - is London then, named by a Jew ?!. And set up by them ?. I didn´t know that, ty for the info. Also where does the name "London" actually come from and does it have a deeper meaning of some kind ?. ty

SmashTheZOG said...


It's true that there are notable differences between Talmudic Judaism and the ideology espoused in the OT. However, there are also even more notable differences between the ideology imparted to 32deg. Freemasons and that in which members of the "Blue Degrees" are instructed; we thus need to consider whether the god described in the OT is worthy of worship, etc. and thereby establish whether there is a fundamental difference between Talmudism and Torahism.

If Tex's theories are accurate, of course, there would appear to be something wrong with the culture of ancient pure-blooded Israelites in addition to the obviously-gratuitous criminality of Khazaria & Co.

Moreover, the OT as it exists today is centered around a law with limited regard for the rights of so-called Goyim, an obsession with slavery of Goyim (can't get more in-your-face than Deut 15:6, which boasts that the Chuzzen Pipple will rule the world and lend [usuriously] to all nations.), aggressive wars against tribes that even by the admission of scribes were of no threat to Israel, etc.

Keep in mind that we have no record of the OT before the LXX and DSS; at the time of the LXX, Gentiles began to take note of Jewry, which was by this time entwined with Greek and Egyptian societies (the former through Alexander the Great, so revered by Jews that "Alexander" became a common Jewish name [cf. the Koran describing Alexander as a Muslim?!]; the latter through J. domination of the city of Alexandria). Might not the Jews have needed a "secret doctrine" for only the initiated, preserving only a watered-down version of their criminality to lure Gentiles into slavery to Jewry without revealing the raison d'etre thereof? Or, consider how in modern manuscripts Jewry hides the name YHWH, concealing it with vowel points for "Adonay", whilst it uses the word YHWH in Kabbalistic rituals. Hell, Albert Pike devoted many pages of his demonic _Morals and Dogma_ to consideration of this name, and elsewhere elusively hinted that "Adonay" is not the god of Masonry (i.e. presumably YHWH is instead).

Of course, another explanation for Pharisaic criminality is that the Tribe had reneged upon promises to a perfect God whom they had intimately known, which atrocity instilled great evil in their hearts. However, we would expect corruptions of their religious texts to conceal this fact from noble seekers, and we definitely observe criminality in the OT!

BONUS: look up Strong's H1942 and H1943, possible vocalizations of Hey-Uau-Hey [cf. H1933, the most common vocalization]. You'll be...surprised.

iese_83 said...

BTW i meant, that this story of yours is one of the most interesting, ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER !!. :)

Chris from Sydney said...


The German word, Lohn means 'reward', as in 'arbeitslohn' (wages or pay), 'lohnausgleich' (wage ajustment). You get the concept.

'Don' as in Lord or master, i.e Don Quixote

London, in my mind therefore refers to the 'Lords of money'.

Certianly seems an accurate description for the City of London.
Just my thoughts, anybody else want to put across some thoughts ?

njartist said...

@ SmashTheZog
When the Talmudic Jews wrote the Septuagint in Greek, they sought to direct the worship to Baal away from Yahweh; where they could, they inserted the word adonay: lord; when they came to the name YWHW, they did as you say: the understanding was to use Adonay instead of the name; so that the readers would be saying "lord." Thus Baal --> Lord or Adonay. At some point is in the 15th or 16th century a monk, not knowing the usage, translated the mix as Jehovah: this leads to an interesting corruption and redirection of prayers and readings to Satan.
Yahweh of Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AMH1961 THATH834 I AM:H1961 and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AMH1961 hath sent me unto you.
H1961: hâyâh
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

H834: 'ăsher
A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); who, which, what, that; also (as adverb and conjunction) when, where, how, because, in order that, etc.: - X after, X alike, as (soon as), because, X every, for, + forasmuch, + from whence, + how (-soever), X if, (so) that ([thing] which, wherein), X though, + until, + whatsoever, when, where (+ -as, -in, -of, -on, -soever, -with), which, whilst, + whither (-soever), who (-m, -soever, -se). As it is indeclinable, it is often accompanied by the personal pronoun expletively, used to show the connection.

Here is an interesting note from Wikipedia on Yahweh:
"I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh [ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje]) is a common English translation (JPS among others) of the response God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:12. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be", with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, this phrase is rendered as I am that I am."[1]"
Based on that what becomes of the trinity: Yahweh is the Father, is the Son, and is the Spirit as determined by how Yahweh chooses to manifest: chooses to "Be What I Will Be."

njartist said...

A British king named Lud renovated or reconstructed the city and named it after himself. Overtime it became London.

njartist said...

@ Iese_83
London/Britain was founded by an Israelite: a member of the twelve tribes; "Jews" are Khazars/Ashkenazi, Edomites, and few other ME tribes with a sprinkling of descendents from Judah.

styrac said...

Khazar theory = shit

Debunked easily by David Duke:

theepilgrim said...

It's funny how the Khazars are also completely white-washed from mainstream history. I can't recall ever seeing them mentioned on A&E, TLC, Discovery, History Channel or any of the other "educational" TV channels. And I certainly didn't learn about them in school despite taking every history coarse offered.

The most difficult lies to detect are lies of omission.

styrac said...

The Weak Khazar Hypothesis: