From forman@ix.netcom.com Mon May  8 19:58:02 PDT 1995
Article: 21163 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Yiddish language and the Khazars
Date: 6 May 1995 18:40:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 48
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3ogfrl$274@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3ktamj$208@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU> <3ndqsv$pc5@pipe1.nyc.pipeline.com> <3neiem$o8i@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <3nghd5$pj5@agate.berkeley.edu> <3nl4ts$piq@news.sas.ab.ca> <3nno7q$1efs@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc6-20.ix.netcom.com

In  cendbj@bonaly.hw.ac.uk (David
Johnston) writes: 
>
>In article <3o2n15$csq@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com>
donald05@nyc.pipeline.com (Donald Moffitt) writes:
>>In alt.revisionism jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John Morris) said: 
>>> 
>>>My one and only question is this: what possible difference could it
make  
>>>whether Jews are descended, in whole or in part, from Khazars? 
>> 
>>Well, you see, if Jews aren't Hebrews but Khazars, then Christians
are the
>>real Hebrews, and I'm my own Grandpa.  It sounds silly, I know, but
it
>>really is so.  I'm my own Grandpa. 
>> 
>Ah, yes, but if you're your own Grandpa, then I'm the son of my
fathers 
>mothers husbands son, which points directly to Khazars being direct 
>descendants of the Picts who first settled Scotland in 4th Century BC,
which 
>means that Christians are actually a figment of the imagination which
means 
>Hoffman2nd is actually a Khazar which means he is really a direct male
line 
>descendant of Jesus. And that makes him the son of the son of God,
which means 
>he's always right.

All right, clowns! I remember reading in the _Manchester Guardian
Weekly_ around the time of the 25th anniversary of Israel's admission
to the United Nations the Arabs protesting such admission on the
grounds that most of the Jews were descendants of Khazars and had to
right to live in a country that was not their homeland. (They said got
along okay with the Jews who had never left Israel.) Koestler said that
the right of Jews to move to Israel did not depend on his Khazar
theory, but I forget his reasoning.

Why not start a thread on the legitimacy of the gummint now in Israel?
There's lots of revisionist work on the Israelis, very little of which
I've read, so it might be an appropriate topic here, as well as a
welcome change of scene. Now since the gummint in Israel eats up more
of its country's GDP than does the gummint of the United States, it
seems to me that if we could establish the former, we would be
establishing the latter. Tim McVeigh would be greatly interested!

Frank

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor