Tartaria

by Miles Mathis

For the past couple of years I have been getting emails on Tartaria or Khazaria, asking what I thought of these theories. Although they are separate theories (mostly), I lump them in here for a reason. I will show that they can be dismissed as variants of the same misdirection.

The Khazars theory came first, and it goes all the way back to around 1800, when Rabbi Levinsohn and Johann Ewers pushed it for a few years. That is your first clue: it is and always has been promulgated by Jews. The idea is that the Ashkenazi came from Khazars in southern Russia in the 8th c. AD. Although it is true the Khazarian leaders were “converted” to Judaism at that time, it doesn’t mean the Ashkenazi came from them. As I have shown you, the more likely answer is that area was taken over by Phoenicians/Jews in that period, through trade and intermarriage. So it wasn’t a conversion, it was an infiltration and subversion. But large parts of the world could say the same. The Phoenicians had been taking over the world for 3000 years by that time, and were covertly conquering large parts of Europe and Asia in those millennia. So to claim that a major sect of Jews came from a particular location like Khazaria is misdirection. It is misdirection, because the Jews pushing this theory want to point you to everywhere except the right spot. They need to divert you away from the right answer, which is that the Jews came from the same place the Phoenicians came from: Canaan, Phoenicia, or Jerusalem. The Jews don’t want you to realize they are equivalent to the Phoenicians, because that would destroy all their stories of victimhood.

Historians and archaeologists admit the Jews and Phoenicians come from the same place and have the same language, so they really have to jump through hoops to prevent you from making the obvious connection. They have to make you think the Phoenicians crashed and burned completely at the time the Jews (Twelve Tribes) were arising, and that after that the Jews were the constant punching bags of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, etc. When the truth is, Phoenicia never crashed. Phoenicia was an extension of Egypt, and was behind both Persia and Babylon. It was also behind Mycenae, Crete, Greece, and Macedonia.

The Phoenicians were also behind the Khazars and Tartars, so that is the only way those theories are true. But the promoters of those theories don’t admit that, of course. They want your eyes off that as much as possible, because the purpose of the new theories is to make you think the Phoenicians/Jews are still marginalized. They want you to think the Phoenicians are extinct and that the Jews are small, struggling populations descended from lost races like the Tartars or minor historical people like the Khazars. When the truth is, the Phoenicians/Jews now own/run the entire world. They are the merchants and bankers behind every government in the world. I have shown you the genealogies that prove this beyond a doubt, and you should have known it just by studying these people’s names and faces. It is that obvious. But they have taught you not to trust your eyes and not to ask any questions.

You see how Tartaria is just a variant of Khazaria. Although promoted heavily by Arthur Koestler and his people back in the 1970s, the Khazaria theory never really took hold. So when my numbers started going viral in the past five years, the governors could see they needed another project of misdirection and they needed it fast. Tartaria came out of nowhere in about 2018 and has been promoted heavily at all the usual places, including Youtube. See Max Igan promoting it there right now. He is Jewish of course.

At the same time, several other similar projects have also gone into overdrive, including the theory that the British Isles were founded by Sephardic Jews, but that Sephardic Jews are converts and therefore not really Jews by blood. See When Scotland was Jewish for the spearhead of that theory. On the flipside, we have the theory that Ashkenazi are not really Jews by blood. The Khazar theory plays into that one as well, since if the Ashkenazi came from Khazars, they are again converts, and therefore not really Jews. Someone badly wants you to believe that all modern Jewish people are not really Jews.

I have been told, “Well, you are misdirecting in the same way, telling us Jews are really Phoenicians. Isn’t that the same project with a different spin?” Nope, since in my theory Jews and Phoenicians are just two names for the same people, but they have the same bloodlines regardless. There was no conversion or takeover, just a name change. No misdirection is going on, since I am not pointing away from the Jews in any way. My theory doesn’t diminish their blame in any way, it increases it, because you can see exactly who they are and what they have done. And how and why as well. The Jewish lie has gotten much much bigger by tying it to the Phoenician lie, you see. Which is precisely why all these people promoting Khazaria and Tartaria stay as far away from me as possible. If I were really promoting a variant of their theories, they would quote me all the time. As it is, they pretend I don’t exist.

You will say, “If that is true, then why do we see these people and countries fighting eachother throughout history? If the Phoenicians now own the world and always have, why all the conflict?” Two answers: one, a lot of that conflict was manufactured, as I have shown. It was either made up from nothing on paper, to cover the real events of the time; or the wars were manufactured (and were partly real) to generate profit. Wars allowed for the efficient movement of wealth and populations, and provided excuses for many events that would otherwise be difficult to manage. Just like now. People can be made to do things in wartime they wouldn’t consider doing in times of peace. Two, in the past, the Phoenicians were not completely cohesive or coherent. The world was large enough to allow for many splits, and some families took over one area while others took over other areas. At first these areas were separated, but as populations grew, the areas met one another. So you had Family versus Family. We saw that most recently in my paper on Jefferson, where we saw the Dutch East India Company fighting the British East India Company for control of the Americas. That was Phoenicians versus Phoenicians. It actually had little or nothing to do with colonists or Kings.

Another small point on which the new theorists are accidentally right is the Tartaria theory claim that the Mongols or Golden Horde people have changed in their historical portraits. The Khans are now drawn as looking like Orientals, with slanted eyes, so we connect them in our minds to China. But in the past, they were drawn looking European, or even Jewish, with light hair or long noses. The first portrait above is the one most people know as Genghis, but it came from centuries later, and is obviously just a Chinese portrait mistagged as Genghis. The second is is from even later, and there he has been made to look Indian or Arabic. However, most of the oldest paintings and drawings of the Khans (including Batu Khan and Tamerlane** or Timur Khan) don’t look anything like that.

So there is definitely misdirection going on here, but not the misdirection they want you to think. The Jews pushing this theory should never have gone there, because it points directly at my theories. I have shown you the Cohens have been the big winners in the Phoenician Navy battles for supremacy. They were formerly Comyns, Komnenes (from Armenia), and they are also. . . Kahns and Khans. Genghis Khan was really Genghis Komnene or Genghis Cohen. The last thing the new theorists want you to realize.

We are supposed to believe that Genghis Khan is a title, not a name. We are told his real name was Temujin, meaning “iron”, and that his title Genghis Khan meant “universal ruler”. But that looks like the usual fudge to me. Clearly, Temujin was his nickname—kind of like “Stalin”, which means “steel”. Stalin wasn’t Stalin’s real name, you know. So we still have the name Genghis Khan to explain. No doubt Khan did come to mean ruler, but only later. It was originally Komnene or Cohen. A similar thing happened in Israel, of course, where Kohen came to mean “of the highest priestly class”. But that was because Komnenes/Kohens had always filled those positions.

So where does Genghis come from? My guess is it is just a localization of “George”. Both probably come from Ge, meaning Earth. Which means Genghis Khan is just George Cohen. Bet you never thought of that.

See pictures and rest of article at

http://mileswmathis.com/tartar.pdf