Who are the serpent people

Since 740 they embarked on a long trek towards world domination.  Since 1948, when Zionists succeeded in carving out a Jewish state from the land of the Palestinians, the question “who is a Jew” has been endlessly debated. Zionism is not a reLIEgious entity, but a political one. Therefore all Zionists (both Christian and Jewish) often declare that “God gave the land” of Palestine “to the Jews.” They infer that God deeded territories, in perpetuity, to a biblical tribe of Oriental Middle Eastern people. People whose DNA and lack of Archaeological presence in the so called Middle East, was lacking. In fact the only evidence of a so called Jewish…hell…a Hebrew presence is based on the say so, of the European fantasy book AND the words of “Jewish” and biblical “scholars”. Since millions of Amurdikkklan Christians accept a dogma that God has a Chosen Land and a Chosen People (the Jews), then the question “who is a Jew?” takes on political connotations that impinge on national and international decisions.

When Arthur Koestler carefully researched and produced the land mark book, The Thirteenth Tribe, he refuted the idea of a Jewish “race.” Moreover, he says that most Jews of the contemporary world did not come from Palestine and are not even of Semitic origin. His research shows that most Jews originated in what today is the Soviet Union. And that a group of people there became Jews through conversion, on the orders of their king. “The bulk of modern Jewry is not of Palestinian, but of Caucasian origin,” Koestler writes. “Their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not from Canaan but from the Caucasus.” And he stresses:

“The mainstream of Jewish migrations did not flow from the Mediterranean across France and Germany to the east and then back again. The stream moved in a consistently western direction, from the Caucasus, from the Ukraine into Poland and thence into Central Europe.”

While Jews of different origin also contributed to the existing Jewish world community, “the main bulk originated from the Khazar country” in the USSR. Koestler, a Jew born in 1905 in Budapest, writes that the Khazars, who flourished from the 7th to the 11th century, were a major power. Their empire extended from the Black Sea to the Caspian and from the Caucasus to the Volga. They were located “between two major world powers: the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium and the triumphant followers of Muhammad.” Since the world was polarized between these two superpowers representing Christianity and Islam, the Khazar Empire, representing a Third Force,

“Could only maintain its independence by accepting neither Christianity nor Islam – for either choice would have automatically subordinated it to the authority of the Roman Emperor or the Caliph of Baghdad.”

Not wishing to be dominated by either of the two, the Khazar king “embraced the Jewish faith” in AD 740 and ordered his subjects to do the same. Judaism thus became the state religion of the Khazars. The king’s motives in adopting Judaism, Koestler stresses, were purely political. At the peak of its power, from the seventh to the tenth centuries AD, the Khazar kingdom controlled or exacted tribute from some 30 different nations and tribes inhabiting the vast territories between the Caucasus , the Aral Sea, the Ural Mountains, the town of Kiev and the Ukrainian steppes. People under Khazar suzerainty included the Bulgars, Burtas, Ghuzz, Magyars (Hungarians), the Gothic and Greek colonies of the Crimea, and the Slavonic tribes in the northwestern woodland.

According to The Jewish Encyclopedia, in the 16th century Jews numbered about one million. Koestler quotes scholars as documenting that “the majority of those who professed the Judaic faith were Khazars.” Koestler, who after the Second World War became a British citizen, and whose most famous book, Darkness at Noon, was translated into 33 languages, has one main thesis: the bulk of Eastern Jewry -and hence of world Jewry is of Khazar-Turkish, rather than Semitic, origin.

As Koestier points out, Jews of our times fall into two main divisions: Sephardim and Ashkenazim. The Sephardi, descendants of the Jews who had lived in Spain until their expulsion, with the Muslims, at the end of the 15th century, and who later settled in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, spoke a Spanish-Hebrew dialect, Ladino. In the 1960s, the Sephardim numbered about 500,000. The Ashkenazim, at the same period, were about 11 million. Thus, “in common parlance, Jew is practically synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew.”

However, Koestler adds, the term Ashkenazim is misleading because it is generally applied to Germany, thus contributing to the legend that modem Jewry originated on the Rhine. There is, however, no other term to refer to the non-Sephardic majority of contemporary Jewry,which came after conversion to Judaism from the Khazar country. After the destruction of their empire (in the 12th or 13th century), the Jewish Khazars migrated into those regions of Eastern Europe, mainly Russia and Poland, where, at the dawn of the modem age, the greatest concentrations of Jews were found. It is “well documented,” Koestler writes, that the numerically and socially dominant element in the Jewish population of Hungary during the Middle Ages was of Khazar origin.

An Israeli scholar, A.N. Poliak, a Tel Aviv University professor of medieval Jewish history, quoted by Koestler, states that the descendants of Khazar Jews,

“those who stayed where they were (in Khazaria), those who emigrated to the United States and to other countries, and those who went to Israel – constitute now the large majority of world Jewry.”

Koestler, who originally published The Thirteenth Tribe in 1976, noted that the story of the Khazar empire “begins to look like the most cruel hoax history has ever perpetrated.” The Palestinians, imprisoned and brutalized by Zionism’s “hoax,” would be the first to agree. Needless to say, the book has been difficult to find. It disappears from many library shelves. A check at the Library of Congress reveals that the most prestigious library of our land had one reading copy. That one copy, however, is “missing from the shelf”.

The dreams of world congest had never died for the serpent people. And the infection of nations through political and financial means, was the best way to do so.

who are the serpent people?



Is amurdikkka a feudal system or an Oligarchy?

Cops Not Charged In 96 Percent Of Federal Rights Violation Cases

[According to an investigation by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, federal prosecutors turned down 12,703 out of 13,233 total complaints against cops between 1995 and 2015.]

It was an headline I saw, asking the question of whether or not amurdikkka is an Oligarchy, that peaked my interest.  According to the official definition, an Oligarchy is a political term, derived from the Greek language which means intact.  It’s a form of government run by a small number of people such as wealthy landowners, royalty or powerful military figures.  In this article taken from the Huffington Post , where the author explained that, The United Snakes…..

….”has the world’s largest economy, is the most important contributor to scientific advancements, has the most powerful military and some of the best universities in the world, is a democratic state, and accepts more immigrants than any other nation. But, over time the democratic foundations of the United States, equality of the citizens and their human rights, have been eroding. It is impossible to make inequality a pillar of the structure of the state and deepen its roots, and yet to be proud and claim that the citizens have equal voting rights. When all types of inequalities take deep roots and expand, citizens lose their power to influence the political process.”

This is an interesting description. “…. a form of government run by a small number of people such as wealthy landowners, royalty or powerful military figures…..” 

The description of an Oligarchy reminds me of the old middle ages monarchy….the current series of governmental officials. For this blogger, amurdikkka exhibits a more feudal system of governance than any kind of democracy.

Feudal system: The political, military, and social system in the Middle Ages, is based on the holding of lands in fief (an estate of land, especially one held on condition of feudal service) or fee (property tax) and on the resulting relations between lord (government) and vassal (citizen). The basic government and society in Europe during the middle ages was based around the feudal system. Small communities were formed around the local lord (government) and the manor (Similar to the municipal and or states legislators).
The lord ( the local government through the banks) owned the land and everything in it. He would keep the peasants safe in return for their service. The lord, in return, would provide the king (president/ national leader) with soldiers or taxes. Momentum Builds Against Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses by Law Enforcement In a feudal system, a peasant or worker known as a vassal received a piece of land in return for serving a lord or king, especially during times of war. Vassals were expected to perform various duties in exchange for their own fiefs, or areas of land. Some of the service includes being the eyes and ears for the king, in return for favors, above and beyond what they normally would receive.Teachers ‘more likely to report children as potential terrorists than police’

Service for Land: The origin of Real Estate, is derived from the Latin/Spanish word Real=Royal and Estate=Land. Under the feudal system, as the power of the Monarchy dwindled and as the peasants started agitating for a more people friendly governance. As taxes and other monies going to the monarchy, also dwindled, or was opposed, the Monarch/government needed to maintain their power. Striving to maintain their welfare existence, land was thus granted to the people for services rendered. The service was in the form of rent for the lands use, whether through farming or putting up a business. It started at the top with the king granting his land to a baron for soldiers all the way down to a peasant getting land to grow crops.

The Manor: The center of life in the Middle Ages was the manor ( the seat of local governance). The manor was run by the local lord. He lived in a large house or castle where people would gather for celebrations or for protection if they were attacked. A small village would form around the castle which would include the local church. Farms would then spread out from there which would be worked by the peasants.

Hierarchy of Rulers

King – The top leader in the land was the king. The king could not control all of the land by himself, so he divided it up among the Barons (bankers and corporations). In return, the Barons pledged their loyalty and soldiers to the king ( or financial support). When a king died, his firstborn son would inherit the throne. When one family stayed in power for a long time, this was called a dynasty.

Thanks to my brother Kushite King for inspiring me to search for this video

Bishop – The Bishop was the top church leader in the kingdom and managed an area called a diocese. The Catholic Church was very powerful in most parts of Medieval Europe and this made the Bishop powerful as well. Not only that, but the church received a tithe of 10 percent from all the people. This made some Bishops very rich. The modern church was at one time land owners, but gave up the rights in return for being absolved from paying taxes. The church collects money from the gullible, do not pay taxes, gets tax relief, can still purchase buildings in order to grow wealthy, but not lands. Thus they remain wealthy as long as they support the King/government.

Baron – Barons ruled large areas of land called fiefs (corporations. Although the power seems inverted today). They reported directly to the king and were very powerful. They divided up their land among Lords who ran individual manors. Their job was to maintain an army that was at the king’s service. If they did not have an army, sometimes they would pay the king a tax instead. This tax was called shield money.

Lord – The lords ran the local manors (military/police). They also were the knights and could be called into battle at any moment by their Baron. The lords owned everything on their land including the peasants, crops, and village. The police branch of the modern Barons, are not so much land owners as they are now land protectors of local government, while at the same time act as instruments of land confiscations for the Manor and the King. Think of the police slogan, to purge and detect…er..Serve and protect. Think of the Sheriff of Nottingham, taking taxes from the peasants. The Military branch of the modern Barony, carries out the same function as both land confiscators and tax collectors on foreign soil that was conquered by the King/Government.

Peasants or Serfs: Most of the people living in the Middle Ages were peasants. They had a hard rough life. Some peasants were considered free and could own their own businesses like carpenters, bakers, and blacksmiths. Others were more like slaves. They owned nothing and were pledged to their local lord. They worked long days, 6 days a week, for minimum wages and often barely had enough food to survive. Does this sound like the modern, regular citizen of North amurdikkka? For those who think they owned that over priced house they signed their children away for. Keep in mind that you pay both 25-30 year mortgage, that your children may have to take on, if you fail to pay it off. You also pay property taxes! You didn’t realize that you bought the house, but also are paying rent on the land the house sits on.

Fun Facts about the Middle Age Feudal System

  • Around 90% of the people worked the land as peasants. Today 90% of citizens are low income, and 1% are wealthy. Which means 9% are in that sliding scale called middle class. A slowly disappearing economic class.
  • Peasants worked hard and died young. Most were dead before they reached 30 years old.
  • The kings believed they were given the right to rule by God. This was called “divine right”.
  • Lords and Barons swore oaths of homage and fealty to their kings.
  • The Lord held absolute power over the fief or manor including holding court and deciding punishments for crimes.

After seeing the above video, how do you feel to know that every amurdikkklan leader, and probably Canadian and European, is some how related by blood? That all 43 U.S. presidents have carried European royal bloodlines into office? 34 have been genetic descendants from just one person, Charlemagne, the brutal eighth century King of the Franks. 19 of them directly descended from King Edward III of England. In fact, the presidential candidate with the most royal genes has won every single American election.

If America declared its Independence from the European monarchies in 1776, how is it possible that every single president has descended from European monarchs? If presidents are democratically elected as we are told, what are the odds that the voters would always choose members of British and French royal bloodlines to lead the country? By branching out far enough on the presidential family tree, the dedicated researcher will find that all 43 presidents share kinship, belonging to the same general ancestry, often called the 13th Illuminati bloodline, the Merovingian line, and/or the Windsor-Bush bloodline. Granted the relationships are sometimes distant 10th or 15th cousins, but in a country with hundreds of millions to choose from, this simply cannot be chance or coincidence.


What do you think?