In a previous article published under the title ‘Aristotle as Historical Forgery, the Western World’s Fake History & Rotten Foundations, and Prof. Jin Canrong’s Astute Comments’, I wholeheartedly supported the position taken by the prominent Chinese Prof. Jin Canrong about Aristotle and I explained why Aristotle never existed as he is known today and most of his texts were not written by him, but by the pseudo-Christian Benedictine monks of Western Europe for the purpose of the ferocious imperial and theological battle that Rome carried out against New Rome-Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. You can find the table of contents and a link to the publication at the end of the present article.
Contents
Introduction
I. A fictional concept: the origin of the fraud
II. A construct based on posterior textual sources
III. The deceitful presentation
IV. 5th century BCE texts found in 15th c. CE manuscripts do not make ‘History’.
V. Abundant evidence of lies and deliberate distortions attested in the manuscript transmission
VI. Darius I the Great, the Behistun inscription, and Ctesias
VII. The historical Assyrian Queen Shammuramat and the fictional Queen Semiramis of the ‘Ancient Greek sources’
VIII. The malignant intentions of the Benedictine liars: from the historical Darius I the Great to the fictional Semiramis
IX. The vicious distortions of the Benedictine liars: from Ctesias to Herodotus
The Behistun inscription
Introduction
In the present article, I will offer a typical example of text falsification carried out by the Catholic monks, who did not ‘copy and preserve’ manuscripts of ancient Greek and Latin texts, as it has been mendaciously said by Western European and North American academics and lying scholars, but they purposefully falsified, distorted, concealed, destroyed and/or contrived numerous texts.
This enormous forgery took place in Western Europe between the 2nd half of the 8th century and the 1st half of the 15th century; the colonial era was launched exactly afterwards. For this reason, few manuscripts with Ancient Greek and Roman texts date before the 8th c.; in fact, most of them have been either distorted and replaced or hidden in the vast libraries still owned, controlled and administered that the anti-Christian Roman Catholic Church.
The purpose of this devious and evil effort was the fabrication of a fake narrative about the forged antiquity and the supposed importance of the Western Europeans according to the needs of world conquest, prevalence and preponderance of the pseudo-Christian Roman Catholic Church; this bogus-historical dogma, as direct opposition to and ultimate rejection of Orthodox Christianity, would be initially imposed as the ‘scientific discipline of History’ in Western Europe and subsequently projected onto the rest of the world by means of colonial invasion, indigenous identity destruction, moral integrity demolition, cultural heritage disintegration, educational subordination, economic exploitation, military subjugation, and socio-political domination.
In other words, the monastical scribes and copyists created an entirely fake Euro-centric past, which became the rotten foundation of Western Europe. This fallacy became known as Judeo-Christian world and Greco-Roman civilization. However, the decipherment of ancient languages (Egyptian hieroglyphic, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Sumerian, Hurrian, Hittite, Urartu, Ugaritic, etc) and the study of millions of original texts, which were not copies of earlier sources but contemporaneous to the events that they narrated, sounded the death knell of the era of history fabrication programs.
With the post-Soviet rise of the great continental powers (China, India, Russia, etc.), the economic-military-political-ideological-educational-academic-cultural tyranny of the Western World started being overthrown throughout the earlier colonized world. The historical forgery that the colonial rulers imposed collapsed, the falsehood of the Eurocentric dogma of World History started being revealed and rejected, and an overwhelming project of total de-Westernization appeared as a prerequisite for the liberation of the Mankind from the lies of the European Renaissance, the Western Humanities, the White Supremacism, the Western European colonialism and racism, as well as from the falsehood of numerous subsystems of the construct, such as Classicism, Hellenism, Orientalism, etc.
In our days, it is imperative for anti-colonial scholars to unveil the distortions applied to Ancient Greek and Latin texts by the medieval monks. Consequently, historians from all over the world have to work together in order to denounce and obliterate the Western fraud and the fake History of the Western Man, which consists in arbitrarily taking 14th c. CE manuscripts as authentic narratives of Ancient History.
Jean Adrien Guignet (1816–1854), The Battle at Cunaxa (401 BCE), painting of 1843; typical example of the Western European forgery and of the bogus-historical dogma that European colonials wanted to impose worldwide as ‘History’! The narrative about the Battle at Cunaxa is to be found in Xenophon’s Anabasis; the purported Ancient Athenian author (430-355 BCE) died when Alexander the Great was born, but his text is saved in manuscripts dating back to the period between the 13th the 16th centuries, namely 1600-1900 years after the writer’s death. By selecting themes from the forged Ancient Greek ‘history’, Modern European artists plunged scholars and simple people into a delusion that they call ‘History’.https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/person_89597697
I. A fictional concept: the origin of the fraud
Apparently, the present brief article cannot be an exhaustive presentation of the Western fraud, and of the historical forgery that the Western monks, manuscript copyists, collectors, academics and propagandists attempted to impose worldwide through colonial conquests, massacres and tyrannies. However, I can still enumerate the major founding myths of the Western World.
Two thematic circles of historical distortions and fraudulent claims made by the Western academia revolve around the following two entirely fabricated entities, which have conventionally but erroneously been called
a) “the Greco-Roman world” and
b) “Biblical Israel” and “Judeo-Christian civilization”.
These ahistorical entities never existed. The original concept of those notions is purely fictional, and it therefore remains always unquestioned in the fraudulent Western universities. In this regard, the sources that the Western academics evoke to support their claims are posterior, untrustworthy, forged and therefore worthless.
At times, some of those texts represent merely ancient authors’ misperceptions of earlier texts and authors; however, more often, the ancient texts have been tampered with. On other occasions, ancient texts that refute the lies of other historical sources are hidden from the general public and conventionally discussed among the Western academic accomplices.
Fake terms, nonsensical selection of artworks, intentional use of posterior sources, delusional Modern European paintings and many other techniques were involved in the fabrication of the bogus-historical dogma of the Western World; but how can a Roman relief related to events of the 1st c. CE be taken as relevant of the so-called ‘History of Biblical Israel’, since the Ancient Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE and the entire population was taken captive to Assyria? All the same, if an author decides to illustrate the topic by means of an Assyrian relief, he surely risks revealing the truth, i.e. the fact that the fake Biblical world was an insignificant periphery of Mesopotamia.
In parallel with the delusion diffused at home and worldwide, the Western academia took good care to produce plenty of sick concepts and laughable notions in their effort to come up with pre-fabricated opponents. Before 100 years, this was done with Hitler and his fake Nazi ideology, which reflected Anglo-Saxon corruption, while being detrimentally opposite to the traditional German culture. Nowadays, fake Muslims are similarly produced by the Western secret services. These pawns, although ignorant, uneducated and idiotic, are foolish enough to portray the so-called Judeo-Christian civilization as the Dajjal, i.e. the Antichrist system, which was prophesied first in Ancient Egypt and in Hittite Anatolia and only much later in Christian and Muslim sources. But the Antichrist system is something real, whereas the Judeo-Christian civilization never existed; it is prefabricated delusion. Those who take it as real will be destroyed.
II. A construct based on posterior textual sources
The entire construct hinges on the deceitful presentation of several types of material forged, collected, concealed, interpreted, contextualized, narrated, repeatedly but intentionally discussed, supposedly questioned, and selectively popularized; this was due to the fact that the said material was incessantly utilized for the colonial needs and targets of the Western European powers (England, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and more recently the US). In fact, the Western World’s fake History was created as the ultimate support of all colonial claims.
This process happened within a system in which posterior textual sources (preserved in medieval manuscripts) have occupied the central position, whereas the ancient epigraphic material, which was contemporaneous to the historical events under study, has been deliberately disregarded.
All later discovered data and pieces of information were either adjusted to the construct or methodically hidden; this is how the original concept, pathetically believed almost as a religious dogma, remained totally unchallenged down to our days.
III. The deceitful presentation
The quintessence of the deceitful presentation involves a vicious trick; people (pupils and students, but also scholars and intellectuals, as well as the general public) are taught and made accustomed to care mainly about the absolutely insignificant dates of birth and death of historical persons (authors, rulers, etc.), and not about the dates of the manuscripts in which these individuals are mentioned as supposed authors; this situation turns readers, students and scholars into pathetic idiots.
Subsequently, we cannot seriously afford to describe Herodotus as a 5th c. BCE writer, because there is no manuscript with texts attributed to him, dating before the 10th c. CE. In addition, if we take into account the enormous number of other ancient authors decrying, denigrating and rejecting Herodotus’ absurdities and malignancy, we have to permanently and irrevocably obliterate Herodotus from the History of Mankind and consider his false, paranoid and racist texts as a double Crime against the Mankind:
first, with respect to the original narrative (to which we don’t have access as it was distorted by medieval monastical scribes and copyists) because the author attempted to disparage the superior Iranian civilization and the majestic Achaemenid universalist empire, while undeservedly praising the South Balkan barbarians, and
second, as regards the currently available text, which was forged as per the discriminatory intentions of the monks who altered and distorted it in their effort to fabricate the fake, modern divide (or dichotomy) East-West, and to offer a shred of historicity to it.
IV. 5th century BCE texts found in 15th c. CE manuscripts do not make ‘History’.
People get therefore addicted to considering as a true and original ‘work’ (of an ancient author) the manuscript (or manuscripts) in which the specific treatise, essay or book was copied perhaps 10 or 15 centuries after the author composed it. Due to a long chain of intermediaries (namely library copyists, librarians, scholars, monks, collectors, purchasers and/or statesmen), the transmitted text may have been partly or totally changed.
There is absolutely no guarantee as regards the honesty, the good intentions, the unbiased attitude, and the benevolent character of the perhaps 5, 10, 20 or 50 persons who -living in different eras and without knowing one another- may have constituted the chain of (unknown to us) intermediaries between the hand of the author and that of the last copyist whose manuscript was preserved down to our times.
Example: very little matters today whether the ancient author Diodorus Siculus or Siceliotes (西西里的狄奧多羅斯) actually lived in the 1st c. BCE or in the 3rd c. CE; quite contrarily, what is important for history-writing is the fact that the earliest known manuscript of his famous ‘Bibliotheca Historica’ (世界史) dates back to the 10th c. CE.
Consequently, the first piece of information that should be stated after the name of any ‘ancient’ Anatolian, Macedonian, Thracian, Greek, Roman and other author is the date of the earliest extant manuscript of his works.
V. Abundant evidence of lies and deliberate distortions attested in the manuscript transmission
An extraordinarily high number of original sources excavated in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Canaan, Iran and elsewhere, and subsequently deciphered, can be dated with accuracy; example: the Annals of great Assyrian emperor Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) were written during his reign. They are contemporaneous and therefore original.
Part of the Annals of the Assyrian Emperor Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) that were written and depicted on the walls of imperial palace at Kalhu (modern Nimrud, in Northern Iraq): representation of the Assyrian campaign against Babylonia in 728 BCE; contrarily to the Ancient Greek sources, which were hypothetically preserved in manuscripts written 1500 years after the supposed author elaborated his narrative, the Assyrian texts are trustworthy and valuable sources of information, because they were formulated at the same time as the events therein narrated. But not one Ancient Greek relief or text was found to be contemporaneous with Herodotus’ fictional battle of Thermopylae.
However, in striking contrast to them, almost all the manuscripts with the works of ancient Greek and Roman authors whose texts have formed the backbone of the fraudulent historical dogma of the Western academia are not contemporaneous but posterior by, at times, 1500 or 2000 years.
Even worse, numerous ancient Greek authors’ texts were not preserved through a manuscript tradition at all; they were saved as references in posterior authors’ works. This concerns, for instance, Ctesias (克特西亞斯), an Ancient Carian (Anatolian) physician and erudite scholar, who lived and worked in the court of the Achaemenid Iranian emperor Artaxerxes II in the 5th c. BCE.
Later, willing to offer potential guidebooks to Iran and India for the use of various peripheral peoples and tribes of the Balkan region, Ctesias elaborated in Ancient Ionian (愛奧尼亞希臘語) two treatises to describe the state of things in Iran and in India. To the Western academic bibliography, his works are known (in Latin) as ‘Persica’ and ‘Indica’.
These texts were not saved integrally in manuscripts copied for the purpose of preserving Ctesias’ works, but they were preserved in Diodorus Siculus’ ‘Bibliotheca Historica’. Although he is not known through authentic and contemporaneous Iranian sources, we can deduce that Ctesias certainly spoke fluently the official language of the Empire and read Old Achaemenid cuneiform. Eventually, he may have also studied and learned Babylonian and Elamite cuneiform, namely two ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform languages and writings the use of which was maintained by Iranian scribes.
Apparently, Ctesias had a firsthand insight, as he lived for many years in Parsa (Persepolis), the capital of the Achaemenid Empire and he also traveled extensively along with the Iranian emperor. But, unfortunately, the following ordeal was produced.
VI. Darius I the Great, the Behistun inscription, and Ctesias
One century before Ctesias served Artaxerxes II, the empire of Iran was saved by Darius I the Great (大流士一世; reign: 522-486), who overthrew a usurper, namely the Mithraic (密特拉教祭司) magus Gaumata (高墨达), and by so doing, preserved on the throne a dynasty of faithful Zoroastrian (瑣羅亞斯德教徒) monarchs.
To commemorate his great victory and the consolidation of the his dynasty, Darius I the Great had an enormous rock relief and a monumental inscription (貝希斯敦銘文) engraved on the rocks of Mount Behistun (貝希斯頓山), at a distance of 150 km west of Hamadan (哈马丹; Ekbatana/埃克巴坦那) in Western Iran (15 m high by 25 m wide and 100 m up the cliff). As it can be easily understood, these events occurred after the assassination of Cambyses, at the very beginning of Darius I the Great’s reign.
It goes without saying that the successors of Darius I the Great and the imperial Iranian administration knew perfectly well the historical details and were fully aware of the imperial inscription that immortalized the event, which had obviously become the cornerstone of the imperial education.
Mount Bisotun (rather known as Behistun in Western bibliography)
The Behistun inscription
Representation of the Achaemenid Iranian Emperor Darius I the Great in the Behistun inscription; he is trampling the defeated Gaumata.
Behistun relief of the defeated Elamite ššina rebel
In the vast Achaemenid Iranian Empire, Imperial Aramaic was the lingua franca in which people from different provinces (satrapies) used to communicate; numerous official documents were translated from cuneiform to alphabetic writing and sent to the various administrators (satraps). The Behistun papyrus from the Elephantine Island (in Aswan, Upper Egypt) contains an Imperial Aramaic translation of the Inscription of Behistun; excavated in 1906-1908 by the German Orientalist Eduard Sachau and published in 1911, the text is known as DB Aram and as TADAE C2.1+3.13. About:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_papyrushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscriptionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbook_of_Aramaic_Documents_from_Ancient_Egypt
VII. The historical Assyrian Queen Shammuramat and the fictional Queen Semiramis of the ‘Ancient Greek sources’
However, one century later, when Ctesias lived in Iran, served the Iranian Emperor, and spoke Old Achaemenid Iranian (and if not, he was surrounded by the Empire’s top interpreters and advisers), something disastrously odd ‘happened’.
According to Diodorus Siculus, who explicitly stated that he extensively quoted from Ctesias’ text (Bibliotheca Historica, II 13), the imperial Carian physician and author appears to have attributed the Behistun inscription and the rock reliefs to none else than the Assyrian Queen Shammuramat (薩穆-拉瑪特), who was the queen consort of the Assyrian Emperor Shamshi Adad V (沙姆什·阿達德五世; reign: 824-811) and co-regent (811-805) during the first years of reign of her son Adad Nirari III (阿达德尼拉里三世; reign: 811-783)!
(Above:) stela of Shamshi-Adad V from the Nabu Temple at Kalhu/Nimrud; (below:) stela of Adad Nirari III from Tell al Rimush (also known as the ‘Mosul marble stele’)
(Above:) the stela of Shammuramat from the city of Assyria (Ashur); the great queen and queen mother is described as the wife of Shamshi-Adad V, the mother of Adad-Nirari III, and the daughter-in-law of Shalmaneser III (actually in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin, Germany); (below:) detail
Actually in the Maraş (Germanikeia/Kahramanmaraş) Archaeology Museum, the Pazarcık Stele was found in Kizkapanli, near the Pazarcik village, ca. 30 km SE of Maraş in Turkey; the monument was a boundary stele constructed by the Assyrian Emperor Adad-nirari III in 805 BCE. It demarcated the borders between Assyria and the Neo-Hittite kingdoms of Kummuh (later known as Commagene) and Gurgum. The queen mother Shammuramat is mentioned as taking part in the military campaigns undertaken by the Assyrian Emperor in the region.
Furthermore, in the ‘Ancient Greek’ text of Diodorus Siculus, the monumental inscription was said to be written in Assyrian cuneiform (Συρίοις γράμμασιν)! Even worse, in the same text (as preserved today), it was also stated that, in the rock relief, there was also a representation of the Assyrian queen!
Ctesias’ text, as preserved by Diodorus Siculus, is truly abundant in information, but it is historically impossible and therefore entirely forged. Due to this and many other texts, an enormous chasm was unnecessarily formed between
a) the historical queen Shammuramat of Assyria, whose historicity is firmly undeniable, due to the existence of several contemporaneous cuneiform sources excavated in Assyria, and subsequently deciphered and published,
and
b) the purely fictional Assyrian queen Semiramis (沙米拉姆) of the posterior Ancient Greek textual sources that were supposedly ‘preserved’ (but in reality deliberately distorted and forged) in the Benedictine manuscripts of Western Europe’s monasteries.
The fictional Semiramis of Western Europe: ‘Semiramis receiving news of the rebellion in Babylon’, painting by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri (also known as Il Guercino; 1591-1666), 1624 (Oil on canvas, currently in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)
Semiramis called to Arms, by Alessandro Leone Varotari (also known as Il Padovanino; 1588’1649)
Semiramis Building Babylon (1861) by Edgar Degas
However, if we examine closely the facts, we will surely understand what truly occurred in this case; then, we will be able to fathom how the fake History of the Western world was fabricated.
The Behistun inscription is trilingual, as it was written in Old Achaemenid Iranian (the earliest form of written Iranian languages), Babylonian, and Elamite; this was a very common practice during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE). The main figure of the associated rock relief is Darius I the Great, evidently the representation of a male royal.
One way or another, with respect to the Behistun inscription and rock relief, Ctesias certainly knew everything that we know today after the successive decipherments of the Old Achaemenid, Babylonian and Elamite cuneiform writings, or perhaps even more, due to the then extant oral tradition.
VIII. The malignant intentions of the Benedictine liars: from the historical Darius I the Great to the fictional Semiramis
The Behistun inscription is not Assyrian; the representation is not that of female royal; and the monument is totally unrelated to Shammuramat, who had lived 300 years before Darius I the Great and 400 years before Artaxerxes II’s physician Ctesias. More importantly, by that time, the Assyrian Empire did not occupy the lands surrounding Behistun. Accompanied by Iranian imperial officers and his associates, Ctesias certainly learned all the details of the monumental inscription that we can now read in articles, courses, lectures, books and encyclopedias.
The narrative was a triumph for Darius I the Great and a spectacular rebuttal of the vicious Mithraic Magi who had supported the defeated evil sorcerer and villain Gaumata. Apparently, writing a guidebook for Iran to help marginal people of the Empire’s Balkan periphery, Ctesias did not have any reason to say lies. Moreover, we don’t have any reason to believe that Diodorus Siculus needed to distort the truth to that extent, when copying and thus preserving Ctesias’ masterpiece for the posterity.
However, the transmission of the details about the Behistun inscription embarrassed the Benedictine copyists who wanted to denigrate Darius I the Great and to portray his great empire in a most derogatory manner. They had already proceeded in this manner, distorting other manuscripts, forging texts, and fabricating their pseudo-historical narratives at will.
That is why Ctesias’ pertinent text, which had certainly been preserved in its original form within Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca Historica, was intentionally distorted by the Benedictine ‘Holy Inquisition of Libraries’, which fabricated the myths of today’s Western world some time after the middle of the 8th c. CE. To be accurate, Ctesias’ historical description was entirely replaced by a fictional and historically nonsensical account.
The unbelievable lies -invented and included in Diodorus Siculus’ quotations from Ctesias- risked making of the fictional queen Semiramis a world ruler! Whereas the Assyrian Empire at the end of the 9th c. BCE did not control even the western half of today’s Iranian territory, the unequivocally mythicized Semiramis had supposedly sent her armies up to India where those fictitious Assyrian soldiers were trampled by the elephants. This worthless narrative that replaced Ctesias’ original text may very well have been invented as a ‘historical’ excuse for Alexander the Great’s failure to advance deep inside India.
The fictional Semiramis of Modern Europeans: she condemns her husband Ninus to death; painting by Nicolaus Knüpfer (1609-1655), created after 1622. Currently in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest.
IX. The vicious distortions of the Benedictine liars: from Ctesias to Herodotus
But if the fictional Semiramis’ Indian campaign is entirely false, so are then the preposterous narratives of Herodotus about Darius I the Great’s and Xerxes I the Great’s campaigns in the insignificant and barbarian circumference of South Balkans. These texts involved evil purposes, heinous anti-Iranian biases, fictional battles, racist discourses, vicious lies, incredibly large number of the Iranian armies, and absurdly high number of Iranian casualties.
The mendacious but idiotic Benedictine monks, who wrote those slander tales did not apparently expect that, sometime in the future, excavations would bring to light splendid Iranian antiquities, original cuneiform documentation, and trustworthy contemporaneous historical sources, whereas a systematic effort of decipherment would offer to people all over the world direct access to historical texts written in dead languages, thus irrevocably canceling Herodotus’ nonsensical report and, even more importantly, the later distortions that the Benedictine monks made on their worthless manuscripts.
In any case, had those fictional campaigns against ‘Greece’ had a shred of truth to them, they would have certainly been documented one way or another in various Old Achaemenid, Babylonian, Elamite, Imperial Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphic or other sources; but they were not.
Even worse, the meaningless and ludicrous battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and their likes would have been commemorated by the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Attalids all the way down to the Romans and the Eastern Romans. But we know quite well that the nonexistent, fictional past of the so-called Ancient Greek world was absolutely irrelevant to them: precisely because it had not yet been fabricated.
===================
Aristotle as Historical Forgery, the Western World’s Fake History & Rotten Foundations, and Prof. Jin Canrong’s Astute Comments
Following the publication of an article of mine about Kazakhstan’s chances to bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians and to resolve the Palestinian problem once for all, a Muslim friend wrote to me, asking me to expand on the reasons for some of my proposals. He also made a comparison between Israel/Palestine and Cyprus, and he suggested that for both cases he would support a two-state solution. The present article is my reply to his questions and points about Cyprus. My previous articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including subtitles and units) and links to them you will find at the end of the present article.
I. Cyprus & Palestine: an Island with one Nation & a Land with two Nations
I find the two cases distinct, and under any circumstances whatsoever I would never compare a land (Palestine) to an island (Cyprus), but my friend started his brief letter with the following sentences: “the solution is two states in Palestine and two states in Cyprus. In Cyprus, there are two peoples, not one. Ethnically, there are no ‘Cypriots’; there is no ‘Cypriot’ nation. The term ‘Cypriot’ is local/geographical, not ethnic / national. In Cyprus, there are two great nations, Greeks and Turks, and some tiny minorities”. Saying this, he drew a parallel between Palestine and Cyprus; but this is wrong.
In Ottoman Palestine, before 1882 (the very beginning of the Zionist ‘Aliyah’ project), Palestinians constituted the quasi-totality of the local population, whereas several tiny minorities lived in peace among them: Turkish Ottoman administrators, Druzes and Jews. With the arrival of the European (mostly Ashkenazi) Jews, the composition of the local population started gradually changing.
It is noteworthy that the arrival of those populations was approved by the Sultan and the Ottoman authorities (until 1917), accepted by the Palestinians in the beginning, fully supported by the English colonial gangsters, strongly opposed by the Palestinians with the passing of time, but originally rejected by the only who knew and understood: the Sephardic Jews of Palestine, who represented an authentic line of continuity between Late Antiquity and Modern Jews.
II. 2nd millennium BCE Alashiya (Cyprus)
Quite contrarily, Cypriots were always there. The original name of the island was Alashiya; this is attested in 2nd millennium BCE Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Egyptian hieroglyphic, Ugaritic Canaanite, and Linear B Mycenaean texts. The king of Alashiya is mentioned even in the Amarna Letters; the island was part of the territory of the Hittite Empire for several hundreds of years. Mentioned in the text of Wenamun, early 11th c. BCE Alashiya was ruled by Queen Hatiba – which is the earliest known name of local ruler. As personal name, it is determinately Semitic.
The word ‘Cyprus’ is Semitic too, as it denotes the ‘coast’ or the ‘shore’ in Canaanite and Phoenician. Ethnically, all the Cypriots are Canaanites-Phoenicians entirely identical to today’s Lebanese. The sparse Achaean settlements could not and did not change the irrevocable Semitic Phoenician ethnic and cultural identity of Alashiya-Cyprus.
Papyrus with the text of Wenamun in Egyptian Hieratic
III. Vicious, colonial falsification of the History of Cyprus
The History of Cyprus has been extensively tampered with by prepaid pseudo-scholars, bogus-academics, and clownish professors who were on the payroll of London-based Greek ship owners, who were ordered by the Apostate Freemasonic lodge of England to monstrously disfigure the historical realities and to shamelessly portray Alashiya’s History as “Greek”. This fallacy would exacerbate the vicious political myths that were diffused by idiotic politicians and treacherous statesmen in Greece, who -thinking that they would ‘unite Cyprus with Greece-‘ brought disaster, bloodshed and interminable conflict. These were the stupid victims of the English colonial liars and crooks who did not give a damn for the lives of the Cypriots, the Turks, and the Greeks.
Statue of Baal (12th c. BCE) unearthed in Enkomi, Famagusta; to deny the Semitic-Canaanite identity of the island, the biased archaeologists did not name the statue correctly, but gave it rather an exotic appellation, namely ‘horned god’!
The fallaciously called ‘Late Bronze Age collapse’ is a fake term invented to distort the History of the Oriental Empires; it consists in the invention of a factoid, which is then extrapolated from a marginal and unimportant region (the Anatolian Sea, which is also known as the Aegean Sea) and extended to describe the major centers of advanced civilization, namely Mesopotamia and Egypt, where it does not apply at all! The fabricated term is biased and absurd. It is impermissible to use terms that apply to an unimportant periphery in order to narrate the History of the lands of the great empires and the peoples who developed the major civilizations. In simple words, since there is no ‘Late Bronze Age collapse’ in Mesopotamia, there is no ‘Late Bronze Age collapse’ as a major historical circumstance; it is a marginal phenomenon that concerns peripheral lands to Mesopotamia.
Tjekker (Teucri) and Peleset (Philistines-Palestinians) fighting against the Egyptians and Pharaoh Ramesses III at the Battle of Djahy (ca. 1178 BCE); from the reliefs of the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, Luxor West
The so-called ‘major wave of Greek settlement’ (1100-1050 BCE) was not Greek and was not major; it was in fact ‘Western Anatolian’, and it did not affect Cyprus in particular. In fact, it was the side effect of the invasions of the Sea Peoples, who had nothing to do with ‘Greeks’, but actually destroyed the Achaean (‘Greek’) fortresses and brought an end to the Hittite Empire and its ally, the Mycenaean kingdom.
IV. 1st millennium BCE Cyprus
Cyprus was integral part of the Sargonid Assyrian, Nabonid Babylonian, and Achaemenid Iranian empires; as such, it was entirely disconnected from all the developments that took place in South Balkans during the 5th and the 4th centuries BCE. Cyprus was closer to the Seleucid Empire of Syria, but was always part of the Ptolemaic Empire of Egypt; this fact that reflects the survival of cultural rivalries of the past (Hittite Anatolia, Assyrian-Babylonian Mesopotamia, Egypt).
The gradual diffusion of Alexandrine Koine in Cyprus does not justify any claim of Hellenization; the various settlements of Arcadians did not change the Semitic-Canaanite ethnic identity of the Cypriots. The Romanization and the Christianization of the island constituted two processes, which -in spite of the crucial changes that took place there during the Late Antiquity- consolidated the ethnic unity of the Cypriots, who became part of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Ivory game board (detail) found at Enkomi, Famagusta; evident imitation of the Assyrian royal art by the artists of the local king who is depicted in hunting.
V. Cyprus as part of the Eastern Roman Empire
Cyprus was religiously and administratively important, and this is highlighted by the position of the bishop of Cyprus whose Church was proclaimed autocephalous in the First Council of Ephesus (431 CE) and by the outstanding privileges that Emperor Zeno (reign: 474-475 and 476-491) accorded to Archbishop Anthemius (488 CE). It is interesting that the Patriarchate of Antioch repeatedly failed to incorporate Cyprus into its dominion.
Furthermore, Cyprus was never part of an Eastern Roman ‘theme’ (administrative division), as it consisted in an entirely independent one. The partly Islamization of the island was a slow and rather unusual process which involved an Eastern Roman and Umayyad condominium (688), The Eastern Roman Reconquista (965 CE) took an end with the Crusades (1191), the much loathed (by the Cypriots) Knights Templar, the Lusignan rule (1192-1489), and the Venetian rule that lasted until the Ottoman conquest (1571). The few Ottoman settlers were military officers who entered into mixed marriages, thus having no major impact on the ethnic composition of the local population.
Agia Napa monastery, Cyprus (12th-18th c.)
Hala Sultan Tekke (or Mosque of Umm Haram), Larnaca (16th–18th c.)
VI. Conflicts in 20th c. Cyprus: due to the colonial manipulation of the anti-Turkish Greek racists
In fact, the Turkish Cypriots are Cypriots who accepted Islam; because of this, they did not need to further speak Cypriot Rumi, which was the local dialect of the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire. Today, this language, which erroneously called ‘Modern Greek-Cypriot’, is quasi-unintelligible to all the inhabitants of Greece, who lost their Eastern Roman (Romeiki/Rumi) identity and language, as they were forced -within the secessionist Greek state- to learn the fabricated Modern Greek ‘Standard’ language. On the other hand, Turkish-Cypriot has several differences from Ottoman and Modern Turkish.
Cyprus could have reached independence, unity and neutrality, had the nationalist, extremist and suicidal idea of ‘Enosis’ (unilateral union of Cyprus with Greece) not prevailed among the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots.
With the 15th July 1974 coup the Greek state breached the order in Cyprus, thus offering the chance to Turkey to intervene as a warranty power; the Turkish military intervention followed secret English directives. In Nicosia, the division line (‘Green Line’) cut the city into two parts in a way that offered to the Embassy of England the exclusive privilege to have access to both sectors of the divided island. Actually, it had been designed back in the 1960s by an English military officer as a provisory ceasefire line to separate armed groups of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriots.
All the accusations of Turkey for the so-called ‘military occupation of the northern part of the island’ by the ridiculous Greek politicians, statesmen, corrupt journalists, chauvinist pseudo-academics, and racist bogus-intellectuals are nothing more than the most convincing proof of their high treason and the best confirmation of their subordination to foreign countries’ interests. By deliberately taking adamant and unrealistic positions, they make it sure that the problem is never resolved and people in Greece are thus fooled, fanaticized and sentimentally manipulated.
In an article published in Greek in Exormisi (‘Sortie’; then daily newspaper organ of PASOK in Greece) on 18th April 1990, I was the first to publicly demand the official Greek recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The ignorant, idiotic, pathetic, corrupt and ludicrous political microcosm of Greece, by rejecting to pay heed to my unmistakable advice, only worsened the position of the country, as they demonstrated worldwide that they are miserable autistics or mentally defective morons. Whether you like it or not, the international community is not a primary school, and the states are not naïve pupils; there are no excuses for mistakes made and for acts breaching the international law, which is the consecration of the Law of the Jungle. For the silly Greek politicians and diplomats it is therefore ludicrous to endlessly complain for something that Greece caused in the first place, by launching the 15th July 1974 coup against President Makarios.
I don’t reject the idea of two states on the island of Cyprus; on the contrary, I fully supported it in the past, back in the 1990s, when Turkey was not an ailing state with paranoid crooks and pseudo-Islamist gangsters in the government. However, this is a matter of local governance. A confederal state could also be viable and successful. Turkish Cypriots have always been staunch Kemalists, as they accept only a secular form of state, while also rejecting the presence of idiotic Islamist Anatolian settlers. Today, a confederal, bi-communal, secular state in Cyprus would make sense. The solution of two states on the island would surely push the small states to unwanted conditions of dependence on Greece and Turkey respectively, and this is something that neither Greek Cypriots nor Turkish Cypriots would like.
VII. Greek & Turkish Cypriots’ enemies are Greece, Turkey and England
As it often happens in all the postcolonial states, the opposition to the absurd and disastrous Greek governmental position as regards the Cyprus problem is carried out also by the colonial powers’ stooges who are employed in order to diffuse other wrong ideas, thus placing the average Greeks in front of a fake dilemma. The steady, incessant generation of fake dilemmas is the method by which colonial powers rule their former colonies.
Consequently, ignorant journalists, being on the payroll of the London-based Greek ship owners and the US-based Greek Diaspora, propagate absurd ideas and vicious concepts, publishing scores of nonsensical articles to fool the average readers. In doing so, they support the current position of Greece’s ailing government on the matter. To be exact, the leftist approach taken by the most reviled government of Greece with respect to the Greek-Turkish relations and the respective position of Turkey’s Islamist gangsters are calamitous for both countries’ vital interests. The same is valid for the ‘new’ Greek approach to the Cyprus problem. It is not strange to qualify the Greek government’s positions as ‘leftist’; although masqueraded as conservative, the New Democracy party has always implemented a Trotskyist agenda.
In his letter, my Muslim friend quoted an article from Anihneuseis portal (see links below) in which the author expressed the following absurd question:
– Why should Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots be forced to live together? The Turkish-Cypriots will never ‘return’ (sic!) as minority to a state that is basically in the hands of Greek-Cypriots.
This paranoid statement reflects the stupid ideas of corrupt Greek journalists and analysts who write in order to reproduce the Islamist propaganda of Turkey, being on the payroll of the criminal Islamist regime of Ankara. Turks have to overthrow the Islamist regime at once, close down all pseudo-Islamist schools and bogus-tariqas, and get their country back from the colonial cholera of AKP. And Greeks have to remove the present government as soon as possible, before it makes of the country Europe’s best example of population replacement.
Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots loved living together until the moment the criminal stooges of England started diffusing among Greeks and Greek Cypriots the evil concept of ‘Enosis’ (Union) between an entirely non-Greek nation (Cyprus) and another equally non-Greek nation, which has been tyrannically ruled for 200 years within the dictatorial pseudo-state of ‘Greece’, undergone a spiritual genocide, and turned from real Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans into deluded and besotted bogus-Greeks, i.e. expendable stuff for the anti-Christian and anti-Islamic policies of the Western colonials of France, England and America.
The easiest response to the aforementioned, totally absurd, question is that Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots will love living together again as soon as they have the courage to speak sincerely to one another, agree on basic confidence-building measures, block reciprocally every type of Turkish and Greek interference, replace the Turkish soldiers with a UN peace keeping force, and ban every discussion about Hellenism, Greek impact on the History of Cyprus, and ‘Union’ with Greece. It goes without saying that Standard Modern Greek must be banned from the primary, secondary and tertiary education in the so-called ‘Greek-Cypriot’ sector (which must be renamed ‘Eastern Roman sector’), whereas Turkish Cypriot linguistic and cultural particularities must be strengthened in the completely secular education of the Turkish Cypriot sector.
Actually, there is no minority in a bi-zonal state; and this perspective of pacification, unification and rehabilitation of Cyprus is the red cloth for the bull. The criminal colonials of England intend to perpetuate the problem, causing many successive transformations to the same issue, in order to remain the only power to locally pull the strings. A united, confederal, bi-zonal state of Cyprus void of interference will have every right to close down the English military bases, terminating the colonial presence on the island once forever.
VIII. Cyprus, Egypt, and the true parallel: two communities in one nation
In fact, with respect to the two communities of Modern Cyprus, there is only one parallel that can be drawn; this is with Egypt. Reminiscent of the ancient impact and involvement, the socio-cultural conditions in the Valley of the Nile and on the island of Cyprus do enable us to establish an analogy.
Egyptians are one nation with two ethnic-religious communities: Christians and Muslims. The former speak Coptic and the latter use a Modern Arabic dialect as a means of everyday communication. However, both communities are indigenous Egyptians or if you prefer Copts (Christian Copts and Muslim Copts). Egyptian Muslims are not Arabs or other foreigners who came to settle in the Valley of the Nile; they are historical Egyptians (Copts) who gradually after 642 CE started accepting Islam; because of this, they did not use Coptic language anymore and they forgot it.
Similarly, Cypriots are one nation with two ethnic-religious communities: Christians and Muslims. The former speak Cypriot Eastern Roman (Rumi) language (which is falsely called Greek Cypriot) and the latter use a Turkish dialect slightly different from Standard Modern Turkish as a means of everyday communication. However, both communities are indigenous Cypriots. Cypriot Muslims are not Turks or Turkmen who came to settle in the island. The Ottoman soldiers who settled in Cyprus were very few. The bulk of the Turkish Cypriots are Cypriots who either entered into mixed marriages or accepted Islam during the Ottoman period.
Earlier articles about the Palestinian-Israeli problem (titles, subtitles, units and links):
Palestinians vs. Israelis: 11 Hidden Historical Truths about a Futile War
I. No Religion subsists without Moral, and no Nation exists due to Fake History II. 11 Points of Historical Clarification about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Point 1: the Israelis are not ethnically Hebrew Point 2: the Israelis are not religiously Hebrew Point 3: ‘Judaism’ is not identical to the Ancient Hebrew religion Point 4: Jews represented an apostate minority of the Hebrews Recapitulation Point 5: the last historical state of the Jews was named Judah / Judaea, not ‘Israel’ Point 6: there is no right to the Promised Land for the Jews Point 7: the entire Old Testament is a posterior fabrication full of distortions Point 8: among today’s so-called ‘Jews’ only 10-15% are truly Jews: the Sephardi Point 9: today’s so-called ‘Jews’ are not ethnically Jewish: the Ashkenazim Point 10: Reform Judaism is not Judaism Point 11: Modern Hebrew (Ivrit) is a fake, constructed, non-Semitic language
Israelis vs. Palestinians: 6 Concealed Historical Truths about the Lost Wars
I. The Spiritual and Moral Conditions of National Resistance II. 6 Points of Historical Clarification about the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict Point 1: Palestinians are not Arabs, but victims of Arabization and Pan-Arabism. Point 2: The Aramaean and Philistine Past of the Palestinians Point 3: The Sea Peoples and the Peleset-Pelasgian-Cretan Ancestry of the Palestinians Point 4: Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Zionists: Criminal Accomplices in the Formation of a Deracinated Nation that functions as Expendable Material Point 5: Lack of Self-criticism brings Disaster, Death and Damnation Point 6: the Interminable Failures of the Palestinians
Pre-publication of chapter XIII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XI, XII, and XIII constitute the Part Four (Fallacies about the so-called Hellenistic Period, Alexander the Great, and the Seleucid & the Parthian Arsacid Times) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XI ‘Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period’ and Chapter XII ‘Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty’ have already been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; they are currently available online here: https://www.academia.edu/105386978/Alexander_the_Great_as_Iranian_King_of_Kings_the_fallacy_of_Hellenism_and_the_nonexistent_Hellenistic_Period
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
—————————-
The very long shadow of the Turanian Parthian Arsacids who ruled Iran (250 BCE – 224 CE) longer than the Achaemenids (550-330 BCE) and the Sassanids (224-651 CE); this silver gilt dish was found in Padishkhwargar, an Arsacid province that corresponds to Tabaristan (of Islamic times) or to Mazandaran and Gilan (of Modern times), i.e. the long and narrow region between the Alborz Mountains and the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. The dish dates back to the last decades of Sassanid rule or the very early Islamic period; it apparently follows the Sassanid artistic traditions, but the main person next to whom there is a brief Pahlavi inscription makes with his left hand a particular sign of mystical recognition among initiates. This sign reminds the typical hand gesture of Gray Wolves (a fist with the little finger and index finger raised).
Colonial historiographers and Orientalists expand much about the philhellenism of the Parthian monarchs at least for the first 250 years of the dynasty, down to the very beginning of the 1st c. CE; this is a fact. However, few questioned how functional this Parthian philhellenism was and what important purposes it actually served. It is true that after Alexander the Great’s death (323 BCE) a chaotic situation prevailed across Iran and many battles were fought by his Epigones; the Seleucid Empire, which incorporated the central Iranian satrapies, was constituted only 11 years after Alexander’s death (312 BCE).
At that moment and for a longer period afterwards, the worst hit province of the Achaemenid Empire was still Fars (Persia); Alexander the Great’s invasions did not involve any other destruction of Achaemenid city or site comparable to that of Parsa (Persepolis). Reflecting pre-existing rivalries, several populations of other Iranian – Turanian provinces may have enjoyed both, Alexander’s attitude against Fars and the destruction of Persepolis. Furthermore, the inevitable transfer of the imperial capital to Babylon must have pleased them too; it offered them space to gradually control as long as the Persian Iranians were in disarray.
Parthia was already a province of the short-lived Median Empire
Parthia as an Achaemenid Iranian satrapy
The early period of Arsacid Parthia: 250-200 BCE
The Arsacid Parthian Empire in 94 BCE at its greatest extent, during the reign of Mithridates II (124–91 BCE)
The Arsacid Parthian Empire at the beginning of the first c. CE
Parthia (P-rw-t-i-wꜣ) written in Egyptian hieroglyphic characters: it was one of the 24 subject nations of the Achaemenid Empire (from the Egyptian Statue of Darius I the Great)
Parthian soldier depicted on the façade of Xerxes’ I tomb in Naqsh-e Rustam, ca. 470 BCE
The subsequent transfer of the Seleucid capital to Seleucia in Mesopotamia was a grave mistake of the newly established dynasty, which failed to comprehend the very smart effort of Alexander to favor, befriend and utilize the Babylonians as the principal means to hold his vast empire united. Finally, the Parthians seceded from the Seleucid Empire 60-65 years after its inception. The rise of the Arsacid dynasty meant that, for the first time in History, the central Iranian–Turanian provinces were ruled under a scepter and a throne that were not located in Fars.
It is therefore normal that the Parthians -in their opposition to the Persians (of Fars)- promoted a systematic court philhellenism and contributed to Alexander the Great’s Iranian legitimation and unquestionable incorporation into the imperial identity and history, and to his posterior fame among Iranian–Turanian nations. This stance fully corresponded to their best interests, namely to secure stability across Iran’s central provinces, while facing threats from rivals among the neighboring empires and kingdoms. It is clear that the Turanian attempt was rejected by the Persian Iranians, and of this polarization we attest late echoes that date back to the Islamic times. Accepting Alexander as an Iranian was benediction to the Turanian Parthians and malediction to the Iranian Persians. But the empire (Xšāça) established by Cyrus the Great was indiscriminately Iranian-Turanian.
Despite the Arsacid–Seleucid wars, one must rather conclude that, with their marked philhellenism, the Turanian rulers of Parthia had good relations with the various Greek and Macedonian colonies, which had been established throughout their territory and in several adjacent lands, notably Bactria.
This fact helps also explain why, despite Alexander the Great’s rather negative portrait in Sassanid and Middle Persian sources of the Islamic times’ Parsis, the conqueror of the Achaemenid Empire enjoyed splendid narratives and majestic descriptions by Ferdowsi, Nizami, and many other Islamic Iranian–Turanian poets, mystics, philosophers and historians.
Although followers of Parsism (the form of Zoroastrianism that survived down to our days) in Iran and India have a very negative perception of Alexander the Great, Iranian and Turanian Muslims very much venerate him. About:
One must have no doubt that the term ‘Hellene’ (Greek) is ‘Ionian’ for the Oriental languages. Throughout all the ancient Oriental sources, i.e. Assyrian-Babylonian, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Aramaic, Phoenician and Hebrew, there is not one mention of ‘Greeks’ or ‘Hellenes’; the only term used is ‘Ionian’. This means that in any ancient Oriental language, for the word ‘Philhellene” the corresponding term is “friendly to Ionians”.
It is essential at this point to define the ethnic and cultural links that the Arsacid Parthians felt that they connected them with the ‘Ionians’ with whom they entered in contact. The Parthians accepted the imperial concept because they were integral part of Achaemenid Iran; around 200 years later, the Macedonians, the Ionians and the Aeolians became acquainted with this spiritual notion thanks to Alexander the Great and the practices of Orientalization that he introduced for his soldiers.
However, prior to the acceptance of the imperial ideal, both the Parthians and the ‘Ionians’ had their apparently common concept of governorship that was above the fundamental level of Kurultai, which corresponds to the ‘Ionian’ Amphictyony for settled tribes. This was a military type of rule with man exercising absolute power upon condition of general approval. The traditional Turanian ruler was named in Ancient Ionian (‘Greek’) ‘tyrannos’, and it was pronounced as ‘tu-ran-nos’ with the accent on the first syllable. The term designated the typically Turanian ruler and it serves as an indication of the Turanian origin of the Ionians and the Aeolians. It was actually first used among the Lydians of the Mermnadae dynasty, whose members had apparently names of Turanian origin, notably the founder of the dynasty Gyges whose name was written in Assyrian Annals as Gu(g)gu. About:
In fact, the Parthian Arsacid philhellenism sheds more light on the inculcation of Turanian populations across Western Anatolia and South Balkans during the first millennium BCE, which is a topic that colonial historians tried systematically to conceal. However, Parthian philhellenism is certainly a form of anti-Persianism, which shows that the Achaemenid times were not a period of peace and concord, as many attempted to depict.
——————— THE GALLERY OF ARSACID RULERS & SOLDIERS —————————
Silver drachma of Arsaces I (247 – 211 BCE) with inscription
Arsaces II (211–191 BCE); coin from the Ray mint
Friyapat/Priapatius (191-176 BCE); coin from the Qumis (Hekatompylos; today’s Saddarvazeh) mint
Coin of Frahat I / Phraates I (176-171 BCE)
Coin of Mehrdat I / Mithridates I (171–138 or 132 BCE), who was the first Arsacid Parthian ruler to be attributed the title ‘King of Kings’, according to Babylonian cuneiform records; the reverse shows Verethragna / Heracles, and the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ “Great King Arsaces, friend of Greeks”.
Parthian relief of Mithridates I of Parthia from Xong-e Ashdar (also known as Hung-i Nauruzi), near the city of Izeh, in Khuzestan, Iran; compared to the Achaemenid reliefs, which were the results of an official imperial art, the Parthian reliefs are relevant of provincial artists and craftsmanship; most of the Parthian reliefs are found in the southern range of Zagros Mountains. Parthian reliefs are rather secular and not religious; and not religious; they depict scenes of resting, drinking, and hunting, also including several animal figures.
Mithradat-kert (literally the city of Mithridates I of Parthia) in today’s Nisa (or Nissa or Nusay) in Eastern Turkmenistan; the entrance to the city and the walls, which had to be covered up to prevent further damage from erosion
Mithradat-kert(Ancient Greek: Νῖσος, Νίσα, Νίσαιον; Turkmen: Nusaý or Parthaunisa)
Mithradat-kert
Mithradat-kert
Frahat II / Phraates II (132–127 BCE); coin from the Seleucia mint (in Mesopotamia)
Ardawan I / Artabanus I (127–124 BCE); coin from the Seleucia mint
Coin of Ardawan II / Artabanus II (126–122 BCE)
Coin (drachma) of Mihrdāt II / Mithridates II of Parthia (124–91 BCE); the clothing is Parthian, while the style is Seleucid (sitting on an omphalos). The Greek inscription reads “King Arsaces, the Philhellene”.
Godarz I / Gotarzes I (95-90 BCE); coin from the Ecbatana mint
Coin of Mihrdat III / Mithridates III (87-80 BCE) from the Ray mint
Tetradrachm of the Parthian monarch Urud I / Orodes I (90-80 BCE) from the Seleucia mint
Coin of Sanatruq I / Sinatruces I (77-70 BCE) from the Ray mint
Frahat III / Phraates III (70–57 BCE); coin from the Ecbatana mint
Coin of Mihrdat IV / Mithridates IV (57-54 BCE)
Coin of Urud II / Orodes II (57-38 BCE) from the Mithradat-kert (Nisa) mint
Frahat IV / Phraates IV (38-2 BCE); coin from the Mithradat-kert mint
During the reign of Frahat IV / Phraates IV, there seems to have been a pacification agreement between Parthia and Rome (after the proclamation of Octavian as Emperor in early 27 BCE). According to Roman sources, the Parthians returned to Romans the standards lost in the Battle of Carrhae (53 BCE); this fact was commemorated and presented by Octavian as a victory: this coin (denarius) was struck in 19 BCE. It depicts the Roman goddess Feronia on the obverse, and on the reverse a Parthian soldier who kneels in submission while returning the Roman military standards. It is apparently a matter of utmost symbolism and not the representation of a historical event.
The decentralized administrative and royal power of the Arsacid Parthians allowed for many small, peripheral and vassals kingdoms to surface (Characene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, etc.); there are many possible interpretations of the phenomenon, which was erroneously viewed as result of military weakness in the past. Elymais (in today’s Khuzestan, SW Iran) was one of those vassal states. Coin of Kamnaskires III, king of Elymais, and his wife Queen Anzaze, 1st century BCE
Coin of Tiridat II / Tiridates II (29-27 BCE)
Coin of Frahat V / Phraates V (2 BCE-4 CE)
Vonun I / Vonones I (8-12 CE); coin from the Seleucia mint
Coin of Ardawan II / Artabanus II (10-38 CE) from the Seleucia mint
Vardan I / Vardanes I (40-47 CE); coin from the Seleucia mint
Tetradrachm of Godarz II / Gotarzes II (40-51 CE) minted in 49 CE
Tetradrachm of the Parthian king Vologases I (50-79 CE), struck at Seleucia; on the obverse, there is a portrait of the king who appears to wear a trouser-suit, bear a diadem, and have beard. The reverse depicts an investiture scene, where the king receives the scepter and the divine authority by Ahura Mazda.
The so-called Indo-Parthian Kingdom (19-226 CE) was another small, vassal and peripheral kingdom that was located east of the Parthian Arsacid Empire; it was founded by king Gondophares (Γονδοφαρης/Υνδοφερρης; 19-46 CE) whose name (Windafarm in Parthian and Gundapar in Middle Persian) means ‘May he find glory’ (Vindafarna in Old Achaemenid Iranian). Gondophares originated from the illustrious House of Suren, one of the most prestigious families in Arsacid Iran. He built his own royal city Gundopharron and this name was gradually altered to Kandahar (which is located in today’s Afghanistan). Gondophares’ coin was found in India and bears witness to a clearly Parthian style.
Roman sestertius issued by the Roman Senate in 116 CE to commemorate Trajan’s Parthian campaign
Drawing representing a Parthian archer as depicted on Trajan’s Column in Rome (113 CE)
Relief of the Roman-Parthian wars at the Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome (203 CE)
Parthian (right) wearing a Phrygian cap, depicted as a prisoner of war, in chains, held by a Roman (left); Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203 CE
Parthian king making an offering to god Verethragna; from Masjed Soleyman, SW Iran. 2nd–3rd century CE (today in the Louvre Museum)
Silver drachma of the Parthian king Walagash VI / Vologases VI (208-228 CE), penultimate ruler of the Arsacid dynasty. Obverse: King wearing a tiara decorated with deers and ribboned diadem. Reverse: Arsakes I, founder or the Arsacid Parthian dynasty, seating on a throne and holding a bow. From the Ecbatana mint (today’s Hamadan).
Parthian horseman, currently at the Palazzo Madama, Turin
Parthian cataphract fighting a lion, currently at the British Museum
Stucco relief of an infantry soldier, dating back to the Arsacid times (250 BCE – 224 CE); from the Zahhak castle, in Hashtrud, Eastern Azerbaijan, Iran; currently in the Azerbaijan Museum, Tabriz (Iran)
————————————————————————–
Another fact that Western Orientalists tried always to obscure is that the religion of the Arsacids was somewhat divergent from that of the Achaemenids. I don’t mean that the Parthians had a diametrically different or a counterfeit religion; not at all! Simply, in terms of Zoroastrian cosmogony, cosmology, universalism, imperial doctrine, and apocalyptic eschatology, the Arsacids sensibly differed from the Achaemenid Zoroastrian orthodoxy. We have to also bear in mind at this point that the scarcity of the historical sources still prevents us from properly assessing the true dimensions of the religious differentiation.
However, the marked differentiation of the Arsacid monarch from his Achaemenid predecessors suggests another type of royalty, sacrality, spirituality, and morality. As an example for the average readership, I point out here that there has not been even one Old Achaemenid or Imperial Aramaic text -saved down to our days-, which explicitly mentions Zoroaster by name. All the earliest mentions of the name of the founder of the Achaemenid imperial religion are in Middle Persian and in Avestan writings – except for external but largely untrustworthy sources (Ancient Greek and Latin).
All the same, the religious differentiation between the Achaemenid and the Arsacid times did not bring about a drastic religious change, but rather another perception of the divine world; the Parthians continued worshipping Ahura Mazda and keeping themselves far from Ahriman’s attraction. But it appears that, during the Arsacid times, Zoroaster’s preaching was rather perceived as a sacred moral world order; subsequently, the metaphysical terms of the then orally preserved Avesta took a moral dimension and connotation. The spiritual interest seems to have shifted from an imperial order of worldwide salvation to a personal order of moral integrity.
Consequently, examining the nature of this historical-religious change, we may be able to discern that the Achaemenid Zoroastrian orthodoxy, once deprived of its overwhelmingly imperial character, looks rather associated to the moral concepts and the spiritual tenets of Tengrism. For this reason, it is proper not to use the term ‘Zoroastrianism’ for all the historical periods after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, because religiosity differed substantially; it would then be preferable to use the term ‘Zendism’ for the Iranian religion of the Arsacid times, which is in reality a later form of Zoroastrianism in which theological exegesis (Zend Avesta meaning interpretation of Avesta) prevailed over the original faith, and the Avestan text took mainly a moral connotation and value within the socio-religious environment of those days.
The Zend commentaries of the Avestan texts, which definitely originate from the spiritual-religious background of the Arsacid Parthian (and not Sassanid) times, do reflect theological concepts and world views closer associated with Tengrism. About:
Zendism was definitely opposite to Mithraism, although perhaps not in the very strict form for which the Achaemenid emperors became famous. But it was mainly in Arsacid times that Mithraism expanded enormously both, southeastwards (India) and westwards (Caucasus, Anatolia, Syria, Greece, Europe, Rome and the Roman Empire). This does not mean that there were no Mithraic Magi left in Iran; their existence proved to be the main reason for palatial turmoil, sacerdotal plots, social unrest, and internal strives. Undoubtedly, the Magi were the absolute embodiment of Ahriman (: the evil) for the Arsacid rulers, pretty much like they had been an abomination for the Achaemenid monarchs.
In this regard, it is essential to point out that ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) in Zoroastrianism and ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) in Mithraism are two absolutely different divinities – pretty much like Jesus in Manichaeism, Mandaean religion, Gnostic Christianity, Roman & Eastern Roman Christianity, Nestorian Christianity, and Islam is not one being but many divergent entities or forms of divinity, each with dissimilar attributes. It goes without saying that for any concept or aspect of Tengrism, which is also a markedly monotheistic system, Mithra is a religious disgrace.
More specifically, I have to point out that within the context of Zoroastrianism, ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) is a subordinate form of divinity that constitutes merely an expression of the unfathomable benevolence and omnipotence of Ahura Mazda, and as such it bears solar attributes. Contrarily, within the context of Mithraism, this divinity gets emancipated, becomes independent, and turns out to be the central recipient of cult, while a series of abominable and sacrilegious acts are attributed to him, notably the blasphemy of tauroctony which is part of the Mithraic eschatology. Due to the polytheistic nature of Mithraism, Mithra is intrinsically and extensively mythologized; this is so because there cannot be true polytheism without numerous narratives which attract the adoration of the faithful, and in the process, they prevent believers from focusing on the spiritual exercises, the moral principles, and the basic narratives of Cosmogony, Cosmology and Eschatology. In Mithraism, Ahura Mazda still exists as an inactive divinity of the old time, like the Roman dei otiosi.
At this point, it is essential to make one clarification; the well-known, theophoric name ‘Mithridates’, which was used by several Arsacid Parthian rulers, does not directly imply Mithraic affiliation. Certainly, the name means literally ‘given by Mithra’; it was also attested in Pontus, Commagene, Armenia and elsewhere. But every case of use is different. In some cases, it may involve the Zendist / Zoroastrian concept of Mithra; on other occasions, it may reflect a compromise among the Parthian Arsacid Empire’s imperial and the sacerdotal cliques, which were plunged in an endless conflict against one another.
Last, the use of the aforementioned theophoric name can eventually denote the pro-Mithraic tendency and affiliation of a Parthian monarch; there were indeed few Mithraists among the Arsacid rulers. This was an abomination for the monotheistic Parthian Zendist priests, and it appears that some of the pro-Mithraic Arsacid rulers were overthrown. The analysis of the reason(s) that stood behind the selection of a theophoric name in the Antiquity may be very long and complicated a topic, because usually these names heralded the nature of the imperial rule that was to be expected in terms easy to understand for the contemporaneous people and difficult to decode for modern scholarship. About:
———– A SELECTION OF ARSACID PARTHIAN MONUMENTS ———
Hatra, NW Iraq: a major caravan city on the Silk Roads that prospered during the Arsacid Parthian times, being mainly inhabited by the local Aramaeans
A barrel vaulted iwan at the entrance at the ancient site of Hatra, modern-day Iraq, built c. 50 CE
Statue unearthed in Hatra, currently at the Tokyo National Museum: Aramaean amalgamation of Verethragna and an Aramaean deity into a Mithraic divinity similar to Artagnes, who is known to have been worshipped in Nemrut Dagh and Commagene in general
Temple of the Aramaean divinity Gareus, near Uruk, Southern Mesopotamia – near the borders of the vassal kingdom of Characene
Parthian ceramic oil lamp, from the province of Khuzestan, currently in the National Museum of Iran (Tehran)
Baal temple in Palmyra: a frieze relief
Grave towers in Tadmor / Palmyra / Phoinicopolis; known among Syrians as the ‘Valley of the Tombs’ (Wadi al-Qubur). Majestic funerary monuments bear witness to the extraordinary wealth of the great Aramaean caravan city (1st-3rd c. CE).
Statue of a young Palmyrene Aramaean in fine Parthian trousers; from a funerary stele at Palmyra / Tadmor, early 3rd century CE
Mordechai and Esther. From the Aramaean Synagogue of Dura Europos (near Abu Kemal) on the Western bank of Euphrates River in Syria (right before the Syrian-Iraqi border): wall mural with representation of a story from the Book of Esther (early 3rd c. CE); artistic style known as ‘Parthian frontality’
Pre-publication of chapter XI of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XI, XII, and XIII constitute the Part Four (Fallacies about the so-called Hellenistic Period, Alexander the Great, and the Seleucid & the Parthian Arsacid Times) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XII ‘Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty’ has already been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; it is currently available online here: https://www.academia.edu/52541355/Parthian_Turan_an_Anti_Persian_dynasty
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
—————————-
When so evidently the so-called Ancient Greeks disregarded politics, philosophers, theaters and agoras, finding solace, wisdom, science and spirituality at the Island of Philae Temple of Isis, no one can further use the fallacious term ‘Hellenism’. Even if theoretically the Ancient Greeks existed as an ethnic group (which is wrong), they ended up as pilgrims in Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Iranian temples, because the Ancient Greek religion was a quackery and the Ancient Greek mythology was a blasphemy. No 143 Ancient Greek graffito from the First Pylon of the Temple of Isis at the Island of Philae (7 BCE); from: https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/219643
Seleucid (312-63 BCE), Ptolemaic (305-30 BCE) and Attalid (282-133 BCE) times have also been distorted enormously by the colonial Latinists, Hellenists, and Orientalists, over the past two centuries; they deliberately undertook a systematic Hellenization of the material record, being Eurocentric in their approach, discriminatory in their efforts of representation and interpretation of the historical past, and oblivious of every text and monument that would eventually refute their preconceived falsehood.
In this case, the fabrication and propagation of the term ‘Hellenistic period’ for this part of Late Antiquity represents only a minor dimension of the colonial academics’ falsifications and a small part of the fallacious Western historiography about the topic. In fact, there was never any ‘Hellenistic period’ anytime anywhere.
The term ‘Hellenism’ was used indeed in Ancient ‘Greek’ texts about several nations that became familiar with the disorderly Ancient Pelasgian-Philistine-Peleset (which is wrongly called ‘Greek’/’Hellenic’ by colonial academics and intellectuals) lifestyle and culture during the early periods of Late Antiquity. However, this situation was sacrilegious if evaluated on the basis of Achaean and Danaan measures and moral standards that Homer had tried to reinstate, but failed. In fact, ‘Hellenism’ was an explicit form of Anti-Achaean odium that should consequently be defined as ‘Pelasgianism’.
The familiarization phenomenon was basically attested in the case of the Lydians, the Carians, the Lycians, and the Phrygians; to lesser extent, it concerned the Thracians, the Macedonians, the Illyrians and the Romans. But all these populations, earlier known as Lukka, Kaeftiu, Sherden and Tarwisha/Tarwiya (Troy) in the Ancient Hittite or ‘Sea Peoples’ in the Ancient Egyptian texts, were ethnically, culturally and linguistically associated with the Anti-Achaean and Anti-Danaan Pelasgians-Peleset of the 2nd millennium BCE South Balkans. It was therefore quite easy for them to assimilate with those who had been their allies in the destruction of both, the old Hittite-Achaean (wrongly called ‘Mycenaean’) alliance and the Homeric effort of an Achaean revival.
In fact, what is described as ‘Ancient Greek (or Hellenic) civilization’ by the racist historians of the West is an Anti-Achaean Pelasgian barbarism that constituted a blasphemy for all the ancient civilized nations of the Orient, including the Achaeans who are defined as the first ‘Greeks’ (Hellenes), although this sacrilegious name was abhorred by the Achaeans. During the 2nd millennium BCE, the continuous Achaean – Pelasgian clash had reflected the permanent Hittite-Lukka polarization in Western Anatolia, whereas the Hittite-Achaean alliance triggered the ominous Pelasgian-Trojan ‘conspiracy’ (to use the term employed by the Ancient Egyptian scribes of the Annals of Ramses III), since Troy was a member state of the Lukka confederacy. In short, the prevalence of Anti-Achaean Pelasgian ethos among the divergent ethnic groups of the region (Ionians, Aeolians, Danaans, Cadmeans and Dorian during the 1st millennium BCE s is what the Western historians call ‘Ancient Greece’ (Hellas).
One can easily understand Hellenism/Pelasgianism as an appalling corruption and sheer cultural degradation that was produced in Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea and the South Balkans, before being also diffused among the Phoenicians (notably in Cyprus, which is a Phoenician island bearing a Phoenician name) and the Jews (: the ‘cosmopolitan’ Sadducees’ of Alexandria). But this was not true for the Aramaeans, the Iranians and the Turanians, the Egyptians, the Berbers of North Africa, the Meroitic Ethiopians of Ancient Sudan, the Yemenites, and many other civilized nations. They were not ‘Hellenized’ (or Pelasgianized).
Being Hittite of etymology (Alaksandu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaksandu), the name of the Macedonian King was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics; this fact alone stands as a proof of the fact that there was no ‘Hellenization’ of the Oriental nations, but ‘Orientalization’ of the Macedonians and the so-called ‘Greeks’.
Having followed Alexander the Great and the Macedonians, the Pelasgian soldiers (called ‘Greeks’/’Hellenes’) settled in small communities in various locations of Asia and Africa; however, they were mostly reviled by the local people for their absurd way of life.
It goes without saying that, during the Late Antiquity, the term ‘Hellenism’ was never used about these small communities or colonies of Ancient Greeks/Hellenes (: in reality ‘Pelasgians’) that were established in various parts of the dissolved Iranian Empire from Cyrenaica to Bactria, because their inhabitants were already ‘Hellenes’ (Greeks).
Luxor temple; Alexander the Great praying to Amun
At this point, I must make clear that in Ancient Ionian (deliberately named ‘Greek’ by the racist scholars of the West), the nouns ending in –ismos originate from verbs that are formed with an ending in –izein (-ize in English); these forms helped describe the association with or the imitation of someone/something else. They were also used to express the meaning of becoming different from what one had originally been.
Luxor temple: Alexander the Great makes offerings to Min
So, speaking at the grammatical level, ‘Hellenizing’ can be eventually said about anyone except for Hellenes/Greeks (in reality: Pelasgians), because other people imitating the Hellenes can truly be described as ‘Hellenizing’, but the Hellenes, being already who they are, cannot ‘Hellenize’; it would sound nonsensical.
Babylonian astronomical diary written in Babylonian cuneiform (323–322 BCE) mentions the death of Alexander the Great.
IA 17FR
Imperial Aramaic administrative document from Bactria, dating back to the 7th year of Alexander’s reign (324 BCE) from the Khalili Collection; when the name of Alexander the Great is written in Cuneiform Babylonian in Babylon, the capital of his empire, in Egyptian hieroglyphic in Egypt, and in Imperial (: Achaemenid) Aramaic in Iran and Central Asia, we can understand that there was no ‘Hellenization project’ in the Macedonian king’s mind. There was nothing from the so-called Ancient Greek civilization that could possibly be taken seriously and eventually accepted by the highly civilized Asiatic and African nations that accepted Alexander as Iranian king of kings.
Similarly, other people imitating the Ancient Egyptians can indeed be described as ‘Egyptianizing’; but the Egyptians, being already who they are, cannot ‘Egyptianize’. The same is valid for all possible terms: Babylonizing, Iranizing, etc. This is necessary to have in mind, because many ignorant people with evil political motives tend to misinterpret ‘Hellenism’ and pretend that the term denoted an ideology, a national theory or a feeling of national unity; that’s totally wrong.
There was never an Ancient Greek word to describe any feeling of national unity among the Ionians, the Aeolians, the Achaeans, the Dorians, and the other anti-Pelasgian ethnic groups, because such feeling never existed, in spite of Homer’s effort to re-Achaeanize them all. The absurd term ‘Panhellenion’ was coined very late; it was first used by the paranoid Roman Emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE), who suffered from an enormous psychological complex of inferiority opposite his great, magnificent and omnipotent father, namely Emperor Trajan (98-117 CE). Being the worthless son of an illustrious and most successful father and failing to inherit the slightest portion of his predecessor’s military skills, the foolish Hadrian wanted to regroup together all the Greek-speaking slaves of the Roman Empire. That is why he fabricated the otherwise useless term; however, even the project failed. About:
It is essential at this point to underscore two key issues; first, the term ‘Hellenistic period’ is not false only because it describes a secondary and rather marginal phenomenon that concerns only the few nations which imitated the Ancient Greek (Pelasgian) lifestyle after the end of the 4th c. BCE, but also due to the fact that, by focalizing on this event, one distorts the wider picture and definitely misrepresents the major historical developments that took place immediately after the military expedition Alexander the Great and the replacement of the Achaemenid dynasty by him on the throne of Iran.
Actually, it has to be pointed out that the brave Macedonian mystic and king did not undertake ‘many’ military campaigns and expeditions like Assurbanipal, Cyrus the Great, and Darius I the Great; simply, after defeating the ‘Greeks’, he only invaded the ailing and quasi-decomposed Iranian Empire and he tried to rule it as an Iranian king of kings.
The concept behind Alexander the Great’s attempt to supplant the Achaemenid dynasty with his own reign in Iran testifies to a very conscious and truly magnificent effort to Orientalize the Macedonians and all the adjacent nations, ‘Greeks’ included. The real nature of Alexander’s endeavor was apparently not to diffuse the barbarian ethos and the lowly culture of those, whom he had already crushed and submitted (i.e. the petty political leaders of Thebes, Corinth, Athens, Sparta and the rest of the South Balkan ordeal), but to civilize (i.e. Orientalize) the disorderly and uncivil populations of his empire’s western confines.
Alexander put an end to the nonsensical politics of the choleric demagogues and sought to impose imperial rule on those who had failed to realize that there cannot be civilization without an empire and a clear-cut Caesaropapist model of power. The historical context of his time bears therefore witness to the fact that Alexander the Great attempted to do the exact opposite of what the racist academics of England, France and America have fallaciously and persistently tried to credit him with.
Roman mural from Pompeii depicts Alexander & Barsine (Stateira), the eldest daughter of Darius, as Ares & Aphrodite in an allusion to the Susa weddings, which took place in the old Elamite and later Achaemenid capital (324 BCE) in order to formally endorse the Orientalization of Alexander’s soldiers who were married to Iranian princesses after the Achaemenid ritual and fashion. Although the historical sources state details that do not allow us to doubt about the nature of the event, the Roman artist, ca. 400 years later, clearly distorts the historical scene that he wanted to commemorate. More than 1500 years, numerous corrupt Western European painters took the distortion to a higher level.
Alexander’s exemplary substitution of Parsa (Persepolis) with Babylon as capital of Iran demonstrates that
i. he viewed himself as an Iranian (or Oriental) king of kings (: emperor),
ii. he considered Macedonia and Greece as apparently peripheral and not central parts of the Iranian Empire (thus spearheading an overwhelming, determinant and irreversible Orientalizing process),
iii. he adopted the Oriental imperial order, discipline and world conceptualization, thus fully rejecting the inhuman paranoia of ‘Greek politics’ and the abomination of the disreputable Athenian state,
iv. he adhered to Oriental spirituality, faith and mysticism, therefore rejecting the childish nonsense of the so-called Ancient Greek philosophers (Aristotle included), and
v. he wanted to shift (and actually he did shift) the center of the vast Empire out of Fars (Persia), thus evidently posturing as an Anti-Persian Iranian.
Second, by focalizing on this development (namely the ‘Hellenizing’ attitude of few Oriental peoples), one distorts the wider picture and definitely misrepresents the major historical developments that took place in the period between Alexander the Great’s death (323 BCE) and the Christianization of the Roman Empire (313–380 CE).
Statue of Buddha: 1st-2nd c. CE, typical sample of Gandhara Art (in today’s NW Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan). When the descendants of some soldiers of Alexander the Great accept Buddhism as their own religion, we have a typical example of Orientalization, since people of Macedonian and/or ‘Greek’ origin accept an Oriental religion. But the racist and paranoid Western European and North American academics describe this phenomenon as ‘Greco-Buddhist art’. There is not a shred of Ancient Greek influence on Gandharan Art; it is an entirely Iranian-Indian amalgamation of patterns and styles.
Alexander medallion from Imperial Rome; if the Romans failed to found a genuine Oriental empire, this is partly due to the fact that they were unable to understand the spiritual means and motives of the Macedonian-Iranian king.
Above: Alexander (Iskander) depicted on the miniature of a 15th c. Iranian manuscript from Herat; below: Alexander sharing his throne with Queen Nushabah, from a 16th c. manuscript of Nizami Ganjavi’s Sharaf-Nama. In the pre-Christian, Christian and Islamic traditions, which are preserved thanks to the so-called Alexander Romance and many Iranian and Turanian epics, a far more original, legendary and mythical, figure of Alexander the Great stands at the epicenter of the narrative.
From the Armenian version of the Alexander Romance: details depicted in the miniature: exiled in Macedonia, the Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebo by magic predicts the fall of Egypt to the Iranians. The Alexander Romance is a typically Oriental kind of mythical-eschatological literature that simply could not be produced by any Greek-speaking author in the Late Antiquity. The earliest editions date back to the 4th c., but it is certain that the original narratives must go back to the 3rd c. BCE. Although modern scholars believe that the original edition must have been a now lost Greek text of which we have the Latin, Syriac, Armenian and Georgian translations during the period 4th-6th c. CE, it is more probable that the original edition was in Aramaic or Pahlavi. In any case, newer editions were quite often extensions, revisions and modifications. The highly divergent text is now available in dozens of editions and copies, notably in Syriac, Armenian, Latin, Medieval Greek, Middle Persian, Hebrew, Georgian, Coptic, Ge’ez, Farsi, Arabic, Slavonic and several European languages. This narrative reflects the historical truth more accurately, but it is not easy to correctly interpret the ciphered meaning of the text.But this matter, in its entirety, only highlights the cultural Orientalization of the Macedonians and the Greeks; it also gives a blow to the racist academic dogma about the so-called ‘Hellenistic period’. There is nothing ‘Greek’ (or ‘Hellenic’ or ‘Classical’) in the Alexander Romance: it is purely Oriental.About: https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8245;jsessionid=882E2ED330872834BEE79E9F6B01A398?rskey=AfLpXv&result=3
The rise of the Christian dogma as official (and later as the only official) religion of the Roman Empire constitutes only one late dimension of the phenomenal diffusion of Oriental cults, mysticisms, concepts of imperial rule and universalism, spiritual sciences, religions, faiths, imperial systems and practices of administration, cultures, and behavioral systems across Balkans (‘Greece’ included), Rome and Europe. This extraordinary development, which irrevocably shaped World History, took place during this period, thus making of the entire European continent a mere annex of the Oriental civilizations.
Cleopatra VII and Caesarion depicted on the walls of the Temple of Hathor at Denderah as entirely Egyptian pharaohs
As a matter of fact, the Hellenizing attitude of few Oriental peoples was entirely overshadowed by the Orientalizing attitude of all the Western peoples (: ‘Greeks’, Romans, and all the other tribes and ethnic groups on European soil), because they all imitated -extensively, comprehensively and irrevocably- the Ancient Oriental lifestyle (: the true, historical Orientalism) and adopted Oriental concepts, principles, cults, faiths, trends and attitudes during that period (323 BCE – 380 CE).
Minor facts, such as the diffusion of Ionian language among Lydians and the spread of ‘Ancient Greek art’ among the Carians, were deliberately focused on and strongly underscored by the racist Western academics in order to cause confusion among the average public, distort the educational system of the Western countries, and conceal the historical reality. As an academic endeavor, it was futile and puerile at the same time; actually, the so-called Ancient Greek art was not authentic, as it consisted in an interminable series of adaptations of Hittite, Assyrian and Egyptian patterns, styles, models, and concepts. Indicatively:
https://blogs brown edu/arch-0760-s01-2019-spring/2019/04/14/the-bit-hilani/
Above: Bit hilani (house of pillars) Mesopotamian typology of sacred architecture (entrance to Kapara palace in Tell Halaf) in the Aleppo National Museum; below: Athens Erechtheion
We can therefore conclusively state that the principal trait of Late Antiquity (i.e. the period stretched from the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus the Great to the death of Prophet Muhammad (539 BCE-632 CE) is the fact that all the Ancient ‘Greeks’, the Romans and the Europeans adopted a great number of Oriental religions, theological doctrines, spiritual exercises, world views, esoteric mysteries, cosmogonies, cosmologies, eschatologies, cults, behavioral systems, and lifestyles.
Ancient Greeks adored Mithras, Horus, Isis, Cybele, Atargatis (‘the Syrian goddess’) and other Oriental deities, but in striking contrast, Ancient Iranians disregarded the sacrilegious Pelasgian (‘Ancient Greek’) narratives about Dionysus/Bacchus, Athena, and Pan. Ancient Greeks stopped having any interest for the lawless, immoral and absurd theories of the paranoid ‘philosopher’ Epicurus and for the shallow, pointless and confusing treatises of the spiritually underdeveloped but opinionated author Aristotle, and they started being concerned with the Chaldean Oracles, seeking magical recipes by Ostanes, and flocking to the mysteries of Ptah.
Nemrut Dagh, the peak sanctuary and mausoleum of Mithridates I of Commagene (near Adiyaman, in SE Turkey); Commagene was an Orientalistic, not ‘Hellenistic’, kingdom.
Relief from the Mithraeum of Neuenheimer (near Heidelberg): representation of the tauroctony, which was the main Mithraic myth, and of several other mythical narratives in the panels around the main theme
Bronze plate with representation of Mithraic tauroctony from Brigetio, Hungary (CIMRM 1727)
Mithraic tauroctony represented on a white marble found south of Monastero, Aquileia in 1888, now in Vienna
White marble relief with representation of the Mithraic theme of tauroctony from Walbrook, London; 180-220 CE
Zurvan represented as a lion-headed being from Ostia
Sol (Sun), Mithras, Luna (Moon), assisted by Cautes and Cautopates represented in the lower part of a two-sided relief from Fiano Romano (2nd-3rd c. CE)
Ancient Romans adored Osiris, Thot (as Hermes Trismegistus), Zervan (as Saturn), and other Oriental concepts of divinity, but in striking contrast, Ancient Egyptians did not bother at all about the insignificant myths of Juno, Venus, Mercury and Vesta. Ancient Romans stopped expressing interest for the childish sermons of their orators and for the republican nonsense of their recent past; quite contrarily and with utmost nostalgia, they were inclined to evoke their remote Antiquity in Anatolia (Aeneid).
All the other European nations of the Roman Empire acted similarly, and to this fact testify the many hundreds of Mithraea (temples of Mithra), Iseia (temples of Isis), and temples of other Oriental divinities that have been unearthed across Europe, within the Roman Empire and beyond its borders, from the Iberian Peninsula to Hungary and from England to Ukraine.
Representation of Isis on a wall painting from Pompeii
Nile god from the Isis and Serapis Temple on the Campus Martius, Rome
Pompeii: wall painting with sacred utensils necessary in the Isiac cults
Sistrum unearthed in Pompeii, currently in the Museum of Napoli (Naples); it was indispensable for the Isiac cults.
Roman buildings depicted on the Haterii tomb in Rome; the arch ‘to Isis’ is the first from the left.
Pompeii fresco with a priest dressed as Anubis and two priestesses of Isis
Roman cup for Isis cult from Pompeii
Serapeum on the Forma Urbis Romae
The Iseum (temple of Isis) at Pompeii
The extreme disgust for the disgraceful political system of Ancient Athens and the total disrespect for the worthless talks of the Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers fully characterize this period of Oriental impact on Ancient Greeks, Romans and Europeans. Such was the impact that these underdeveloped nations disappeared, because the followers of Mithra in Rome, Macedonia, Athens and Ephesus had more in common among themselves than one of them with one of his ‘compatriots’ who happened to be an adept of Isis or a devotee of Atargatis, the ‘Syrian goddess’.
Reverse of a coin of the Seleucid king Demetrius III (96-87 BCE) with fish-bodied Atargatis
This situation became then decisively important: affiliation with a mystical order eclipsed ethnic membership and clannish affiliation, at a time no patriotism could subsist anymore but no imperial doctrine and theory had yet been incepted. It is true that the formation of the Roman Empire was very different from the inception of the Oriental empires.
People realized then that politics, theater and philosophy were good for nothing, as they disoriented every human being and member of a society, and distracted all humans from the basics of human life, as these had been spelled out by all major Oriental civilizations. In terms of Eschatology and Soteriology, Ancient Greek philosophy and politics were worthless notions and apathetic practices. As such, they were duly and irreversibly rejected once for all.
The terms ‘Neo-Platonism’ and ‘Neo-Pythagoreanism’ are entirely fake; in fact, they function as a smokescreen for the Oriental spiritual schools, faiths, mysticisms, theologies and religious doctrines that the various so-called ‘Neo-Platonic’ and ‘Neo-Pythagorean’ philosophers stood for and attempted to widely popularize among their various students. The correct terms in replacement of these appellations are ‘Egyptian Heliopolitan’ and ‘Egyptian Memphitic’ respectively; this is so because both thinkers (Plato and Pythagoras) were formed after several years of studies in Egypt and they produced their theoretical systems as subsequent reflections of these two Ancient Egyptian systems of spirituality, world conceptualization, faith and theology.
However, one must never confuse between the low level of a Neo-Platonic pupil in Athens, who was limited in theorizing, and the spiritual potency of an initiate in the mysteries of Isis at the Philae Island temple.
Quite notably, if the racist academics of Western Europe and North America wanted to conceal this paramount reality, this was basically due to the crucial fact that the spiritually inexperienced Neo-Platonic pupil was indeed an Athenian (i.e. a White Guy) whereas the Isis initiate was a Blemmyan or a Nubian Black African. That’s why Hellenism is abhorrent racism.
How could one therefore describe correctly this period, efficiently replacing the fallacious term ‘Hellenistic period’?
The response is very simple: it was an ‘Orientalistic period’.
Ancient ‘Greek’ graffiti on the First Pylon of the Temple of Isis at the Island of Philae
The temple of Isis at the Island of Philae; it was the last throughout the Roman Empire to still offer cults to pre-Christian religions.
Justinian I issued a special edict to close down the Temple of Isis; part of the temple was immediately transformed into a Coptic church.
Россия, Украина и мир-VIII: Российская потребность в девестернизации означает отказ от «классики» и от западной модели колониальной историографии
Contents
Introduction
I. Trojan War: an early Episode of the ‘Invasions of the Sea Peoples’
II. Hittite-Achaean Ethos and Values as praised by Homer vs. the Pelasgian-Trojan barbarism of ‘Classical Greece’
III. The forgers of ‘Ancient Greece’ & their Eastern Roman Orthodox rivals
IV. New Rome-Constantinople and the fake, Anti-Roman Rome
V. Crusaders and Ottomans against the only Rome: Constantinople
VI. Who the true Russians can be
VII. The forgers of ‘Ancient Greece’, the Western World, and today’s Russia
VIII. De-Westernization: Russian universities’ need to launch a parallel ‘special operation’
IX. How Russian academics and intellectuals can participate in the special military operation
X. What if UK, US and EU implode and disintegrate, but Russia, China, India, and Iran do not carry out a vast project of worldwide De-Westernization?
World History started in Mesopotamia and Egypt, not in Greece and Rome. Only with Egyptian and Assyrian-Babylonian measures and standards, we can evaluate the cultures of the Mediterranean Basin and not vice-versa.
Содержание
Введение
I. Троянская война: ранний эпизод «Нашествия народов моря»
II. Хетто-ахейский этос и ценности, воспетые Гомером, против пеласго-троянского варварства «классической Греции»
III. Фальсификаторы «Древней Греции» и их восточно-римские православные соперники
IV. Новый Рим-Константинополь и фальшивый, антиримский Рим
V. Крестоносцы и османы против единственного Рима: Константинополя
VI. Кем могут быть настоящие русские
VII. Фальсификаторы «Древней Греции», Западный мир и сегодняшняя Россия
VIII. Девестернизация: российским вузам нужно запустить параллельную «спецоперацию»
IX. Как российские ученые и интеллектуалы могут участвовать в спецоперации
X. Что, если Великобритания, США и ЕС взорвутся и распадутся, а Россия, Китай, Индия и Иран не реализуют масштабный проект всемирной девестернизации?
I have had recently many discussions about the ongoing series of articles that I published about ‘Russia, Ukraine and the World’; all previous parts (titles, subtitles, titles of units, and links) and available at the end of the present article in English and in Russian translation.
The present article summarizes parts of discussions that I have had with various readers originating from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. It also briefly highlights the dangers that the entire world will face, if the Western countries collapse and get disintegrated, but Russia, India, China, and Iran do not undertake a vast, deep and comprehensive effort of academic de-Westernization and do not replace the existing, false and racist, model of colonial historiography with a truthful and comprehensive narrative of World History, setting as world criteria and values those of the sole cradle of civilization: Ancient Orient.
Introduction
My review article has the title: Sea Peoples’ Invasions, Egypt, the Hittite Empire, its Achaean allies, Lukka/Peleset, the Trojan War, Homer’s Intentional Falsehood, and the Modern European Forgery ‘Ancient Greece’
I firmly believe that it is certainly an achievement that two Russian authors penned a book to duly and thoroughly question one of the most important foundations of ‘Hellenism’; however, this fact -in and by itself- reveals the numerous, troublesome inconsistencies of the present Russian educational system, academic and scientific environment, intellectual life, and cultural milieu.
I. Trojan War: an early Episode of the ‘Invasions of the Sea Peoples’
As you will see, in my lengthy review article, I greatly supported the approach undertaken, the method applied, and the conclusions drawn by the authors, only pinpointing omissions, few missing parts of correct contextualization, and several issues of conceptualization. As a matter of fact, their main missing element revolves around what is nowadays general called ‘the invasions of the Sea Peoples’.
It is crucially important to understand that what the Ancient Egyptian priest from Onuphis truly told Dio Chrysostom is in reality nothing more than the details of the underlying story of which majestic Pharaonic descriptions detailing Ramses III’s victories over the Sea Peoples have been found (as both, inscriptions and bas-reliefs) on the walls of the Medinet Habu mortuary temple of Ramses III (Luxor-West, Upper Egypt) and on several papyri.
These texts were studied, published, commented and interpreted by generations of Egyptologists; but deliberately and due to the prevailing malignancy of the racist, colonial Anglo-Saxon and French academics, these historical Egyptian texts have not been used to interpret the Homeric Epics and to correct the false narratives that were propagated by those Ionians. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts pertaining to the marginal zone of Western Anatolia, South Balkans, and the islands in-between are the missing part of the otherwise pertinently collected and presented documentation that the authors made available in their book.
The Annals of Ramses III are a determinant part of the World Heritage and an indispensable part of the education of all people in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The lies contained in Homer’s Epics do not concern anyone; even more so, since they failed to generate an Achaean revival in Western Anatolia and South Balkans.
As you noticed, in my 13500 words review article, I did not speak at all about the consequences that this book should have had on the Russian educational system, academic and scientific environment, intellectual life, and cultural milieu. So, now, I will briefly expand on this topic herewith responding to you, because you have to know that there are several uncompleted ‘tasks’ in this regard; and they have to be completed by the entire class of Russian academics, Orientalists and Classicists, who cannot anymore repeat the same inaccuracies, the same lies, and the same forgeries that 17th-18th c. Western European academics put in the mind of their Russian counterparts in order to fool and deceive them, tying therefore the entire Russian educational-academic system to their racist fallacy, which is the foundation their colonial expansion and prevalence.
Today’s Russian academics cannot repeat the lies that made the Western European and North American colonial states worldwide predominant.
But let me start from the original point; yes, you are right! You understood correctly! The Achaeans (not ‘Greeks’) won a secondary battle and lost the war.
II. Hittite-Achaean Ethos and Values as praised by Homer vs. the Pelasgian-Trojan barbarism of ‘Classical Greece’
Despite his deliberate omissions and lies, Homer totally failed to revive the Achaean values among the Ionians of his days. This is a crucial issue that must be focused on. As per the Western European racist scheme of classicist misinterpretation, Homer is today uselessly valued for his art only; but he is not admired for the past values that he praised at his time, because all the post-Renaissance intellectual rascals of France, Italy, England, Holland and America hate those Achaean values.
The Achaeans had indeed a preponderantly Hittite ethos; the Hittites were their brethren, their powerful allies, and the source of their cultural example and moral values; this is highly reflected in Hesiod’s Theogony. But, like Homer, Hesiod did not impact the lives of people in ‘Classical Greece’. The Achaean-Pelasgian (Peleset-Philistine) divide represented and reproduced, within the context of 1st millennium BCE South Balkans, the spiritual, imperial and cultural contrast and clash that we attest in 2nd millennium BCE Anatolia between the civilized Hittites and the disorderly Lukka, i.e. the alliance of peoples to which Taruisha/Troy belonged.
Yazilikaya, the major Hittite shrine
Achaean funerary stele with relief chariot scene 16th c. BCE
It is greatly obvious but scrupulously concealed that Homer did not have an impact on what has been deceitfully called ‘Ancient Greece’ or ‘Classical civilization’. Thebes, Corinth, Sparta or Athens didn’t resemble anything exalted in Homer’s epics. If we evaluate texts and facts at face value, their admiration for Homer was either enduring and useless or occasional and pointless.
The absurdity, barbarism and evilness of the Dionysus cult has nothing to do with the Achaean values that Homer wanted to reinstate. The so-called ‘Ancient Greek civilization’ is in reality Pelasgian-Peleset-Philistine perversion.
The Pelasgians-Trojans put indeed a tombstone on the Achaeans, the Achaean unity, and their cultural heritage; and later, an evil force in Rome projected onto them the disreputable name of Greek (Hellene), a name that was almost never used by Homer. This false name served as mask for the Pelasgian ethos that prevailed in the South Balkans against Homer’s admonitions.
That’s why the Anti-Christian and Anti-Constantinopolitan (Benedictine-Jesuit) side of Rome needed the Trojan myth; they (: their predecessors in pre-Christian times) had used it to fool the Ionians and the Aeolians.
III. The forgers of ‘Ancient Greece’ & their Eastern Roman Orthodox rivals
There was never a country, a confederation or a cultural space named Ancient Greece; the term was of uniquely geographical connotation, as it denoted the lands south of Macedonia and Illyria.
Only if you study well the true side of Ancient Rome, which was preserved exclusively in New Rome (Constantinople), you will realize that Ancient Greece never existed: all the paramount pseudo-narratives about ‘Ancient Greece’ were nothing to men like John Chrysostom, Justinian I, Heraclius, John of Damascus, Justinian II, Leo III, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Anna Comnena or Michael Psellos.
The Macedonian Attalids, Seleucids and Ptolemies, and later the Eastern Romans did not give a damn of such despicable stories as ‘Thermopylae’, ‘Marathon’, ‘Salamis’ and their likes, because they knew that their sole value was tantamount to the ashes that the Carian renegade Herodotus’ manuscripts would produce if thrown, as they should have, to the fireplace.
The Trojan War is a lie; the Persian Wars are a lie; and the Peloponnesian War (a perfect Pelasgian-Philistine nightmare after the disorderly Lukka-Trojan example) is the perfect model for a disoriented, deceived and targeted Mankind to be endlessly plunged into discord, rancor, and hostilities. Thucydides brings forth odium and utmost negativity, endless wars, and cynical Nazi genocides; it is inevitable. Admit it, after all! The Germans during WW II only imitated the Ancient Athenian barbarian murderers of the Milos Island Dorians.
Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Plato and Aristotle were not important for the illustrious Roman Emperor Justinian I, who set the foundations of Christian Law that all Christians must follow; consequently all this clutter cannot be possibly considered as part of World Heritage. On the contrary, Justinian I and his outstandingly brilliant reign are part of the past of more than a billion people in Asia, Africa and Europe.
There was never any value and any civilization in the Balkans south of Thrace, Macedonia and Illyria. The pedophile rascals and the homosexual scoundrels of Athens constitute the best Lukka-Pelasgian-Philistine example to avoid; and the blasphemous orgies of the local brothels (which only euphemistically can be called ‘temples’), as apparent self-destruction of the perpetrators, represent the material needed for Jesuits and Freemasons to become the cornerstone of today’s Western World. Nothing more! Ancient Athens is the bottom of the Hell on the surface of the Earth.
If you examine the dates of the manuscripts of several Ancient Greek texts, you will have the chance to understand when and by whom these texts have been tempered with!
IV. New Rome-Constantinople and the fake, Anti-Roman Rome
That’s why Justinian I, the great and righteous Christian Emperor who introduced the only permissible Christian legislation and judiciary system, imposed the imperial Constantinopolitan selection, appointment and approval of the popes of Rome in an effort to first contain and then uproot the malignant part of the Roman establishment which existed there already before Christianization. For this reason today’s Western gangsters hate that period and contemptuously call it ‘Byzantine Papacy’; those popes were indeed the only true Christian Popes of Rome (537-752).
That’s why the schism between Constantinople-New Rome and the Anti-Christian Rome became inevitable, after the Quinisext Council (Трулльский собор или Пято-шестой собор; 691-692). Following the Anti-Constantinopolitan rebellion of the Benedictines, who murdered the Pope Stephen I, successor to Pope Zachary (tenure: 741-752) and trusted member of the Constantinopolitan basileus, an illegal election took place in order to appoint the Anti-Constantinopolitan Stephen II (752-757), as a first act of disobedience against Roman-Constantinopolitan Christianity.
The Quinisext Council was held under the auspices of Emperor Justinian II, who is commemorated as Saint of the Christian Orthodox Church on 2nd of August; the young Justinian II is depicted first from left, on the mosaic of his father, Emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus, in the basilica of Sant’Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna.
That’s why the Anti-Christian (and Anti-Roman) ‘Rome’ started then re-introducing the term ‘Greeks’ (‘Hellenes’) with reference to the only Romans, namely the Eastern Romans, slightly before the then forthcoming schism (863-7; Фотиева схизма).
That’s why, many centuries later, Hieronymus Wolf, a German Protestant but in fact real puppet of the Anti-Christian Catholic Jesuits, invented the ridiculous term ‘Byzantine’.
All this and much more was not only known to the Constantinopolitan basileus but also shared with/among the Kievan Rus monarchs.
V. Crusaders and Ottomans against the only Rome: Constantinople
The Crusades were not undertaken against the Islamic Caliphate, because in reality it already did not exist at the time; after the middle of the 9th c., the Abbasid caliph’s rule was only nominal. The theory of the anti-Islamic scope of the Crusades was invented and propagated only for the need of a smokescreen. Quite contrarily, the Crusades took place in order to prevent an Eastern Roman Reconquista of the Orient, which was then only a matter of time, if we take into consideration the successes of John I Tzimiskes, who in 975 annexed Homs, Damascus, Nazareth, Byblos, Beirut and Caesarea Maritima.
And the Ottomans, who were culturally Iranian, ethnically half Turanian and half Eastern Roman, but spiritually ‘Roman’ (i.e. Anti-Christian), due to their mystical attachment to, and cooperation with, the Hospitaller Order (in Smyrna/Izmir), caused a tremendous and calamitous prejudice to Islam by introducing (as per the directives given to them by their Catholic allies) the absolutely non-Islamic (concept and) institution of the ‘sheikhulislam’ – in order only to contribute to the Anti-Constantinopolitan policies and ‘global’ aspirations of the heretic Catholic ‘Rome’.
It was for this reason that, rightfully destroying the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Ankara (1402), Timur (Tamerlane) proceeded to Smyrna and terminated the ominous local rule of the Hospitaller Order.
Timur (Tamerlane) depicted as granting audience; from the miniature of manuscript (1467 edition) of Sharaf al Din Ali Yazdi’s Zafarnama (1424–1428), which is the major historical source for the outstanding life and the brilliant deeds of the greatest Muslim Emperor of all times.
VI. Who the true Russians can be
Any Russian can say whatever he wants and do whatever pleases him, but no one can possibly be a Russian, unless he strictly follows the path taken and observes the practices implemented in 1472 by the Metropolitan Philip I of Muscovy and by Ivan III, who did not allow the papal legate Anthony to enter Moscow for the occasion of the wedding ceremony of Zoe-Sofia Palaiologina.
Sofia Palaiologina enters Moscow; according to a miniature of the Front Chronicle (Лицевой летописный свод; 1568-1576)
Back at those days, not one man in Ivan III’s Muscovy had an idea about the Trojan War, the Persian Wars, the racism of Aeschylus, the profanity of Aristophanes, the unprecedented scientific and intellectual theft perpetrated by the so-called ‘Greek philosophers’, and the governmental absurdity of disreputable idiots and crooks like Pericles, Alcibiades and all the rest. Actually, back in the 15th and 16th c., Muscovites and Russians were exactly like their Constantinopolitan Eastern Roman ancestors 1000 years earlier: free of the villainous fabrication of ‘Ancient Greece’ that the Benedictines had prepared for long, before launching the Renaissance and the associated conquistadores.
And this makes the aforementioned book so important for Russians; it demolishes a serious part of the Jesuit-Anti-Christian delusion ‘Ancient Greece’.
VII.The forgers of ‘Ancient Greece’, the Western World, and today’s Russia
In striking contrast to the educational practices of 16th c. Muscovy, today’s Russian educational system, academic and scientific environment, intellectual life, and cultural milieu do not reflect any more the values cherished by the those Russians, who were free of the Ancient Greek fallacy, void of the delusion of Hellenism, and unaffected by the moral degradation and the socio-political contamination that this Anti-Christian, Anti-Roman, Benedictine-Jesuit forgery entails.
The book under review in my earlier article, although not written (as the authors state explicitly) in a strictly academic manner, is able to (and actually has to) give an unprecedented hit to the bureaucratic Russian instructors, pedagogues, teachers, professors, researchers, explorers, scientists, intellectuals, thinkers and mystics, who have long been indulging themselves -in spite of their undeniable qualifications and accumulated knowledge- in catastrophic lethargy and destructive apathy opposite this very delusion, which stands at the very origin of all the serious threats that Russia has historically faced, and of all the real dangers that Russia has still to oppose and outmaneuver today.
It is actually bizarre, to say the least, that, in spite of 500 days of hostilities in Ukraine, the Russian academic-educational establishment did not participate in a manner fully reflecting the approach and the successive statements made in public by Pres. Putin, former Pres. Medvedev, and many other leading Russian statesmen. Yet, these dignitaries stated truthfully and clearly that a real war has been engaged in Ukraine between Russia and the West, pointing it out that this confrontation is not merely military, economic, and political, but it underscores serious discord, divide and polarization over key moral, intellectual and cultural values.
Today’s Russians have to come to terms with this fact: there is no discontinuity in the Western World ever since it was incepted with the Renaissance and the colonial conquests. In its true quintessence, colonialism is not a matter of military occupation, economic exploitation and political dictatorship, but it mainly consists in tyrannical imposition of the pre-fabricated (during Renaissance) and methodically exported (during the colonial conquests) Western model of fake culture and civilization; they wanted to (and they did) monstrously impose worldwide incessant, innumerable and interminable lies like the Trojan War, in order to totally and irreversibly control the mankind, by plunging all -first their own deceived and misled nations and later all the colonized nations- into a compact fake reality.
The inhumanity of the impermissible ‘unipolar world order’ has nothing to do with the rather unimportant fact of eight (8) billion people being run by one country; it has mainly to do with the entire mankind being entrapped in the evil delusion and the overwhelming forgery that the vicious intellectuals and the criminal academics of few dictatorial, uncivilized, corrupt and barbarian realms absurdly machinated and cruelly imposed.
Homer’s texts were highly cherished and extensively utilized in the post-Renaissance anti-Christian, barbarian Western Europe, in striking contrast to what occurred in the Eastern Roman Empire where these obsolete and forgotten epics never became part of the Christian education and the militaristic culture of the average people. But the lofty values of the Eastern Roman Epic of Digenes Akritas and the cycle of the Acritic songs, which prevailed between Euphrates and Danube for many centuries, were highly embarrassing for the Satanic Papo-Caesarism of the Anti-Christian Rome and for the degenerate post-WW II Western Europe and North America.
Akritai soldiers improve the combativeness and enhance the impulsiveness of the manly and gallant socio-imperial model (Caesaropapism), whereas the delusions propagated by the standard-bearers of the corrupt and perverse Papo-Caesarist concept end up in rotten societies, incest, pedophilia and other mental diseases.
One has to add that it is not only Homer’s epics that served as foundation for this Western European deception and delusion; the execrable and appalling Western European academic fraud comprised also several other ancient authors whose fallacious compositions helped the Benedictine monks fabricate the fake concepts of ‘Hellenism’, ‘Greco-Roman civilization’, ‘Judeo-Christian ethics’, ‘Mediterranean World’, ‘European Union’, ‘West vs. East’, ‘Humanism’, ‘Human Rights’, ‘Politics’, ‘Republic’, ‘Democracy’, etc. However, none of these concepts existed in the Eastern Roman Empire; none of them could possibly be accepted in Kievan Rus or Ivan Grozny’s Muscovy.
VIII.De-Westernization: Russian universities’ need to launch a parallel ‘special operation’
The slow infiltration of these topics in the Russian society occurred mostly during the period of the ‘Westernization’ (i.e. intellectual-educational-cultural-political colonization) of the Romanov Empire (18th c.); as you know very well, this historical fact generated a genuine Russian indigenous reaction, which -very unfortunately- failed to block the Western perfidy and anti-Russian bias out of the country. Then, during the 19th and the early 20th c., the Russian imperial academic life had already become a mere replica of the French and English academic-educational institutions, which was tantamount to total De-Russification.
Under these circumstances, Nicholas II’s reign did not end in 1917 but, to speak truly, in 1895, when it just started. Who could be a real Russian emperor (like the first Romanov had been), if he reigned over French professors and English academics?
Laurits Regner Tuxen: the marriage of Nicholas II, Czar of Russia, with Alexandra Feodorovna Princess Alix of Hesse (26th November 1894) in the Imperial Chapel of the Winter Palace. Saint Nicholas II should have known that, with professors of ‘Classics’ and with intellectuals indoctrinated into Western European academic falsehood, his days were indeed numbered. In fact, the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shamanist and other populations of the Russian Empire were forced to pay the salaries of idiotic polymaths who were thoughtlessly diffusing anti-Russian, anti-religious, and anti-human concepts of the West and corrupting the entire population.
The book that I extensively reviewed in my aforementioned articles duly epitomizes Russia’s need for De-Westernization and re-Russification. This is exactly what Russia needs now. Russians cannot win without being Russian and without knowing that Russia’s territory hinges on the epicenter of World History, namely the arc that starts in Egypt and Syria-Mesopotamia, crosses Iran, Central Asia, and Siberia, and ends in Mongolia and China.
Contrarily to this fact, the viciously forged Western model of historiography, which starts with the fallacy of the Trojan War, makes of Russia a marginal wasteland needed only for barbarians to cross every now and then. Still, this deeply anti-Russian and utterly de-Russifying model of historiography is being respected, taught and propagated in Russian universities today; even Eurasian theorists in Russia fail to conceptualize the land of the Russian Federation as the epicenter of World History.
Russia can never win when having an academic, educational, intellectual Trojan horse within the country’s borders; no one can. Worse, even if Russia finally wins in Ukraine, other countries will certainly benefit more, as long as Russia remains a Westernized/colonized realm whereby the utterly racist and discriminatory Western model of colonial historiography (with its Greco-centric, Anti-Trojan, Anti-Persian, and Anti-Oriental traits) is still accepted.
To avert this eventuality, following the heroic example of the brave Russian soldiers, officers, and state army leaders, the Russian academics and professors, intellectuals and educators, thinkers and scholars must wholeheartedly enter into another special operation, a parallel enterprise if you want, and carry out the urgently needed De-Westernization (decolonization) of the Russian educational system, academic and scientific environment, intellectual life, and cultural milieu.
Even more importantly, Russian professors and academics, following the path of their own government, must give new dimensions to the Russian-Chinese-Indian-Iranian alliance: academic, educational, intellectual and cultural.
It is only then that a Russian victory at the battlefield will have a historically deep meaning and a permanent, irrevocable impact.
IX. How Russian academics and intellectuals can participate in the special military operation
Launching their own, academic, educational, intellectual and cultural, ‘special operation’, Russian scholars have to undertake an enormous effort in order to bring about the total demolition of the academic-educational foundations of every discriminatory and racist concept, theory and political ideology worldwide.
This effort must be coordinated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, because it must not only shape the new foundations of Russian education and academic life, but it has also to be systematically exported to Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Central-Eastern Europe. It has to help world scholars form a new historiographical model void of the racist concepts of ‘Hellenism’, ‘Greco-Roman civilization’, ‘Judeo-Christian ethics’, ‘Mediterranean World’, ‘European Union’, ‘West vs. East’, ‘Civilized West’, ‘Humanism’, ‘Human Rights’, ‘Politics’, ‘Republic’, ‘Democracy’ that were malignantly invented in colonial universities as tools for the worldwide dominance of England, France, Holland and later America.
The systematic effort must devalue, discredit and disparage the Western factories of falsehood named Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbonne, Harvard, Columbia, etc. and duly highlight their criminal role in the formation of today’s world, in the exploitation of smaller nations by the criminals of the Western colonial centers, in the bloodshed caused due to Western interventions, and in the prevailing ignorance among nations.
Russian scholars have therefore to contribute to
– the denunciation of the Western colonial academic falsehood,
– the rejection of all Western educational-academic attempts to diffuse racist versions or models (and then schools) of modern historiography,
– the refutation of Western Euro-centric academic-intellectual life,
– the rebuttal of the projection of the contemporary Western world’s fake values onto the past of other nations and ancient civilizations,
– the diffusion of continental (Asiatic, African, indigenous American, Central-Eastern European), regional and local systems of values,
– the promotion of the Afro-Eurasiatic cultural, moral, educational and academic interconnectedness,
– the consolidation of the Silk Road model of historiography, and
– the stimulation of Afro-Eurasiatic cultural consciousness, reciprocal awareness, and multilateral education.
Despite the fact that the Western world appears weakened, unstable and ailing in its entirety for the first time in 500 years, I am absolutely convinced that, even if various forms of socio-economic implosion come to happen in some of the leading Western countries, still a major danger will be lurking for all the countries that today seem to be forming an alliance around the BRICS and the SCO.
X. What if UK, US and EU implode and disintegrate, but Russia, China, India, and Iran do not carry out a vast project of worldwide De-Westernization?
This is due to the fact of the highly underestimated (if ever assessed) process of Westernization that the entire world underwent one way or another for many centuries; only the tip of the Westernization iceberg is easily discerned by many people worldwide. Unfortunately, the part that is clearly seen is the least important, as it concerns the military, economic and socio-political dimensions of the Westernization phenomenon.
All the same, a far deeper and most malignant form of Westernization occurred at the educational, academic, scientific, intellectual, mental, socio-behavioral, religious, spiritual and cultural levels, totally transforming almost all the other nations into Westernized, rather museological, forms of their own historical heritage.
Even worse, fake nations were fabricated in several locations, and at times, a colonially forged identity was effectively projected onto them; this was indeed the quintessence of colonialism. This fact means that it was not only Mughal India that was colonized by the Western colonial powers, but also Qajar Iran, which was subtly and gradually turned from a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious Iranian imperial ‘order’ into a nationalist Persian monarchy (‘Pahlavi’) known for the chaos among its many ‘minorities’.
The desire for a new multipolar world order may be overwhelming among many establishments worldwide; but as long as these governments, elites, societies, and nations do not envision, identify and undertake wide and deep De-Westernization practices, they will inevitably ‘function’ -not as paragons of cultural-national identity but- as Westernized replicas of their dead past.
In other words, they will experience exactly what happened to the genuinely Russian song Полюшко поле (Polyushko-polye) in the hands of Paul Mauriat, James Last or André Rieu. This concerns Iran, India, Turkey, Pakistan, China, Russia and many other countries; De-Westernization is not a political issue only.
Otherwise, even in case several major Western countries disintegrate within the next few years, today’s anti-Western allies (the BRICS and SCO member states), if they do not undergo a conscious De-Westernization process, will later pop up as nightmarish copies of pre-WW I France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, Ottoman Empire, England, Japan, Iran and Italy – all duly and properly positioned on a differently arranged chessboard and ready to fight against one another again.
To prevent this from happening, a conscious De-Westernization effort must first be explored, then decided upon, and finally implemented within a wider context of systematic concertation among all the concerned nations. Russian scholars are better placed than all the rest to start the effort and wholeheartedly contribute to it.
———————————————————–
Russia, Ukraine and the World
An ongoing series of articles (around 62000 words)
Titles, Dates, Contents & Links
Earlier Publications
From the Pandemic to the Special Operations in Russian Ukraine (3 April 2022)
1- A Critical Confrontation between Jesuits and Freemasons
2- The Pandemic and the Jesuit Eschatological Agenda (and how it has advanced throughout the last millennium)
3- The Multiple Dimensions of the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine
Russia, Ukraine and the World-II: 5000 Years of Russian Asiatic Identity vs. 500 Years of Anglo-French Racism & Colonialism (21 March 2023)
I. The Western Anti-Russian Bias
II. Skillful Western European Falsification of Russian History
A. Erroneous contextualization of Archaeology of Northern Asia
B. Deliberate use of overlapping terms: Northern Asia, Siberia, and Scythia
C. Prehistory and Ancient History of Northern Asia are subject to modern borders and to the meaningless attempts for ‘national archaeology’
D. Failure to discern Northern Asia in its entirety and true dimensions
E. Deliberate, multifaceted distortion of the Asiatic Turanian Migrations
F. Minimization of the cataclysmic presence and prevalence of the Turanian nations throughout Eastern Europe
G. European academia-backed biases: malignant disregard of the spiritual value of Kievan Rus, and absurd focus on ethnic, racial and linguistic considerations
H. Erroneous focus on Kievan Rus and disastrous neglect for Volga Bulgaria
I. Concealment of the historical reality of the Turanian (‘Tatar-Mongol’) period
Россия, Украина и мир-II: 5000 лет русской азиатской идентичности против 500 лет англо-французского расизма и колониализма (21 марта 2023 г.)
I. Западный антироссийский уклон
II. Умелая западноевропейская фальсификация российской истории
А. Ошибочная контекстуализация археологии Северной Азии
B. Умышленное использование совпадающих терминов: Северная Азия, Сибирь и Скифия.
C. Предыстория и древняя история Северной Азии подчинены современным границам и бессмысленным попыткам «национальной археологии»
D. Неспособность различить Северную Азию во всей ее полноте и истинных размерах
E. Умышленное, многогранное искажение азиатско-туранских миграций.
F. Минимизация катастрофического присутствия и распространенности туранских народов по всей Восточной Европе.
G. Предубеждения, поддерживаемые европейскими академическими кругами: пагубное пренебрежение духовной ценностью Киевской Руси и абсурдная сосредоточенность на этнических, расовых и языковых соображениях.
H. Ошибочное внимание к Киевской Руси и пагубное пренебрежение к Волжской Булгарии
I. Сокрытие исторической реальности туранского («татаро-монгольского») периода
Россия, Украина и мир-VI: аспекты императивной девестернизации российского образования (25 апреля 2023 г.)
Обсуждение с проницательным русским читателем
I. Введение
II. Как западноевропейцы вестернизировали русских за 300 лет
III. Ненадежная Википедия
IV. Чтение текстов и чтение между строк текста
V. Опровержение заблуждения эллинизма: отправная точка всех усилий по девестернизации
VI. Почему Шекспира и западноевропейский театр надо убрать из русского, китайского, индийского, африканского, мусульманского и латиноамериканского образования
VII. Шекспир и его черная магия против концепции Мессии и его яростная ненависть к эсхатологии и Откровению
———— Elements of Multipolar and Multicultural Historiography ————-
In this gallery, I offer 24 selected samples of common historical heritage that must become part of the multipolar and multilateral historical educational model worldwide in replacement of the Eurocentric colonial and racist falsehood that people across the Earth have been forced to learn as ‘History of Mankind’.
Mogao Cave 285, China
Mausoleum of Genghis Khan, Ordos–Inner Mongolia, China
Taxila, Punjab-Pakistan: Ancient Buddhist carvings at the Jaulian Monastery
Ajanta Caves, India
Sogdian murals in Afrasiab – Samarqand, Uzbekistan
From Balami’s Tarikhnama: the Sassanid general Wahraz kills the Abyssinian king Masruq of Axum. Early 14th c. copy of an earlier manuscript of the Samanid-period
Gur-i Emir (Timur’s Mausoleum), Samarqand
Bishapur Cave and the colossal statue of Shapur I
Rabban Hormizd Monastery, Alqosh – Mosul, North Iraq
Rabban Hormizd Monastery, Alqosh – Mosul, North Iraq
The birth of Alexander the Great; manuscript miniature from Nizami Ganjavi’s Sekander nameh
Manuscript miniature from Shota Rustaveli’s Vepkhistkaosani (the Knight in the panther’s skin)
From a 14th c. Armenian manuscript: Movses Khorenatsi and the naharar (nobleman) and military commander Sahak Bagratuni
Wall painting from the Aramaean Synagogue of Dura Europos (near Abu Kemal, Syria); representation of the Hebrews crossing the Red Sea
Pre-Islamic times’ Christian (probably Nestorian) king of Himyar, Yemen
The Serapeum of Saqqara, Egypt
Representation of the warrior Queen Amanitore vanquishing enemies on the pylon of a temple at Naqa, near Meroe (: Ancient Ethiopia), Sudan
Wall painting from Dongola Agouza (Old Dunqulah), capital of the Christian Cushitic kingdom of Makuria in North Sudan
Medracen mausoleum of the Numidian kings near Batna, Algeria
Cathedral of St. Basil, Moscow
Mayan relief
Toltec relief depicting an eagle
Imperial art of the Incas
Ahriman attempting to seduce Eva while Adam in arriving: manuscript miniature from Al Biruni’s Chronology
Вторжения народов моря, Египет, империя хеттов, ее ахейские союзники, Лукка/Пелесет, Троянская война, преднамеренная ложь Гомера и современная европейская подделка «Древняя Греция»
Book review of the book ‘Trojan Horse of Western History’ by Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev
Рецензия на книгу Анатолия В. Белякова и Олега А. Матвейшева «Троянский конь западной истории»
Yazilikaya, 1.5 km NE of Hattusa: the modern name of the Hittite religious capital and rock sanctuary; the most important sacred location for the Hittites, the other Anatolian nations, and the Achaean allies of the Hattusa emperors
Содержание
Введение
I. Цивилизованный восточный мир и южно-балканская периферия
II. Хеттский имперский порядок и беспорядочные варвары Западной Анатолии, Южных Балкан, Крита и Анатолийского моря
III. Нашествия народов моря как определяющий исторический факт и Троянская война как бесполезная ложь
IV. Что скрывается за фальшивым термином «ахейский мир»?
V. Без глубокого понимания египетской, хеттской, анатолийской, ханаанской и месопотамской цивилизаций невозможно понять их отсталую периферию
VI. Почему исторические источники Диона Златоуста заслуживают доверия, а отговорки Гомера оказались отвлекающим маневром
VII. Абсолютное очернение позднеантичных греков древнеегипетским первосвященником как цели человеческой истории.
VIII. Египетский жрец, собеседник Диона Златоуста, читал «Анналы» Рамзеса III.
IX. Фальшивый термин «Древняя Греция» мешает нам оценить разрушительную неудачу Гомера.
Х. Заключение
Contents
Introduction
I. The civilized Oriental World & the South Balkan periphery
II. The Hittite imperial order and the disorderly barbarians of Western Anatolia, South Balkans, Crete and the Anatolian Sea
III. The Sea Peoples’ invasions as a determinant historical fact and the Trojan War as a worthless falsehood
IV. What is hidden behind the false term ‘Achaean World’?
V. Without an in-depth comprehension of the Egyptian, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite and Mesopotamian civilizations, no one can possibly understand their backward periphery
VI. Why Dio Chrysostom’s historical sources are trustworthy and Homer’s pretenses are proven red herring
VII. The absolute denigration of the Late Antiquity Greeks by the Ancient Egyptian high priest as the destination of Human History
VIII. Dio Chrysostom’s Egyptian sacerdotal interlocutor had read Ramses III’s Annals
IX. The fake term ‘Ancient Greece’ prevents us from assessing Homer’s devastating failure
X. Conclusion
Introduction
What follows is an extensive discussion of the topics presented and the approaches employed in the aforementioned, passionately and impressively elaborated book (St. Petersburg: Piter, 2015 – 256 p.: pic / ISBN 978-5-496-01658-2) that I came to know through an astute Russian friend, shrewd thinker and avid reader.
Links to the Russian and English Wikipedia do not constitute an approval of the texts of the respective entries, but are offered for those among the non-specialized readers of my book review, who wish to launch their own search, starting with the references and the bibliography available of those entries.
Throughout the present article, I use the term ‘Anatolian Sea’, instead of ‘Aegean Sea’ which is certainly a historically valid appellation and form of reference. However, the latter term is academically inaccurate. This is so because throughout the last five millennia, we have attested that civilizations, forms of spirituality, religious faiths, cultural trends, ethnic migrations, cults, esoteric beliefs, intellectual movements, artistic and aesthetic tendencies spread from Anatolia to the sea in question, and thence to the South Balkans, and not vice versa. When it comes to Anatolian Sea, which is undeniably a semi-closed sea, we observe that, although various influences and diverse ethnic groups arrived there from the South (Libya), the Southeast (Egypt and Canaan/Phoenicia), and the North (Thrace, Macedonia and the central part of the Balkan Peninsula), the local evolution, historical creativity, and their main factors and aspects depended on Anatolia.
All these scattered islands constitute therefore the Anatolian archipelago and they consist in sheer projection and prolongation of the Anatolian civilization. This was particularly ostensible whenever both lands, Anatolia and South Balkans, belonged to the same empire. Within the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottoman Caliphate, Anatolia constituted the epicenter and the South Balkans represented a marginal circumference. All the islands in-between depended on Anatolia and never formed an entity of their own.
——- Response to a friend and comments about the aforementioned book ———
Dear Fedor,
Now, I will write down several remarks and comments about the book of Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev that I have just read thanks to your email; I did not know either the book or the authors, that’s why I found a genuine interest in searching about the authors before reading the book. So, I realized that both are younger than me; Belyakov was born in 1971 (Анатолий Владиславович Беляков) and Matveyshev (Олег Анатольевич Матвейчев) one year earlier; the latter happens also to be a deputy in the Russian Parliament. Both have worked together on several other publication projects, and both have published many books and articles. About:
Their topics cover History and Politics in general, and they seem to have an interest in finding attractive topics to which they intentionally offer rather alternative approaches. They did the same with the ‘Trojan Horse of Western History’. Despite the fact that they are not field specialists, they did their best to offer readers a truly comprehensive presentation about how
a- the modern science of Philology (Classics) discovered Homer and his epics,
b- Archaeology was used by amateurs for the sake of their delusions,
c- the Ancient Ionian epic tradition was transformed into Alexandrian librarians’ tasks in the Antiquity, and
d- a multitude of topographical-geographical details can drastically change our reading and perception of the narratives.
It is clear that they apparently visited the area they spoke about. In addition, they offered readers (in the unit ‘In lieu of an afterword’) a theoretical polarization around Modern European academic considerations and philosophical postulations. Being well knowledgeable in a varied number of topics (which is still not easy to encounter nowadays in Western Europe and North America), they contextualized their work in an admirable manner. Their book is certainly rewarding for the general readership, and also for the people who have the suspicion that things may not have been as they have been narrated in modern times’ schools and universities.
In fact, I don’t have crucial remarks to make for the book itself, but this does not end but it rather starts my response. As you can guess, the research you first undertake predestines and predetermines the book that you will write afterwards. There lies the major problem. As a matter of fact, there are also other critical issues for the authors, and even more serious troubles for the entire Russian academic-intellectual class. You will see why while reading what follows. From now on, I will concentrate my review on several specific points.
I. The civilized Oriental World & the South Balkan periphery
First Point: lack of study of Ancient Egyptian, Ugaritic Canaanite, and Assyrian Babylonian sources
The authors are evidently unaware of the existence of critical historical sources pertaining to the History of the Anatolian Sea (also known as Aegean Sea) around the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. This fact dramatically narrows the effort undertaken to show an alternative interpretation of the Trojan War.
Both authors are well versed in Ancient Greek literature and they occasionally mention Hittite historical texts. It is clear that they did not study Hittite historical sources (in translation since they are not specialists) as extensively as they should have had. The problem is that they did not acquire a sufficient background in Hittite History which would enable them to fully comprehend the nature of the historical developments that took place in the western confines of the Hittite Empire and beyond; I say so, because the Hattusha-based emperors did not always control the western circumference of Anatolia. About:
There is also a serious lack of Ugaritic Canaanite cuneiform documentation, and the authors seem to believe that Canaan did not play an important role in the maritime trade throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, the Anatolian and the Black Seas; this is wrong. Ugaritic texts are the first to document the fall of the Hittite Empire. Even more importantly, similar Ugaritic Canaanite epics antedate by several centuries the Ancient Greek epics. About:
Good knowledge of the Assyrian-Babylonian and Elamite sources of the 13th and the 12th c. would help the authors to better assess all the facts that took place at the epicenter of the then known world, i.e. the triangle between Susa (Elam), Niwt (Thebes of Egypt), and Hattusha; in fact, only when you know what happens in the center of the civilized world, you can approximately grasp the reasons for what occurred in the periphery and the margins. However, the authors did not explore these historical sources.
Хеттское царство и страны Верхней Месопотамии в правление Тудхалии IV и его сыновей (2-я половина XIII — начало XII в. до н. э.): новые гипотезы и источники
In mystical gesture, Hammurapi (standing) receives the royal insignia from Shamash
The zikkurat (Mesopotamian step pyramid) of Dur Kurigalzu in today’s Aqarquf (30 km from Baghdad) in Iraq; the Babylonian name means ‘fortress of Kurigalzu’, namely of the Kassite king Kurigalzu I (died around 1375 BCE) whose name in Kassite means ‘shepherd of the Kassites’. After the Hittite conquest of Babylonia by Mursilis I (1596 BCE), the Hittites descended from Zagros Mountains and established the Kassite dynasty of Babylonia (1596-1155 BCE), which was terminated with the Elamite invasion of Babylonia. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dur-Kurigalzuhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurigalzu_I / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassiteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassite_dynasty
The Kassite king of Babylonia Meli-Shipak II (1186-1172) on a kudurru (boundary stone)
And indisputably, the Iranian plateau, South Balkans, and the Horn of Africa constituted the fringes of the great Oriental Empires of the 2nd millennium BCE where the then world’s most advanced civilizations flourished. Indicatively, Kerma in Sudan (earlier an independent Cushitic kingdom but incorporated in Kemet / Egypt during the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE) was more important than Mycenae and Dur Untash (presently Chogha Zanbil) was more important than Troy.
The Elamite zikkurat at Chogha Zanbil (30 SE of Susa in SW Iran) was known as Dur Untash in the Antiquity (after its Assyrian name); dedicated to the Elamite god Inshushinak and built by the Elamite king Untash Napirisha around 1300 BCE, it was the epicenter of the religious capital of Elam (which was called Haltamti in Elamite).
The name of the Elamite king Untash Napirisha written on an axe.
Statue of Napir-Asu, wife of the Elamite king Untash Napirisha, in Louvre Museum
The worst deficiency in the authors’ research, documentation collection, and study is the lack of consideration of Ancient Egyptian sources pertaining to the fact that they examine. Yet, there is a vast documentation in Egyptian hieroglyphics about the great variety of peoples and nations that lived in Western Anatolia and in the islands of the Anatolian and the Eastern Mediterranean seas.
Рамсес III — последний великий правитель Древнего Египта
Ramses III offers incense; wall-painting from Ramses III’s tomb (KV11)
Isis and Ramses III as depicted on a wall painting of the tomb of Prince Amun-her-khepeshef
The mortuary temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu (Luxor West); many walls and columns were used for the presentation of his Annals, involving texts and bas-reliefs.
The first pylon
Aerial view
Ramses III’s names on the walls of the Khonsu temple at Karnak
What comes as an even worse outcome of the lack of study of Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian Babylonian, and Ugaritic Canaanite cuneiform historical sources by the authors is the fact that the associated documentation relates to another event far more important than the Trojan War that the authors totally ignore, namely the invasions of the Sea Peoples.
The northern side of the external wall of the temple of Medinet Habu is almost entirely covered by inscriptions and bas-reliefs relating to the battles and the victory of Ramses III over the Sea Peoples.
This situation generates an enormous contrast of which the authors are unaware: we have historical (: contemporaneous) sources for a major event, whereas we have only posterior, mythological and literary sources for a minor, and in any case ambiguous and controversial, fact. This situation, in and by itself, concludes the case of the entire literature about the Trojan War; yet the authors of this book know nothing about it.
As a matter of fact, the invasions of the Sea Peoples determined the World History.
Contrarily, the Trojan War is a historically insignificant circumstance that impacted first, the imagination of people many hundreds of years after it happened and second, the delusion of present day European and Greek racists, chauvinists, revisionists and extremists, who want to rewrite World History as per the false narrative of an otherwise obscure figure, namely Homer. That’s why they take his controversial narratives at face value whereas the authors intelligently enough denounce them as utterly false.
So, what I want to say in brief, as regards Point I, is that the argumentation presented in this book would be much stronger and more convincing, if the authors had spent time reading Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Ugaritic-Canaanite historical sources and focused more on Hittite historical documentation.
II. The Hittite imperial order and the disorderly barbarians of Western Anatolia, South Balkans, Crete and the Anatolian Sea
Second Point: lack of knowledge (let alone mention) of the Sea Peoples’ invasions
By failing to study, examine, and integrate this topic (Sea Peoples’ invasions) in their research, the authors did not simply omit one of the most important worldwide events of the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE. They mainly proved to be unable to correlate the two events which were linked to one another in terms of cause and effect; this is so because the Trojan War (and by using the term, I don’t mean Homer’s narrative but the original fact of which the Homeric epic was certainly an intentional distortion) triggered the invasions of the Sea Peoples.
I expanded on the topic twice back in the early 1990s; in my speech in the Second International Congress (1991), I presented in French the topic: “The Sea Peoples and the End of the Mycenaean World”:
Les Peuples de la Mer et la Fin du Monde Mycénien. Essai de Synthèse Historique
Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia (Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991); (published by the Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, Roma, 1996) My speech is available online here:
Then, in the academic periodical JOAS, I published (in 1994) a comprehensive contextualization of the invasions of the Sea Peoples; the article was written in Greek:
Η Ευρύτερη Περιοχή της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου κατά τον 13ο και τον 12ο Αιώνα και οι Λαοί της Θάλασσας (The wider region of Eastern Mediterranean during the 13th and the 12th c. and the Sea Peoples)
Journal of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 6 (1994), p. 1-50 (with French résumé)
Ramses III smiting Sea Peoples in front of god Amun: reliefs and texts on the pylon of the Medinet Habu temple (Luxor West)
Representation of one of the battles that Ramses III had to deliver to vanquish and disperse the barbarian Sea Peoples; bas-reliefs and texts from the northern side of the outer wall of the temple at Medinet Habu
Ramses III’s tomb
Ramses III held Sea Peoples captives celebrates his victory in front of Amun and Maat, who was the Ancient Egyptian representation of the Divine Order against which the disorderly barbarians had rebelled; from the second pylon of the Medinet Habu temple
The preservation of the Universal Harmony and the Divine Order was the spiritual aspect and ultimate target of Ramses III’s battles against and victory over the Sea Peoples; this is particularly demonstrated in his tomb at the Kings’ Valley (Western Thebes: KV11) where in two panels an harper is depicted at work, in front of first, Onuris-Shu (a pre-creational aspect of the Divine, which through war brings Order instead of disorder and chaos/above) and second, Shu-Son of Ra (conceptualization of an aspect of the Divine that establishes analogies of energy and action between the pre-creational chaos and the creational order/below). In other words, the irrevocable victory of Ramses III over the chaotic and barbarian elements (: the Sea Peoples) was undeniably of cosmic consequences.
KV11: the tomb of Ramses III
Detail from the wall paintings
Red granite sarcophagus of Ramses III (Louvre)
In brief, I will now describe the sequence of the historical developments that took place at the time, pinpointing the most determinant situations and facts.
I- There were no ‘Greeks’ in the wider region of South Balkans, Anatolian Sea, Western Anatolia, Crete, and Cyprus, during the 3rd or 2nd millennium BCE; there were many different nations of indigenous (Anatolian and Balkan), Semitic, and Hamitic (‘Libyan’/Berber) backgrounds. And there were few Indo-European invaders (the Achaeans). So, the term ‘Greek’ is mistaken, if not distorted. This is so because the Achaeans constituted only one of the Ancient Greek tribes.
II- The establishment of a powerful imperial capital in Hattusha, at the center of the Anatolian plateau, generated several reactions among the diverse populations that lived in the Eastern (Hayasa, Azzi, Ishuwa), Northern (Kashka) and Western (Masa, Wilusa, Seha, Arzawa, Lukka) confines of Anatolia, because these regions were inhabited by barbarian, disparate and disorderly elements that did not want to accept the imperial order. This is a constantly encountered topic in the historical sources of the Hittites.
III- The Hittite Empire was a multiethnic empire with several official languages and writings; there was one imperial religion and several local spiritual variants; this already means that there were several nations that wholeheartedly contributed to the imperial rise of Anatolia (Hittites/Nasili, Hatti, Luwians, Pala) and other ethnic groups or tribes that escaped the imperial order. Southern provinces (Kizzuwatna, Tarhuntassa, and even the Amurru/Amorrites in today’s NW Syria) accepted the imperial more easily.
IV- The indigenous populations of the Western confines (the term ‘Lukka’ covers a great number of tribes) rebelled quite often, notably when the Hittite armies were engaged in the empire’s most important war fronts opposite the Hurrians of the Mitanni Empire (and after the middle of the 13th c. the Assyrians) and the Egyptians in the territory of today’s S-SE Turkey and NW Syria.
V- The indigenous populations of the South Balkans seem to have been of the same ethnic and cultural background as the indigenous Anatolian Lukka and therefore allied with them. They were called ‘Peleset’ in Ancient Egyptian texts; this term is identical to the Pelasgians as mentioned (or rather mythologized) in the posterior sources of the 1st millennium BCE Ancient Greeks.
VI- Populations of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds inhabited Crete, Alasia (Cyprus) and the islands of the Anatolian Sea; this is not only highlighted by the numerous names of peoples and ethnic groups that the Ancient Egyptian sources mention with respect to this region, but it is also evidenced by the existence of many different, hitherto undeciphered, writings that have been unearthed in the periphery in question: Linear A, the so-called ‘Cretan’ hieroglyphic writing, another ‘Cretan’ hieroglyphic writing, the ‘Eteocretan’ alphabet, the Phaistos disc writing, the so-called Cypro-Minoan syllabary, and the Cypriot syllabary; all of them antedate the Linear B, which was the (already deciphered in the early 1950s) writing system of the 2nd millennium BCE Achaeans. Archaeological findings (many different small palaces in those islands) and interdisciplinary discoveries of historico-religious nature (reference to the ‘Horus of Kaeftiu’ made in Ancient Egyptian inscriptions) bear witness to why the Ancient Egyptians used also the collective description ‘Nine Bows’ for this region where African Berbers, Anatolian Luwians, Semitic Canaanites, and Egyptians were amalgamated with indigenous Peleset/Pelasgians. There were many tiny kingdoms and no centralized authority with some ethnic groups being spiritually and culturally guided from Egypt, and others from Anatolia, Canaan and Libya. About:
VII- The Ahhiyawa (Achaeans or Achaians) were a rude foreigner invader in the South Balkans, and as such they were reviled by the indigenous Pelasgians/Peleset and their Lukka allies, who constituted the outright majority of the local population. The Hittite – Achaean linguistic proximity suggests a conceptual kinship with the Hittites; however, one has to notice that the tremendous difference is that the Indo-European Hittites managed to impose an imperial authority in the central plateau of Anatolia and thus become a major power of the then known world, whereas their Achaeans relatives in South Balkans were always divided in many small and instable kingdoms that were overwhelmingly but rightfully loathed by the subjugated local populations, namely the Pelasgians/Peleset.
VIII. The rise in force of the Hittites in the Oriental chessboard (particularly after the sack of Babylon by Mursili I at the very beginning of the 16th c. BCE) coincides with the liberation of Kemet/Egypt from the Hyksos barbarians and the foundation of the 18th dynasty of Egypt, which brought about a period of incessant rivalries among the major powers and alliances of the then known world, namely the Hittites, Assyria, and Elam against the Hurrians (Mitanni kingdom), Cassite Babylonia, and Egypt. It is during that period that the Achaeans, always as allies of the Hittites, seem to prevail in the South Balkans, the Anatolian Sea, and Crete.
IX. With the focus of the Hittite military machine made on the East and mainly opposite the Hurrians and the Egyptians, the Hattusha-based Emperors needed their Achaean allies in the West to take the initiative and secure the local order throughout the South Balkans, the Anatolia Sea, Crete, and the western confines of Anatolia. For this to be done, the Ahhiyawa had to establish (which they did) settlements in the Anatolian coastland in order to intervene in favor of their Hittite allies every time a Lukka rebel would cause instability. It was clear that Hattusha did not have enough soldiers to transfer to a second front when all the stakes were placed on Amurru, i.e. today’s Syria’s northwestern provinces where the major battles used to take place at the time (notably the famous Battle of Kadesh).
X. The disorderly forces of Western Anatolia, South Balkans, Crete and the Anatolian Sea were in a position to control several maritime trade routes, particularly after making an agreement with Egypt, at the detriment of the Hittites and their Achaean allies. At this point, I have to state that, although it is plausible and reasonable to identify the ‘king of Ahhiyawa with the Achaean ruler of Mycenae, this cannot be conclusively accepted, as long as we don’t find the name of the Ahhiyawa capital in Hittite sources. Ancient Egyptian texts mention many cities in the region in question, but in the Boğazköy (Hattusha) Archives, we attest only a few, notably Miletus and Ephesus. And it is quite clear that there was never a major Achaean kingdom in the wider area; quite contrarily, and according to the posterior descriptions of the Homeric epics, there were many petty kings and tribal chieftains in those narrow valleys and constricted plains in-between the south-Balkan mountains. All the same, for the time being, we have to content ourselves with the assumption that the imperial Hittite documents refer merely to the most important among all these trivial warlords. About:
From the northern side of the outer wall of the Medinet Habu temple
The naval battle
An Egyptian ship attacks a Peleset (Pelasgian-Philistine-Palestinian) ship
Ramses III savors his victory at Djahi over the Sea Peoples
III. The Sea Peoples’ invasions as a determinant historical fact and the Trojan War as a worthless falsehood
XI. The urgent demand of the Hittite Emperor addressed to the Ahhiyawa king concerned a badly needed Achaean intervention in Western Anatolia against the rebelled forces of the Lukka and their allies. This means that the Anatolian Empire was being financially asphyxiated because of the Lukka-Egypt commercial alliance. Wilusha (Ilion) and Taruisha (or Taruiyah/Troy) was a critical part of the Lukka confederation. It is to be noted that all the disorderly elements have customarily been regrouped in confederations, avoiding the establishment of a unified and unitary empire. It is therefore clear that it is this Achaean intervention in Western Anatolia that was later mythologized as Trojan War; although undertaken for the benefit of the Emperor at Hattusha, the epic literature later developed around the military campaign did not mention the Hittites anymore, because soon after an initial Achaean success, the disaster fell on both, the Hittites and the Achaeans. The troublesome situation appears clearly in-between the lines of the Hittite treaty between Muwattalli II and Alakšandu (Alakshandus) of Wiluša (Ilion). From this Anatolian Luwian origin name originates the well-known Macedonian and Greek name Alexandros, which was the true name of Paris, prince of Troy, according to the Homeric epics. However, it is improbable to identify the historical ruler of Ilion with the mythological person to whom so many extraordinary and dubious stories have been attributed in the myth. About:
Medinet Habu is also one of the Ancient Egyptian monuments that preoccupied many Egyptologists since the very dawn of Egyptology; these are some of the notes that J.-F. Champollion took with respect to the hieroglyphic inscriptions ton the right tower of the temple’s second pylon.
The Sea Peoples and their invasions by land and by sea up to Egypt where they were defeated in three successive battles by Ramses III at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th c. BCE; dates of the events can vary among scholars, due to the co-existence of several chronological systems; the search for the reasons of these invasions ended up with the formulation of numerous interpretational schemes and scenarios most of which are irrelevant. This is so because many non-specialized authors wanted to advance their agendas by interpreting these events in one or another way and in the process they disregarded the existing textual documentation.
Western Anatolian Lukka mentioned in the Abishemu Obelisk from Gubla (جُبَيْل; Jubayl or Jbeil; Keben or Kebeny in Ancient Egyptian; Byblus in Ancient Greek and Latin) in Lebanon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abishemu_obelisk
Sea Peoples held captive
Sea Peoples depicted on the walls of the Medinet Habu Temple
Berbers (Lebu: Libyans)
Peleset/Pelasgians/Philistines alive …
… and dead
Sherden
Shekelesh
Danaans
Tjeker (Teucri) and Peleset as depicted in the Annals of Ramses III
Peleset/Pelasgians/Philistines as depicted in Akrotiri, Santorini Island
Egyptian Art from Knossos
Caphtor-Keftiu-Carians, as members of the anti-Hittite Lukka alliance, depicted on the walls of the Knossos edifice, which is not a palace as many still believe. The ahistorical and absurd term ‘Minoan’ helps concealing the fact that several different ethnic-linguistic groups lived side by side in Crete in the small cities-kingdoms, which is testified by the diverse writing systems, temples, palaces, and structures of independent societies that we find in many locations. The terribly unprofessional, entirely wrong and overwhelmingly biased ‘excavations’ undertaken by the racist colonial rascal Arthur Evans (in the early 20th c.) and the extensive but purely hypothetical restorations only obscured our knowledge about 2nd millennium BCE Crete. Evans’ interminable mistakes have been revealed and denounced over the past decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caphtor
This is how idiotically Arthur Evans restored the Knossos wall painting. Below, you can see how modern scholars correct the messy and lousy work of the disreputable English colonial.
XII. Last, whatever the Trojan War may have been in the historical reality (and not in the posterior mythologization), the end result was truly calamitous for the Achaeans.
In fact, the overwhelming historical phenomenon that we call, according to the Ancient Egyptian texts, ‘Invasions of the Sea Peoples’ deleted from the surface of the Earth every remnant and every trace of Achaean kingdom. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the existing historical sources, the invasions of the Sea Peoples can be portrayed as a thunderous reaction to an earlier, antagonistic and calamitous, event (and by this I mean the Trojan War); as protracted war activities, this enormous historical development lasted about two decades and constituted the most brazen attack of Barbarity against the World Civilization. At the end, only Egypt was able to resist to their attacks, and Mesopotamia remained intact; but civilization in Hittite Anatolia, Canaan, and the Achaean fortresses collapsed. The Sea Peoples’ invasions involved the following:
a- a well-prepared ‘conspiracy’ in their lands of origin (Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete and South Balkans): this textual reference suggests clearly that some local ethnic groups turned violently against others;
b- a series of formidable and ultimately successful rebellions against several local kingdoms that they collapsed: this only confirms the veracity of several conclusions of many specialized archaeologists according to whom the ‘Mycenaean world’ fell to pieces due to the ‘burning of the Mycenaean palaces’;
c- a precipitated attack against Hattusha and destruction of the capital of the Hittite Empire: this sudden, unexpected, and earlier unimaginable development took place apparently, when the bulk of the Hittite army was not there, and had a devastating psychological impact that determined the historical evolution;
d- the continuation of attacks against Amurru (in today’s NW Syria), Canaan and Alasia/Cyprus, which involved also the destruction of Ugarit, the then world’s most advanced, multilingual center of academic learning and translation;
e- the devastation of the Canaanite coast lands, and
f- three successive attacks against Kemet/Egypt, during which Ramses III managed, by means of detrimental spiritual superiority (according to the Ancient Egyptian texts) to vanquish the Sea Peoples in three successive land and sea battles, thus dispersing them once forever.
IV. What is hidden behind the false term ‘Achaean World’?
Completing this unit, I have to highlight on a common mistake made by many historians and archaeologists who attempt to carry out the very difficult task of reconstructing and representing the historical reality of 2nd millennium BCE Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans; I define the entire work as difficult because, despite the abundance of the material record, the historical sources are scarce because -as I already said- this region was peripheral to the center of the then civilized world. The scarcity of historical sources’ references to this area has to also be associated with the existence of several undeciphered writings, which -if decrypted, read and studied- would shed more light on the topic.
The repeatedly made common mistake is that, by using the absolutely false term ‘Mycenaean Greece’ (instead of ‘2nd millennium BCE South Balkans, Anatolian Sea, and Crete’), historians and archaeologists get confused and seem to believe that only one nation or ethnic group lived in the said region. This is extremely wrong and misleading. Quite unfortunately, many different nations and ethnic groups coexisted in the said circumference, and this did not happen peacefully, but involved many strives, clashes, insurgences, riots, rebellions, destructions, population relocations, migrations, and -last but not least- scores of casualties.
When we use the expression the ‘Achaean world’, we therefore don’t mean all the populations of Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Sparta, Orchomenos, Salamis, etc., but only the Achaean inhabitants of those locations, who were safely accommodated within their fortresses, whereas the outright majority of those places were the Pelasgian / Peleset natives, who were oppressed and enslaved by their Achaean masters, whom they vehemently loathed. At this point, I have to make clear that the absurd term ‘Mycenaean world’ is totally wrong, because certainly Mycenae was not the capital of a unified empire, but of an independent and rather minuscule kingdom.
What is called as ‘Mycenaean Greece’ is a multi-composite fallacy and a sheer projection of a deliberately distorted 1st millennium BCE ‘Ancient Greece’ onto the 2nd millennium BCE South Balkans. There were no Greeks in the South Balkans during the 2nd millennium BCE; there were only Achaeans. But there were also the ethnically different Peleset / Pelasgians / Philistines who had ethnic-cultural affinities with the Western Anatolian Lukka and reviled the Achaean invaders and oppressors as much as the Lukka loathed the Hittite imperial order in Anatolia. Even worse, the kingdom of Mycenae was only one of the numerous tiny Achaean kingdoms, which were facing constant Pelasgian rebellions until, following their brazen but ill-fated attempt against Troy (a major Lukka ally), they were destroyed by the Pelasgian-Lukka anti-Hittite and anti-Achaean alliance and attack, which ended it up in what became known as Sea Peoples’ invasions due to the Ancient Egyptian Annals.
In fact, the wider region of Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete and South Balkans was a most tormented area during the 2nd millennium BCE. Scholars, who depict the then daily life in those peripheries as an ‘idyllic’ environment, deliberately misrepresent the historical reality in a most fallacious and vicious manner. It was not actually one ‘world’, but many opposite entities; the deep enmities, the incessant hostilities, the foreign involvement (Hittite and Egyptian), the different religions, the diverse spiritual concepts, the deeply opposite symbols, the ferocious hatred against one another, the anti-Hittite, anti-imperial odium of the disorderly barbarians, and their evil attitude (to strike an alliance with Kemet/Egypt only for their anti-Hittite purposes) did not bode well for the extremely small Achaean minority in the South Balkans.
Achaeans from Pylos, 1350 BCE
Achaeans from Tiryns, 1250 BCE
Peleset-Pelasgian-Philistine Art from Prosymna (near Argos, Peloponnesus); known as the amphora with octopus, it is not a sample of Achaean Art, as the absurd pre-historic archaeologists still assume.
Peleset-Pelasgian-Philistine statue from Phylakopi, Milos Island 14th c. BCE
The Achaean effort to establish a foothold in Miletus and Ephesus and thence to support their major allies in Hattusha was a heroic deed, and without it there would have never been Homeric epics. This is so because the transportation of army in the Western confines of Anatolia would certainly weaken the tight control that they had to maintain in South Balkan mainland, thus critically endangering the safety of their fortresses. Unfortunately, the brazen and admirable effort was predestined to doom due to the fact that the populations of the Lukka-Peleset alliance (i.e. the Sea Peoples before the beginning of their invasions) outnumbered the Achaeans 10 to 1 or even more.
V. Without an in-depth comprehension of the Egyptian, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite and Mesopotamian civilizations, no one can possibly understand their backward periphery
No one can properly and pertinently study the History of Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete and South Balkans during the 2nd millennium BCE without having first passed several postgraduate degrees in Assyriology, Egyptology, Hittitology and Northwest Semitic Studies (Ugaritic, Canaanite, Phoenician, etc.). The spiritual, mystical and religious differences among the different pharaohs only reflected the deep socio-religious divisions that existed in 2nd millennium BCE Kemet/Egypt, subsequently projecting them onto the peripheral lands that depended on the Valley of the Nile.
The rise and fall of the monotheistic religion proclaimed by Akhenaten (Atonism or Atenism) divided Egypt in an irreparable manner. The strong counter-revolutionary reaction of the Amun clergy and their military pawns, as well as the white terror released by Ay, Horemheb and their successors of the 19th and the 20th dynasties turned Egypt into a horrendous dictatorship and a deeply and irrevocably split up society. This situation is the reason for which the Hebrews and, along with them, many Egyptian monotheists left the country under Moses and crossed the Red Sea to reach the Sinai in what is today the northwestern confines of Saudi Arabia (Sinai is not what we now call the Sinai Peninsula!). About:
Long before Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad, the great monotheist Pharaoh Akhenaten (left) and Queen Nefertiti (right) rejoice uttering the Hymn to Aten, while receiving the blessings of Only God Aten. The resolute abolition of the blasphemous polytheistic cult of Amun of Waset (Thebes of Egypt) was worldwide the most important historical event that took place during the 2nd millennium BCE – far more important than the Exodus or the Sea Peoples’ Invasions. Eclipsing by far Abraham’s departure from Ur and the locally imposed polytheistic regime, Akhenaten proved to be the World History’s most determinant ruler from the days of Sargon of Akkad (24th c. BCE) to the time of Sargon of Assyria (8th-7th c. BCE). That is why he is so much reviled by Jesuits and Zionists alike.
Akhenaten as sphinx
Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their children adore Aten, who emits rays ending in Life offering palms (above); Akhenaten’s successor Tutankhaten (later Tutankhamun) and Ankhes-enpa-Aten (later Ankhesenamun) live under the auspices of Aten (below), before the Satanic restoration of Amun polytheism carried out following the conspiracy of Ay and Horemheb.
Still, after the Amun polytheistic restoration, there were few monotheistic pharaohs (like Ramses II and Ramses III), who managed to encrypt their spiritual and mystical choices in their five Pharaonic names, which constituted a superior and hitherto unmatched level of personal ideology, moral theory, and imperial spirituality; this is so because each name was an entire sentence that served as a most sophisticated field of semantics and semiotics, and after his ascension every Pharaoh was expected to live and deliver according to the values, virtues and principles solemnly declared in his five names. About:
The Theban Trinity as depicted on the walls of the Medinet Habu mortuary temple of Ramses III: every esotericism and mysticism originates from a situation in which a destitute, impotent and persecuted priesthood is forced to act clandestinely in order to survive and preserve its existence by initiating members into an otherwise prohibited faith. After the Amun Theban polytheistic restoration, all monotheists were forced to conceal their faith and to appear as publicly adoring Amun; it would be impossible for Ramses III to rule without showing in public his faith to the abomination of the Theban Trinity.
The vast sacerdotal complex of Karnak, center of the Theban Trinity cult, was larger and more populous than several tiny Achaean kingdoms or Peleset-Pelasgian states.
A copy (from 1939) of the hieroglyphics and other figures embossed on the outside of an Egyptian water clock or ‘clepsydra’ which was discovered in the Temple of Karnak, Luxor, Upper Egypt, and dates from the rule of King Amenhotep III (1388-1351 BCE). The top row shows a series of planet gods and the 36 decan stars – the great celestial timekeepers of the ancient Egyptians. In the middle are various constellations and deities and, on the bottom row, a calendar of months and month gods.
Scientific inventions like the Karnak clepsydra demonstrate the enormous gap that separated the Ancient Orient, which was the then center of the world with the most advanced civilizations (Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Hittite Anatolia, Canaanite Ugarit, and Elam), and the evidently backward, underdeveloped, and rudimentary life in the periphery (the Lukka of Western Anatolia, the Achaeans, the Peleset-Pelasgians-Philistines, and the Caphtor of South Balkans, the Anatolian Sea, and Crete, and their likes).
All these divisions were reflected outside Egypt, wherever Egyptians arrived, settled, traded with local populations, and diffused their cults and crafts among the natives. If Atenism was a rationalization of the Iwnw Heliopolitan dogma (also known as the Ennead), the polytheistic Trinity of Amun of Thebes (first established in the early 16th c. BCE) was an imperial religious dogma traced on the ancient, Memphitic polytheistic religion of Ptah. About:
Representation of the Iwnw-Heliopolitan Pesedjet (Ennead)
The Iwnw-Heliopolitan Ennead was the main spiritual-religious-theological system in Ancient Egypt; it was headquartered at Iwnw (: ‘the Pillars, meaning the obelisks), i.e. in today’s Ayn Shams, a northern district of Cairo, where the main temple of Atum was located. As it was the center of the Egyptian monotheistic cult, which symbolized God with the Sun, it was called Heliopolis (city of the Sun) by the Ancient Greeks. As religion, it epitomized the Divine Unity, fully encompassing Cosmogony, Cosmology, and Eschatology-Soteriology (all expressed in vast field of sign semiotics and symbols), while also combining Spiritual Ontology with World Order, Discipline and Moral. The stolen obelisks of Heliopolis served as means of Divine Epiphany and initially all the faithful took active part in the divine acts that encapsulated and praised the Creation. Extra: https://www.archaeology.org/slideshow/7396-heliopolis-egypt-obelisks
Aspects of the Divine Order: Ennead
The Khemenu-Hermupolitan Ogdoad was an equally old, sophisticated and important spiritual-religious-theological system in Ancient Egypt; headquartered in Khemenu (modern Ashmunein, near Mallawi, El Minya Governorate in Upper Egypt, ca. 320 km south Cairo), it was elaborated by the priesthood of Djhawty (ḏḥwtj/Thoth), aspect of Wisdom of God (symbolized by the bird ibis), whose main temple was located there. As religion, it projected the male-female division, which is attested in the material universe, onto the spiritual universe and onto the divine order of the Creation in an effort to reconstruct and fathom the modalities of the emanation of forms and the Being-Becoming process.
Ptah, the main god of Memphis, was the focal person of a counterfeit religious system at the antipodes of the Heliopolitan (Ennead) and Hermupolitan (Ogdoad) religions. Depicted in a statue now in the Turin Museum (above) and on a wall-painting from the tomb of Nefertari, main royal wife of Ramses II (below); as a polytheistic system, it also involved the concept of lameness, triggered religious fanaticism and darkness, while fully pre-modeling the Greek Hephaestus and the Roman Vulcanus. To cancel the cataclysmic impact that the Heliopolitan and Hermupolitan religions had on Egypt, the priests of Ptah, who represented a rather marginal religion until then, initiated -in the beginning of the 16th c. BCE, after the liberation of Egypt from the Hyksos- an imperial religious system entirely fashioned after their polytheistic prerequisites: this was the Theban Amun polytheism that most of the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty fought hard to utterly destroy and totally demolish. More: https://www.academia.edu/34439637/In_Ancient_Egypt_at_any_given_moment_there_was_never_one_Egyptian_Religion
Tomb of Nefertari, eastern annexe west wall (north): Nefertari is shown making an offering of linen to Ptah. He was the creator god of weaving and crafts. The linen which she offers is in the shape of the hieroglyph for clothing, “Menkhet” more of them stand on a table in front of her. The text above the table states: “Giving cloth to the Lord of Truth (= Ptah) on the sacred land”. Ptah stands on a dais in the shape of a Ma’at sign, inside a golden shrine with a curved roof, supported by two poles. The rear one is plain, but the front one is topped with a djed pillar; a large djed pillar also stands behind the shrine. He is portrayed in human form, but with green skin and wrapped as a mummy. His hands protrude from the front of the bandages holding a staff which combines a was-sceptre, another djed pillar and a shen-sign. His shaven head is covered with a tight fitting skull cap and he wears a large artificial beard. Behind the top of the combined sceptre is an open green wooden door.
Consequently, it is absolutely pointless, if not foolish, to perceive the Egyptian ascendancy, influence and impact on the various peripheral lands and regions as unitary or unidimensional; every Egyptian priesthood promoted at home and abroad their own spirituality, worldview, dogma, theology and cult. This situation clearly transported internal Egyptian spiritual divisions abroad; it was therefore only normal that numerous local conflicts, wars and destructions took place in those peripheral circumferences.
Thus, we can understand that, if in case of turmoil, a destitute Achaean king, like the later mythologized Menelaus, ran away to save himself in Egypt under the auspices of the Heliopolitan priesthood (which remained always powerful down to the time of Christianization of Egypt), he would certainly be offered support and protection; then, this development would be enough to turn against Egypt that king’s enemies and opponents, who would organize a maritime campaign to attack the country, which -they would think- treacherously supported or protected their archenemy.
VI. Why Dio Chrysostom’s historical sources are trustworthy and Homer’s pretenses are proven red herring
Third Point: the authors’ innovative approach to, and interpretation of, the mythological event existed since the Late Antiquity
This has certainly to be considered as one of the strengths of the research made and the book published by the authors; in fact, what they conclude, namely that the Achaeans did not truly win but they actually lost the Trojan War (which lets us conclude that Homer was a deliberate liar), was already said by ancient authors. Then, this means that, in support of merely a different narrative and alternative interpretation, which existed already since the Roman times, the two authors (Belyakov and Matveyshev) managed to elaborate an entire book. This is certainly a remarkable achievement that goes against the colonial tradition of Western European historiography, as per which the texts of Dio Chrysostom and of anyone else who ‘would challenge Homer’s authenticity’ have to be considered as untrustworthy.
In the first four chapters {ch. 1, Mega-mall to megaron: Pilgrimage to the land of Homer: p. 7; ch. 2, The Adventurer who tripped over Troy: p. 27; ch. 3, The War for Troy, 20th century: p. 57; ch. 4, And they came back in disgrace: p. 87}, Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev comprehensively educate their readers. Then, in the fifth chapter of their book (ch. 5, The Poet who composed Greece: p. 121), they expand on the topic, referring to Dio Chrysostom and many other ancient authors. The postface (‘In lieu of an afterword’: p. 169) offers both authors the chance to contextualize their approach and to widen the discussion about the topic, while also questioning the veracity, the honesty, and the usefulness of the modern colonial historiography and deploring the conventional schemes that Western universities (or simply ‘Schools of Falsehood’) have propagated worldwide.
The two authors convey very accurately to their readers Dio Chrysostom’s narrative (p. 147: “Dio was told about this by a priest from Egyptian Anufis, who in his turn, had learned this from an inscription on the stele based on a story told by Menelaus, who had visited this place”). The ancient Anatolian orator, thinker, historian and erudite scholar (originating from Prusa/Bursa) Dio Chrysostom (literally ‘Dio the golden-mouthed’; Δίων Χρυσόστομος; Дион Хрисостом или «Златоуст»; 40-115 CE) was an influential public figure in the Roman Empire, known for his strong convictions, meticulous researches, and enthusiastic supporters or enemies. Indefatigable traveler, Dio crisscrossed the Mediterranean basin and spoke with authoritative priests and mystics, being brazen in his criticism of Domitian; he was a close personal friend of both, Nerva and Trajan.
It is surely worthwhile to refer to his texts and concepts, interpretations and suggestions, contemplations and postulations, but today, one scholar must also take into account and, in addition, highlight and elucidate the very significant position that Dio Chrysostom held in Roman Anatolia. This makes an enormous contrast with the epic poets, Hesiod, Homer, and others, who were merely popular bards in small cities known to be ruled by a petty local authority and therefore deprived of any significant literary, valuable archives, academic/educational and scientific resources or an outstanding historical documentation. I intentionally underscore this point because Dio Chrysostom must be considered as a far more trustworthy source of information about Homer than Homer about the Trojan War. About:
In his 11th discourse (or ‘Trojan Discourse’), Dio Chrysostom discusses extensively about the Trojan War; the title of the discourse reads: “Maintaining that Troy was not captured” (ΤΡΩΙΚΟΣ ΥΠΕΡ ΤΟΥ ΙΛΙΟΝ ΜΗ ΑΛΩΝΑΙ.) A modern English translation totals around 17500 words.
The Ancient Greek text and an English translation can be found here:
In paragraph 37 (out of 154) of his 11th discourse, Dio Chrysostom, interrupts his narrative to state the origin of his knowledge. His discourse follows the pattern ‘in medias res’, because he starts his narrative straight away, well before giving details about the source of his information and the way he acquired full consciousness of Homer’s forgery and historical distortion.
More specifically, Dio Chrysostom states: ” I, therefore, shall give the account as I learned it from a certain very aged priest in Onuphis, who often made merry over the Greeks as a people, claiming that they really knew nothing about most things, and using as his chief illustration of this, the fact that they believed that Troy was taken by Agamemnon and that Helen fell in love with Paris while she was living with Menelaus; and they were so thoroughly convinced of this, he said, being completely deceived by one man, that everybody actually swore to its truth. My informant told me that all the history of earlier times was recorded in Egypt, in part in the temples, in part upon certain columns, and that some things were remembered by a few only as the columns had been destroyed, while much that had been inscribed on the columns was disbelieved on account of the ignorance and indifference of later generations. He added that these stories about Troy were included in their more recent records, since Menelaus had come to visit them and described everything just as it had occurred. When I asked him to give this account, he hesitated at first, remarking that the Greeks are vainglorious, and that in spite of their dense ignorance they think they know everything. He maintained that no affliction more serious could befall either individual or community than when an ignoramus held himself to be most wise, since such men could never be freed from their ignorance”.
Onouphis (Ὄνουφις; Onuphis; Онуфис) is merely the Ancient Greek rendering of ‘Aa Nefer’ (: the very good), a usual designation of the bull who manifested as Osiris Incarnate. As a locality, Onouphis belonged to the fourth (‘twenty first’) ‘nome’ (: district) of Egypt, being currently located ca. 10 km from Tanta in the Western part of Delta (Mehallet Menouf). About:
Austin, Norman. “5. Herodotus and Helen in Egypt”. Helen of Troy and Her Shameless Phantom, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008, pp. 118-136. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501720703-009
VII. The absolute denigration of the Late Antiquity Greeks by the Ancient Egyptian high priest as the destination of Human History
It is not my intention at this point to analyze the devastating denigration of the Ancient Greeks, as it was made by the Ancient Egyptian sacerdotal interlocutor of Dio Chrysostom, but I have to state that it consists in one of the many solid proofs about the absolute inferiority of the so-called Ancient Greek civilization as regards Egypt, Cush (Ancient Sudan), Canaan, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Iran. This topic is at the epicenter of today’s worldwide polarizations with respect to Spirituality, Cult, Mysticism, Genius, Wisdom, Intellect, Knowledge, Moral, Art, Science, Governance, and Culture. Every effort and concertation in view of a multipolar world hinges on this very issue.
Either the numerous different countries, traditions and cultures will eliminate and utterly delete the fallacy and forgery of Ancient Greece, as stipulated by the racist, colonial intellectuals of Western European Renaissance (1400-1600) and repeated by all the posterior, colonial, academics down to our days, …
… or the entire Mankind will disappear in the forthcoming nuclear annihilation that the corrupt values, the absurd mentality, the pathetic ignorance, the villainous attitude, the lowly behavior, the profane character, and the sacrilegious mindset of the modern Western nations (as impacted by the fallacious Greco-centric and Euro-centric education, academic life, and intellectual endeavors of their blind, paranoid and dictatorial elites) will inevitably cause.
Christianity irreversibly deleted the pernicious, evil, barbarian, nonsensical and uncouth ‘culture’ of the so-called Ancient Greeks; it took some time for several Christian Roman Emperors to physically exterminate those among the Ancient Greek speaking populations who did not accept Christianity, but around the time of Justinian I (527-565), the disreputable and blasphemous profanity named ‘Greece’ was already extinct – thank God!
But, starting with the Renaissance, all the Anti-Christian forces of Western Europe started deploying a colossal effort to revive the dead culture of the world’s most infamous past. This is the reason for which the Western European conquistadors and other colonial officers and armies perpetrated so many physical and spiritual genocides throughout the world. In fact, the Western European effort to revive the defunct pseudo-civilization of the Ancient Greeks is tantamount to and absurd and intentional worldwide Zombification, which will end up with the revelation of their eschatological agenda that provides for the presentation of the Antichrist as the true Christ or Messiah or Mahdi or Savior.
Although they presented their topic in a pertinent and persuasive manner, Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev failed to realize that the Ancient Egyptian priest’s words (as preserved in Dio Chrysostom’s text) “… are vainglorious, and that in spite of their dense ignorance they think they know everything. He maintained that no affliction more serious could befall either individual or community than when an ignoramus held himself to be most wise, since such men could never be freed from their ignorance” are at the very origin of every racism, barbarism, Nazism, odium and inhumanity. But, I must admit that this was not the real focus of their research.
VIII. Dio Chrysostom’s Egyptian sacerdotal interlocutor had read Ramses III’s Annals
Now, when it comes to the contents of the lesson that the Ancient Egyptian priest gave to Dio Chrysostom, we can conclude about what it may approximately have been. The Anatolian Roman orator mentions a specific point, which proves the veracity of the encounter that he describes; the Ancient Egyptian priest states that “the history of earlier times was recorded in Egypt, in part in the temples, in part upon certain columns”; this is absolutely true. Major historical acts, Pharaonic campaigns, significant battles, remarkable expeditions, what modern Egyptologists call the ‘Annals’ of the Pharaohs, and the indispensable libations to gods that took place at the end of each great event, all were narrated, inscribed and depicted on spiritually selected parts of the walls and on some of the columns of the Ancient Egyptian temples.
Every Ancient Egyptian temple was considered as a minimal representation of the Universe; the architectural parts of the temples corresponded to the sections of the macrocosm. In fact, every single temple was (and had to be) an interpretation of the Creation or, if you prefer, an adaptation of the parts of cosmos into the theoretical background that the sacerdotal architects of the temple envisioned, taught and propagated. This consists in one more reason for which I constantly refer to the unmatched superiority of the Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite and Iranian civilizations and to the unfathomable inferiority of the so-called Ancient Greek civilization {where the temples had only to be ‘beautiful’ brothels for fallen, pathetic priests, prostitutes (‘priestesses’), and ignorant, idiotic laymen to perform orgies in veneration of their fake gods}.
So, and this is quite significant, the historical deeds of the pharaohs, however critical they may have been, along with the final libation that consecrated their successes, were written on the external walls and on some architectural members of the outer courtyard and the columned hall of mortuary temples. In very few cases, such deeds were narrated on the walls of cult temples. And in extremely rare cases, the annals of a pharaoh were inscribed on the internal walls of the chamber housing the Holy of Holies where supreme spiritual acts were performed. This depended exclusively on the relationship that the pharaoh in question had with the specific temple’s high priest and hierophant (the two most influential sacerdotal figures during the mystical performance of cult). An example of Pharaonic Annals written in internal parts of cult temples is offered in the case of Thutmose III (in the temple of Amun at Karnak, Luxor/Thebes of Egypt). About:
An example of Pharaonic Annals inscribed on walls and colonnades of mortuary temples is given in the case of Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el Bahri (Thebes West). The Expedition to Punt (near Ras Hafun in today’s Somalia) was narrated on the walls and the columns of the second colonnade (southern or left side). About:
What Dio Chrysostom’s sacerdotal interlocutor may have had in mind when speaking about texts inscribed on walls and columns that related to historical facts associated to what his suppliant called ‘Trojan War’ we can easily assess by studying and comprehending the Ancient Egyptian narratives of the three battles that Ramses III fought in order to save Egypt and the world civilization from the barbarian and unholy Sea Peoples. The texts and the bas-reliefs of his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Thebes West) offer the proper contextualization of the conversation that took place in Onouphis (more than 1300 years after the battles were fought), according to what we read in paragraph 37 of Dio Chrysostom’s 11th discourse.
The Ancient Egyptian texts and bas-reliefs were first written on papyri and then engraved on walls and columns; the final text corresponded to spiritual, sacerdotal and Pharaonic norms, but it was elaborated on the basis of various reports, earlier records, and several drafts that offered abundant if not nauseating details that were not necessary (or even permissible) in the final narrative. Apparently what was later mythologized by Homer and others as the ‘Trojan War’ was an unimportant event, a skirmish or a foolish attempt, which caused the thunderous reaction of the majority of the populations of Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans, thus terminating not only the weak authority of the tiny Achaean kingdoms but also the formidable preponderance of the Hittite Empire.
Homeric ‘Greece’: a multi-divided world
In fact, the expedition (poetically overmagnified and viciously exaggerated to fully unacceptable levels) may have involved the capture of a fortress, but the Achaeans paid dearly for their loyalty to the Hittites, and this was the reason for which what modern archaeologists call ‘Mycenaean world’ vanished from the surface of the Earth. Even Egypt was exposed for the protection offered to escapees like Menelaus, and after the destruction of Hattusha and Ugarit, the Sea Peoples attacked with vehement odium the weakened empire of Ramses III, which was only a shadow of Thutmose III’s Kemet.
IX. The fake term ‘Ancient Greece’ prevents us from assessing Homer’s devastating failure
Fourth Point: the authors’ overall evaluation of the impact the Homeric epics had on Ancient Greece is correct, but inaccurate.
When it comes to Homer and all the Ionian poets of epics and rhapsodies, their intentional distortion of historical facts had one main target: the erase the memory of the Sea Peoples’ invasions and of the subsequent collapse of the Achaean kingdoms.
At this point, we have also to take into consideration what would have happened if the Sea Peoples were not dispersed by Ramses III, but won the battles fought against Egypt and returned home. A totally different culture, diametrically opposed to that of the militarily strong Hittites and Achaeans, would have prevailed. The notion of empire would have been replaced by the petty confederations of the Lukka, the Peleset, and their likes. And there would have never been any Homer and any poet willing to commemorate the brazen Achaean attempt that finally failed. The Sea Peoples’ invasions, as a major historical event that plunged the wider region of Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete and South Balkans to darkness, ended up in total failure after the dispersed components of the attackers settled in different locations throughout the Mediterranean (Sardinia, Sicily, Palestine, Phoenicia) and lived there in -comparatively with earlier strata- primitive conditions.
It would be perhaps correct to say that Homer created ‘Ancient Greece’, but unfortunately, neither Homer nor Ancient Greece ever existed; Homer, as one specific poet, was the creation of the imagination (and the result of lack of necessary documentation) of several South Balkan historians, whereas Ancient Greece, as a hypothetical past entity, was fabricated intentionally by Renaissance intellectuals.
In several points throughout their book, the two authors examine the topic and ponder whether Homer lived as an independent historical individual or he is merely the product of a legend concerning the author or the authors of the epics, which were finally attributed to one person. Anatoly Belyakov and Oleg Matveyshev however claim that the epics were used in different cities-states as the foundation of their local culture, education and national identity. This is true, but still it does not fully reveal the real intentions of the early Ionian epic poets. In addition, the role played by the epics in the formation of what the two authors call ‘Ancient Greece’ is questionable to significant extent.
What Homer and the other epic poets tried apparently to revive was the feeling of the Achaean unity, commonwealth, and values; but we must not forget even for a moment that their audiences were mainly the Ionians and the Aeolians of Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea and the South Balkans. Not all the predominantly Pelasgian and Dorian populations of the wider region! In their outright majority, they would vehemently reject these epics. And this is quite well known!
Homer did not use the filthy and unholy name of Selloi (i.e. the Pelasgian/Peleset class of polytheistic priests of the non-Achaean shrine at Dodona: Iliad, 16: 233–235) as an ethnonym for the forces that attacked Troy. It is only several centuries later, and due to continuous strives, clashes, conflicts and wars, that the term Selloi or Hellenes (‘Greeks’) was imposed by the Dorians onto all the other tribes and settled populations as a recapitulative name to describe the diverse South Balkan clans of significantly different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. Contrarily to Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle and others, Homer called the participants of the anti-Trojan expedition either Achaeans or Danaans. This certainly makes an enormous difference. The extremely scarce use of the term ‘Hellenes’ in the epics is a notable problem per se; no one can really understand in depth the essence of the narrative, before fully comprehending the fact that for Homer this name was an abomination.
How can we assess the Trojan War epics’ impact on the different tribes of the wider region? An early approach will certainly flood us with fabulous references, splendid mentions, and hyperbolic praises of the mythical author(s); it is certain that many intellectuals and authors in Ionia, Argos, Thebes, Sparta, Attica, and Magna Graecia (Southern Italy and Sicily) expressed an unequaled respect and an unprecedented admiration for the author(s) of the epics. This situation continued among certain Greek-speaking and Roman authors of the Late Antiquity. However, flattering words consist only in a fraudulent representation of the historical reality. And we have good reason to believe that Homer did not truly trust these ‘words’: ‘hepea pteroenta’ (winged words). About:
The only straightforward and substantial question that we have to make in order to evaluate the approximate impact that Homer and the epics attributed to him had on the various tribes, which inhabited parts of Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, South Balkans and Crete during the period 700-300 BCE, is the following:
– Did Homer or did he not achieve to pass onto the Ionians and the Aeolians (and eventually onto other tribes and populations) of the 7th c. BCE the fundamental spiritual, moral, royal, military, religious, socio-behavioral, cultural, literary, and artistic values and principles of the 2nd millennium BCE Achaeans?
The only possible response to such a question is a flat ‘no’.
The Achaean world, as attested on excavated palaces, temples, fortresses and tombs and as documented on deciphered texts (Linear B), could not be resurrected from the dead, and actually it never did.
Many modern scholars, and in the case of the present book both authors, have correctly concluded that Homer could not and actually did not have access to a genuine representation of the Achaean world. It goes without saying that what you fail to first represent to yourself in an authoritative and truthful manner, you cannot possibly communicate to others in a trustworthy way. Homer could not read any Linear B inscription, if he happened to ever find one, and the Achaean scribes, who used to write these texts, were all killed mercilessly by the thunderous rebellion of the Sea Peoples (Lukka, Peleset/Pelasgians, Tjekker/Teucroi, etc.) before their Hittite counterparts and allies underwent the same fatal experience.
Only a vague reminiscence of the Achaean world was left among poets, priests and elder mystics, when the author(s) of the epics were born. So, the conclusion is that we cannot possibly evaluate Homer’s impact onto the Ionians and the Aeolians, before first identifying his true intentions. Most of the scholars, who address this issue, commit a catastrophic error; they project their wrong viewpoint on 5th and 4th c. BCE ‘Greece’ onto the situation that prevailed throughout Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans at the end of the 8th and the 7th c. BCE, when the epic poets of the Ionians composed their rhapsodies.
The biased colonial scholars have already perceived 5th and 4th c. BCE ‘Greece’ as an ethnic, linguistic, spiritual and cultural entity whereas it was not; even what they consider as the boundaries of their fictional ‘Ancient Greek world’ never existed in reality. I have to be specific now with respect to 5th and 4th c. BCE ‘Greece’.
Caria was not ‘Greece’.
Lycia was not ‘Greece’.
Ionia was not ‘Greece’.
Aeolia was not ‘Greece’.
Lydia was not ‘Greece’.
Phrygia was not ‘Greece’.
Thrace was not ‘Greece’.
Macedonia was not ‘Greece’.
Illyria was not ‘Greece’.
Crete was not ‘Greece’.
The Anatolian Sea was not ‘Greece’.
And, more importantly, the purely geographical entity ‘Greece’ did not constitute an ethnic, linguistic, spiritual and cultural entity; when it comes to governance, the numerous tiny kingdoms and petty republics were multi-divided, reviled one another, and, even worse, they were ceaselessly waging wars one upon another, committing execrable atrocities almost in every spot of the wretched land. You cannot possibly call those shabby statelets ‘Greece’ for a very good reason: they did not call themselves that way.
Most of the so-called Ancient Greek cities-states were against the sacrilegious rulers of Sparta and Athens who idiotically and pathetically wanted to reject the imperial Iranian rule.
The aforementioned reality was attested in the fallaciously taught, academically distorted, and educationally mythologized ‘Greek-Persian Wars’ that the Carian traitor and bogus-historian Herodotus wrote and titled ‘Median Wars’ due to his malignancy, confusion, and ignorance. In those events, the majority of the Ancient Greek states rejected to participate and did not side with the barbarian rascals of Athens and Sparta, who opposed the annexation of the South Balkan extremities to the Achaemenid Iranian Empire.
The historical truth: the undeniable superiority of the Iranian Civilization over the disorderly and chaotic Ancient ‘Greek’ world – Above: Persepolis, a majestic capital that the barbarian Greeks could never have.
And the Jesuit falsehood that generated Modern Nazism: Raphael’s delusional falsehood of the nonexistent Athens – Below: the Satanic painting that fabricated Modern Europe and Nazism
Even more meaningfully, during and after the end of those wars, one after the other, most of all these trivial tyrants, leaders, pretenders and oligarchs moved to Parsa (Persepolis), the great imperial capital of Iran, and in a most docile, shameless and disreputable manner, implored the support and the favors of the Iranian Emperor against their rivals, relatives, former friends, neighbors, competitors, associates and assistants. So disgustingly treacherous and felonious they were that they turned the wider region into a wasp nest. Soon afterwards, they started quarreling, ruining and devastating one another in the so-called Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE). Further wars among them continued for more than 60 years also involving three ‘holy wars’ (355-346 BCE), until a foreign king, Philip II of Macedonia, defeated the alliance of Thebans and Athenians in the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE). And as it is known, Alexander the Great failed to annex to Macedonia all these petty statelets, because Sparta and its allies opposed and rejected the Macedonian rule. About:
In the light of these facts, one can effectively identify the epic poets’ and Homer’s intentions; as it is well known and as Anatoly Belyakov and Oleg Matveyshev state repeatedly in their informative and resourceful book, after the Trojan War, all the Achaean kingdoms were destroyed and the wider region of Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans was plunged into decay, barbarism, multi-divisions, chaos and endless wars. Those centuries were called, not without reason, by modern scholars ‘the Dark Ages’. This was due to the destructions caused due to the Sea Peoples’ rebellions (‘in their land of origin’ as per the Ancient Egyptian texts), their invasions, and the final annihilation of the invaders at the gates of Egypt (in three land and sea battles). However, although extensively recorded in the Ancient Egyptian Annals, this major event cannot be attested in any Ancient Greek source.
Linear B tablets from Pylos: the nature and the contents of the texts of the Achaean (or Mycenaean) world testify to the inferiority of the local civilization opposite the Ancient Oriental civilizations: the Ugarit Canaanites, the Anatolian Hittites, the Hurrians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Elamites. There were no codes of laws, no epics, no cosmogonies, no myths, no oracles, and no imperial annals written in Linear B.
This, in and by itself, explains very well what the epic poets’ intentions were. The Achaeans had almost entirely disappeared. The Ionians and the Aeolians were a minority among the indigenous Pelasgians. Then, the so-called ‘descent of the Dorians’ added new rivals to the diverse inhabitants of the wider region. Certainly, the Pelasgians had their own epics and narratives detailing their own achievements: they had rebelled and burned the Achaean fortresses and palaces; they had attacked the Hittite Empire and destroyed its sizeable and famous capital, Hattusa; they had also proceeded further to Syria and Canaan, further spreading terror and fire. And at the end, they had also attacked Egypt, brazenly pursuing there the last remnants of the Achaean world who had managed to escape. This is the narrative that Homer’s folk tales managed to eclipse.
In fact, most of the endless wars that took place in the wider region of Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans were due to the continuation of the two irreconcilable traditions and opposite alliances of the 2nd millennium BCE: the Achaeans with the Hittites vs. the Peleset/Pelasgians with the Lukka and the Taruisha/Trojans. Finally, a minor operation, namely the capture of a fortress, i.e. a historical detail, obscured the historical reality, i.e. the fact that the conquerors of Troy were destroyed in a most irreversible manner, after their useless victory. As the Hittite Empire had collapsed and the Hittites had relocated from Cappadocia to NW Mesopotamia and Northern Syria, there was apparently no reason for an Ionian epic poet to praise the Hittite-Achaean alliance; that’s why another specific reason about the Achaean military campaign had to be invented. But the concealment of the Sea Peoples’ invasions was absolute among the Ionians, the Aeolians, and the Dorians of the 1st millennium BCE.
There is however a major reason due to which Homer’s effort marked finally a certain success. The Sea Peoples in their totality had not developed a sophisticated civilization; it seems that few among them had scribes and priests able to write and keep records. Some of the non-deciphered writings of the region may eventually belong to them, but their disastrous defeat in Egypt and dispersion around the Mediterranean put an end to those colleges of learned men. The fact that these populations did not have an outstanding writing system to keep their records written prevented them from saving their narratives and traditions and from opposing Homer’s clearly false narratives.
Quite contrarily, with the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet among Ionians, the conditions were made available for the supporters of Homer’s rhapsodies to diffuse their narrative. As their opponents failed to properly react, the Ionians managed to form the basis of an Epic History, positioning themselves as the successors to the Achaeans. That’s why they were also able to erase the Pelasgian / Lukka / Trojan narrative, which constituted the historical truth and was ultimately saved in Egypt.
But the Achaean legend was not reconstituted, and the Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians were not united. Fallacious when it comes to the historical past, Homer’s epics proved to be purely futile for posterior generations. Being proud about a tradition that they could not follow or reproduce, the Ionians were contented with literary forms, being however totally deprived of imperial substance. That is why they were lower than the Ancient Oriental empires and the great civilizations of those centuries (Sargonid Assyria, Nabonid Babylonia, Achaemenid Iran), pretty much like the Achaeans were lower than their Hittite allies; this is confirmed by the undeniable fact that no imperial annals, no cosmogonies, no cosmological myths, no eschatological revelations, and no spiritual wisdom texts have been found in Linear B – in striking contrast with the Hittite cuneiform and hieroglyphic documentation.
X. Conclusion
At the end of this very lengthy book review and discussion of the topics presented in the passionately elaborated book ‘The Trojan Horse of Western History’ by Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev, I have to add few points, although they are not directly related to the matter. If I do so, this is due to the fact that both authors wanted also to highly contextualize their approach to and research about the Trojan War, and the hidden realities behind it (notably in their postface: ‘In lieu of an afterword’, p. 169).
The two authors are correct in their suggestion that, by saying lies about the Trojan War, Homer created Ancient Greece and that by saying lies about Ancient Greece, Modern Europeans created European History. This issue is definitely crucial because the vicious and racist historical distortion, which was undertaken by the colonial historiographers and intellectuals during the Western European Renaissance, hinges on the Trojan War forgery, since it has been the first to fully epitomize the divisive falsehood ‘East vs. West’ (Orient vs. Occident).
Shapur’s victory over Valerian in Urfa (Urhoy/Edessa), 260 CE (above); Heraclius’ victory over Khosrow (Chosroes) II in Nineveh, 627 CE (below): the Iranian-Roman wars lasted almost 700 years, but they were viewed by either opponent as a “Clash between the East and the West”. This undeniable historical fact puts a tombstone on the racist and divisive discourses of Herodotus, Aeschylus, and their modern Nazi admirers.
Without this entirely Manichaean invention, the criminal murderers and inhuman conquistadors of Western Europe would have never caused the unprecedented bloodshed for which they must be exemplarily punished. As a matter of fact, there was never a division ‘East vs. West’ in the History of Mankind. The evil Western European revisionists produced it in order to vilify the Orient and thus present the shame of Western barbarism as a potential ‘civilization’. The execrable forgery of Herodotus also contributed to this malignantly intentional divide, but it all started with the inclusion of the Trojan War in the mythical ‘history’ of the post-Renaissance Western revisionists. In fact, Nazism starts with the lies about the Trojan War.
Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev, throughout their fascinating book, seem not to fully realize that the only possible criteria and measures that we can apply in our evaluation of the so-called Ancient Greek civilization are those of the earlier civilizations of Anatolia, Canaan, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Never ever does the posterior define or predetermine the anterior; the Achaeans are therefore to be viewed, evaluated and rated as per Hittite criteria. The ethnically, linguistically and culturally different populations of 2nd millennium BCE Crete are to be assessed and judged as per Egyptian terms and measures.
And the 1st millennium BCE Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, South Balkan, and Crete constituted a multi-divided environment of tiny states without an imperial concept, worldview and order; when compared with Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, all these quarreling states of the so-called ‘Greek world’ look marginal, peripheral, underdeveloped, destitute and ignorant, as they were deprived of a millennia-long tradition of spirituality, world conceptualization, unsurpassed wisdom, advanced science, and imperial worldview and order.
In fact, what was considered as the top human achievement in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Iran, i.e. the analytically described and highly revered concept of Empire, was impossible to be understood (let alone reproduced) by the clueless, backward, uncultured and inconsistent Ancient ‘Greeks’. These are the criteria according to which the ‘Ancient Greeks’ are to be evaluated and rated; furthermore, all hitherto considered Ancient Greek criteria are to be obliterated as erroneously selected and absurdly used by mindless scholars, who failed to understand that the posterior is defined as per the terms of the anterior.
The Gate of Ishtar, Nabonid Babylonia: in the Berlin Museum and in situ (replica); Everything starts and everything ends with Babylon, the Ancient Sumerian sacred city KA DINGIR RA (KA₂.DIG̃IR.RAKI), i.e. the Gate of God; no other city worldwide became a matter of attraction, passion, praise, majesty and controversy like Babylon.
Yet, Alexander the Great realized very well that the only measures, terms, and criteria that mattered to him were those of the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Iranians. That is why he selected Babylon as capital, he wanted his wife to be Iranian, and he considered the blessing of the Egyptian high priests as important to him – not that of the unimportant, ignorant and worthless Athenian priests.
The two authors evidently understood that ‘Ancient Greece’ constitutes merely a false element of the Modern European version of History, which is entirely forged. Refuting this fallacious version across the board would necessitate a long series of volumes elaborated by an entire team of scholars; from this standpoint, the valuable contribution of Anatoly Belyakov and Oleg Matveyshev marks a remarkable first step in the Russian historiography.
We can therefore safely claim that their approach, research and conclusion have to show the way to all Russian academics and intellectuals, scholars, historians and explorers; this book is also an alarming warning. It urgently imposes on all Russian scientists specializing in Humanities, Orientalism and Classics a major educational, academic, intellectual and ideological reconsideration and an overwhelming de-Westernization; only then, the rightful and heroic fight of the Russian soldiers in Ukraine will be fully justified, actively endorsed, and consciously consecrated.
Россия, Украина и мир-VI: аспекты императивной девестернизации российского образования
Discussion with an astute Russian reader
Обсуждение с проницательным русским читателем
Contents
I. Introduction
II. How Western Europeans westernized Russians for 300 years
III. Unreliable Wikipedia
IV. Reading texts & reading in-between the lines of texts
V. Rejection of the fallacy of Hellenism: starting point of every effort of De-Westernization
VI. Why Shakespeare and the Western European Theater must be removed from the Russian, Chinese, Indian, African, Muslim and Latin American Education
VII. Shakespeare’s black magic trickery against the concept of Messiah, and his vicious hatred of Eschatology and Revelation
Содержание
I. Введение
II. Как западноевропейцы вестернизировали русских за 300 лет
III. Ненадежная Википедия
IV. Чтение текстов и чтение между строк текста
V. Опровержение заблуждения эллинизма: отправная точка всех усилий по девестернизации
VI. Почему Шекспира и западноевропейский театр надо убрать из русского, китайского, индийского, африканского, мусульманского и латиноамериканского образования
VII. Шекспир и его черная магия против концепции Мессии и его яростная ненависть к эсхатологии и Откровению
My articles about the Russia – Ukraine conflict generated vivid reactions from many readers and several among them wrote to me in order to ask about several topics or comment on my approach and description. A long correspondence ensued, and at times it helped me better feel how readers perceive different issues and understand my criticism of several practices or developments.
I. Introduction
Numerous recent speeches given or articles and books published by leading statesmen like Xi Jinping, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Vladimir Putin, Wang Yi, Dmitri Medvedev, Narendra Modi, and many others underscore the need to establish a new, multipolar world order and thus take mankind to the next stage of comprehensive, multilateral development and progress. An important part of this discourse is dedicated to the need of de-Westernization or de-Occidentalization. The topic is being now discussed in the foremost venues of the BRICS member states and in other international bodies. I herewith mention as examples the Valdai Discussion Club (est. 2004) and the Valdai Club Foundation (est. 2011), which manages the Club’s projects.
In his article “A New Era of De-Westernization Has Begun” (6 January 2023), Valdai Club expert Wang Wen made it clear that “the political equivalence structure between the West and the non-West is increasingly strengthened and is becoming an important feature of world politics in the third decade of the 21st century. Of course, the world in 2023 will not be mellow, but in any case, amid the “de-Westernization”, major changes unseen in a century will continue to evolve in an irreversible way, writes”. https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/a-new-era-of-de-westernization/
Although the need for de-Westernization is evident and highly acclaimed across Asia, Africa, Latin and -notably- Eastern Europe, it is not quite sure that all people mean the same connotation when using this term. I don’t suggest that there are opposite approaches to this issue, but many people still fail to fathom the depth and the width of the de-Westernization that is needed for nations across the Earth to finally achieve national identity, cultural integrity, political independence, and economic self-determination. Many people limit unconsciously their approach and efforts within politics; but there a major danger is lurking.
Does it really matter whether all the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe are politically, militarily, economically and financially independent from the block of the Western European and North American states that colonized (and, in the process, Westernized) almost all the other nations of the world?
I would even ask the following:
Does it really matter whether all the countries of Western Europe and North America collapse and disappear from the surface of the Earth?
With the former colonizers dissolved and with Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe politically, militarily, economically and financially de-Westernized, still all these countries will indeed be inhabited by mere ‘copies’ of Western citizens and Westernized automatons or homunculi, if the de-Westernization effort fails to be as deep and as wide needed at the levels of academic and intellectual life, scientific research, education, socio-behavioral system, culture, mentality, and even religion and spirituality. This is so, because a Muslim incorporated into or accommodated within the Western system of values, principles, concepts and worldview will de facto function as a non-Muslim either he fasts, prays and has no extramarital relations.
——————————————————————-
What is De-Occidentalization for Russia, Asia, Africa and Latin America?
In your school, you learn about the Kurukshetra battle (Mahabharata) – and not about the insignificant battle of Thermopylae
In your school, you learn about Gan Bao’s Soushen Ji (here in a Ming copy ca. 1550), which is a compendium of legends and narratives concerning the spiritual universe that was first written around the middle of the 4th c. CE – and not about Seneca’s Hercules furens (Mad Hercules)
In your school, you learn about the Annals of Ramses III and the narratives about his victories over the Sea Peoples that determined the World History – and not about the absurd lies that the Carian (non-Greek) traveler Herodotus wrote about the unimportant wars between a few Ancient Greek states and the invading armies of the Iranian Emperor Darius
In your school, you learn about Enuma Elish, the Assyrian-Babylonian Epic of Creation (four tablets in cuneiform in the upper picture), and Atrahasis (also known as Ut Napishtim), the archetypal, Mesopotamian Noah, whose epic (see one part in the lower picture) is at the origin of all later Biblical and Islamic traditions – and not about Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey or Virgil’s Aeneid
In your school, you learn about Kartir, the great Zoroastrian reformer and founder of Mazdeism (the Sassanid times’ reformulation of the Zoroastrian faith), imperial high priest, theoretician and mystic whose Celestial Voyage antedates that of prophet Muhammad (Mi’raj) – and not about the petty philosophers of Ancient Ionia, Macedonia, Thrace and Greece, who proved to be unable to fathom the spiritual universe in its true dimensions
In your school, you learn about the eschatological Hittite Epic of Ullikummi – and not about the racist anti-Macedonian discourses of the Athenian demagogue Demosthenes
In your school, you learn about the Ashoka edict (on the Delhi-Topra pillar) – and not about Thucydides’ worthless narrative concerning the incessant wars among the petty kings and politicians of the tiny cities-states of Ancient Greece
In your school, you learn about the Ancient Egyptian Holy Book Amduat that details events taking place in the Hereafter – and not about Julius Caesar’s boring historical description about how Romans killed one another, before massacring the inhabitants of Gaul
In your school, you learn about the Ancient Egyptian Expedition to Punt (Somalia) that was undertaken (ca. 1475 BCE) by Admiral Nehesy and the Imperial Fleet of Pharaoh Hatshepsut and became the object of a long narrative (texts and reliefs) inscribed on the walls of the first female pharaoh’s mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari, Luxor West – and not about the wrong stories of Diodorus of Sicily or Arrian’s description of Alexander’s military campaign
In your school, you learn about the Chinese Dunhuang Star map, the first known star chart (ca. 700 CE) from China, which contains the data collected from the three different schools of Astronomy that existed there – and not about Pausanias’ Description of Greece that has very limited value.
In your school, you learn about the Vendidad, which is the part of the Iranian Holy Book of Avesta that contains fragments from the discussion between Ahura Mazda and Zardosht (Zoroaster) concerning possible ways for humans to confound spirits and demons – and not Ancient Greek mythology where the Divine World is desecrated by Ancient Greeks’ fake and idiotic gods that were poorly conceptualized after sinful human behaviors and examples
In your school, you learn about the Dhammapada (collection of Buddha’s admonitions; here written in Gandhari language and Kharosthi writing) – and not about the verbose, worthless writings and the absurd scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas that constitute a major reason for the collapse of religiosity in the Western world
In your school, you learn about the Manichaean Evangelion (here as it is in the Cologne Mani-Codex), which was one of the seven holy books of the Manichaeans, who spread from NW Africa and Western Europe to North Africa to China – and not about Dante and his heinous Divine Comedy
In your school, you learn about the greatest historian of Islamic times Tabari (9th – 10th c. CE) and his History of Prophets and Kings (here portrayed in a miniature of the historical Farsi translation of his monumental opus by Amirak Bal’ami) – and not about Edward Gibbon, an 18th c. English historian, who wrote only to distort, adapt Roman History to English colonial interests, and propagate concepts of white supremacism and racism
In your school, you learn about the greatest epic poet of Islamic times Ferdowsi (10 th c.) and his majestic Shahnameh (‘Book of Kings’) that was called ‘the Iranian Quran'(here a book cover with a miniature from the Shahnameh especially handwritten and decorated for Shah Tahmasp in the 16th c.) – and not about 17th c. French Classicist Theater
In your school, you learn about the great innovations and inventions brought about by the great Turanian scholar Al Farabi (9th-10th c.), who established a groundbreaking Zodiac chart (left) and conceived an eight string ‘ud/lute (right) – and not the fallacious calculations of Nicholas Copernicus.
——————————————————————-
II. How Western Europeans westernized Russians for 300 years
Russia is an excellent paradigm in this regard; as land, it was never colonized by any Western colonial country. Yet, today, Russia is extensively westernized and must be systematically and effectively de-Westernized. The discussion I had with an astute Russian reader sheds light on the innumerable niches of the de-Westernization (or detoxification or decontamination). I therefore publish it in its largest part.
– English Translation of a Comment Made by a Russian Reader –
Hello dear Shamsuddin.
I read your articles with numbers “IV” and “V” (while waiting for public transport and on the road). Be careful when referring to information from Wikipedia in your articles! I say this because this site regularly misrepresents information about my country.
Your article with the number “V” reminded me of the book by the Russian philosopher Povarnin “How to read books” and the American writer Adler “How to read the book”. After getting acquainted with these books, I realized that before my attitude to books was like to fast food: “quick breakfast / lunch”. And that I didn’t read a single book “correctly”.
After reading article “IV”, where you described Ancient Greece not as a State, but simply as a group of different people, I now can’t wait for you to read the book I recommended. They also show the “inconvenient” truth about Ancient Greece.
At the end of the article, I was struck by your idea of abolishing Shakespeare in school. I agree with this only if you meant that when you are young you cannot understand great works. To do this, you need to be older and so that life will harden you a little.
Last question.
There are authors who are unknown in Russia, or only one book out of many books of each of them has been translated. Could you evaluate which of these authors are “harmful” to the Russian public, and which should be known?
Sincerely,
Fedor.
————— My Response —————–
Dear Fedor,
Thank you for your points that will certainly empower me to better present my approach and to describe several hitherto undiscussed topics!
Reading and writing in transportation means, with or without a laptop (I never had and I will never have a smart telephone), has been for me a time-honored tradition; it involves trains, boats, ferryboats, airplanes, interurban buses, metro, trolleybuses, and buses. Also: taxis and private cars (of friends)!
As it happens with every series of articles, the complete idea about my approach you would get reading all of my five hitherto published articles about Russia, Ukraine and the world. My recent article-proposal for a new UN organization belongs -in a way- to this series, which is -never forget it!- ongoing. All the same, articles IV and V are quite representative; in the former, I expand on spiritual topics {because there is spiritual dimension in this conflict/the difference between Earth and Sea viewed as primordial elements of the Creation (in forming people and societies opposite to one another: ‘continental’ and ‘maritime’)}, whereas in the latter, I focus on educational issues and I expand on how to perceive History of Northern Asia and Northeastern Europe as History of Russia.
Now that you read article no V, you can easily read article no II, which is an entire repositioning of the History of Russia; this means that article no II serves as the foundation for article no IV. In it, I expand more on the long and wide historical continuity that you must focus on, instead of minimizing Russia’s history to an ethnic narrative of ‘Slavic’ tribes that accepted Christianity in Kievan Rus. Your History, the History of all Russians, is far larger than that; Western linguists, Slavologists and historians did their best to limit your view of your past and to make you see it as a ‘racial history’ (or an ‘ethnic history’ if you want) only to your disadvantage. History is not a narrative of ethnic groups and races, but a description of cultures and civilizations.
By making you focus on a limited past and by dragging you in a way that you use the racial-racist approach to your past (that they invented for others – haha! but not for themselves!!), they subtly bring you to a frontal clash with Turanian (Turkic) nations and with Muslims; this will be disastrous for Russia and for the entire world.
You must understand (and I don’t speak personally but generally for all Russians, your government included) that, for the evil Western forces, ‘politics’ starts with History, continues with Education, advances with Culture, and ends up with Political Philosophy and Ideology, which forms the context of what people call now ‘politics’, but in reality is ‘governance’.
What is called today ‘Western world’ is a fallacy that started with Renaissance and the early colonial empires, namely Spain and Portugal, but when it comes to the way modern countries are governed, the two Iberian kingdoms are obsolete forms of state that are closer to Ivan IV’s Muscovy, to the Eastern Roman Empire or even to Sassanid Iran. The structure of contemporary states originates from end of 17th c. Holland and post-Cromwell England. In this evil form of tyranny, everything is utilized in (i.e. distorted in order to be fit to) politics.
——————————————————————-
Muscovy, a Christian-Muslim, Russian-Tatar, Asiatic City
The Conquest of Siberia by Yermak; painting by Vasily Surikov. In the 19th c., despite their advanced cultural-educational Westernization, Russian painters like Surikov reproduced a totally non-Western ‘image’ of 16th c. Muscovy and Russia.The Russian Soul is this.
The Siege of Kazan; painting by Vladimir Stepanovich Bodrov
‘Battle’ of the Ugra, 1480; from 16th c. miniature – The ‘battle’ took place because Ivan III did not want to pay tribute to the Great Horde; Ahmad Khan bin Küchük led the Tatar forces. It is a critical and quite odd historical moment, because the two armies stood on the opposite banks of the river and, in spite of tricks and threats, no battle was fought, and at the end, the two armies withdrew. It is not correct to consider this date as the beginning of Muscovite independence, because the Muscovites continued being vassal to the Tatars of Crimea. The overall situation was far more complicated, because Poland sided with the Tatars of Sarai, whereas Ivan III was supported by the Khan of Crimea; even more so, because the Great Khan was later killed by the Khan of Siberia and his Nogay Turanian allies.
Muscovy at the time of Ivan Kalita (early 14th c.), painting by Apollinary Vasnetsov (19th c.): apparently an Asiatic town that had nothing to do with Western European norms.
At a time of advanced Westernization, the famous Russian painter Apollinary Vasnetsov (1856-1933) felt the need to represent, based historical accounts, ‘Muscovy at the time of Ivan III’, thus fully revealing the entirely Oriental and Asiatic nature of his fatherland.
‘The Last Minutes of Metropolitan Philip’ painted by Aleksandr Nikanorovich Novokoltsev (1853-1919) in 1889 was the way the illustrious Russian painter evoked the awaken in the 15th c. Muscovite spirituality that had gone extinct in late 19th c. Imperial Russia due to the multi-layered and advanced Westernization; the painting also reflected the wrongdoings of Ivan IV the Terrible, who ordered the assassination of Philip II (1507-1569) because the thirteenth (13th) Metropolitan of Muscovy (1567-1568) rejected to bless him due to the Oprichnina system of persecution against the boyars (the wealthy and powerful landlords).
‘Ivan the Terrible and Associates’ painted in 1903 by Andrey Ryabushkin (1861-1904): there was nothing Western in Ivan IV.
Andrey Ryabushkin’s ‘Wedding train in 17th c. Moscow’ (1901) demonstrates that Russia was an culturally Asiatic realm.
‘Streltsy’ (the accent being on the last syllable / ‘Стрельцы’: infantry carrying firearms) painted in 1907 by Sergey Vasilievich Ivanov (1864-1910): one more evidence that the Westernized Russian elites of the beginning of the 20th c. felt an inexorable nostalgia for their totally non-Western past and heritage (Streltsy existed as military units from the mid-16th to the 18th c.)
‘The Morning of the Streltsy Execution’ painting (1881) by Vasily Ivanovich Surikov (1848-1916) helped spectators recall a critical historical event that took place in 1698, when Russia had almost no Western cultural or imperial attribute: the great uprising of the glorious military unit, which was due to the fact that the Streltsy rejected the vicious project of Westernization that Peter I wanted to introduce and the disastrous (because uncontrolled) presence of foreign (Western) advisers. Quite indicatively, an English soldier, Patrick Leopold Gordon of Auchleuchries (1635-1699) commanded the army that killed the genuine Russian officers in battle. All those, who were not killed in the Battle of Voskresensky (Resurrection) Monastery, which is also known as New Jerusalem Monastery, were executed in Moscow (between September 1698 and February 1699): more than 1000 noble soldiers – early victims of Westernization.
If you think that you can oppose, England, France and the Western world at the ‘political’ level, you are deceived and you will fail, because it was ‘politics’ to their elites
a. how to Occidentalize / Westernize Peter I;
b. how to progressively detach the executive of the Russian Empire from the Eastern Roman (falsely called ‘Byzantine’) imperial tradition and to drag it to sheer imitation of the Western pseudo-kingdoms;
c. how to corrupt the Russian elites by initiating them to various orders particular to the Freemasons, the Jesuits, and even the Zionists;
d. how to attach the Russian academic and intellectual elites to the fallacies of Renaissance, Classicism, Hellenism, Enlightenment, European Classical Music, and the Greco-Roman foundations of Modern European White Supremacism and Racism;
e. how to engulf Russians into Pan-Slavism in order to bring Russia in clash with Germany and Austria-Hungary;
f. how to ‘teach’ the Russian elites that ‘being Christian Orthodox’ meant ‘being anti-Muslim’ and thus engulf them in wars against the Iranians and the Ottomans; and
g. how to link Russia ‘historically-culturally’ with Classical Greece and Rome (which is wrong and disastrous) and how disconnect Russia ‘historically-culturally’ from Ancient Orient (Caucasus, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, Iran, Central Asia, China and Indus River Valley), which is also erroneous and calamitous.
———————————————————–
The Westernized Russian elites and their non-Russian venues
Peterhof Palace, St. Petersburg: Peter I’s ‘response’ to Louis XIV’s Versailles. All the same, this conventional approach is an oxymoron indeed, because in reality, the monumental palace was a ‘French’ (not ‘Russian’) response to something French!
Peterhof Palace, the main staircase
Peterhof Palace, the main staircase
The Greek Hall of Pavlovsk Palace
State Bedroom at Pavlovsk Palace
This is the Freemasonic ‘chapel’ in the Catherine Palace, St. Petersburg; the quasi-totality of her empire’s Christian Orthodox population would not find it proper to pray there. Along with Westernization in Architecture, Art and Religion comes the historical falsification that took the form of the Occidentalization of Russian History. Leading example in this regard is Nikolay Karamzin (Николай Михайлович Карамзин; 1766-1826) who wrote his 12-volume History of the Russian State (История государства Российского) only to break with the earlier Russian historiographical tradition that was exemplified by Vasily Tatishchev (1686-1750). Both distinguished Russian historians are described as proponents of autocracy, but this is very erroneous; actually, it looks like a deliberate effort to confuse specialists and average readers. Karamzin’s advanced Westernization made him write after French prose style and his exposure to Occidental post-Renaissance concepts made him introduce alien and corrupt elements (like Hellenism), insult Ivan IV Terribl,e and slander the true Russian identity – only to the benefit of the dark forces that incessantly promoted Russia’s rapid Westernization. What went wrong with Karamzin? This is easy to answer: in 1789, he traveled to Germany, France, Switzerland and England. This was an enormous mistake. He should have traveled to the Ottoman Empire, Qajar Iran, Mughal India, and Qing China instead.
———————————————————–
III. Unreliable Wikipedia
You mention the Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of sophisticated distortion, alteration, historical falsification, and adaptation of the historical truth to the ideological-political needs of the Western world’s ruling elites.
You misunderstood my attitude to constantly add numerous Wikipedia links to my articles.
I do not “refer to information from Wikipedia”; I only mention links to Wikipedia entries, so that my readers find them easily, go there, make their own search, check the notes, sources and bibliography, and thus have access to more specialized info that they may want, after reading some of my points.
As I do so quite often, in several articles I have already stated that I disagree with the contents of most of the Wikipedia entries that I mention. Now, your point makes me understand that I should perhaps prepare a 3-5 lines text about this issue, and copy / republish it in each and every one of my articles.
IV. Reading texts & reading in-between the lines of texts
“How to read books”! You raise an enormous topic.
Basically, you mean that one person must also read in-between the lines of a text.
That is very correct.
The real essence of the reality is never in the words of a text.
In fact, a word -in itself- is almost nothing.
Semantics is a field of ignorance and paranoia.
Ancient Greek philosophers’ opinions on these topics were childish and nonsensical; this was due to their low level of understanding the Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Iranian priests next to whom they studied for years.
Realities do not exist because humans exist; they exist on their own.
Only God knows the purpose of every element of the Creation, and the interminable possibilities that they have to amalgamate with one another. You can never know anything before duly identifying the composition of the elements that constituted it: Ether, Soft Waters, Earth, Air and Salt Waters.
Nothing is signified or denoted by a human; everything is signified per se – by itself. When someone speaks, describes and narrates about something, he only shows what he understood from a tiny part which belongs to a world created by the Almighty God. Our understanding is merely our revelation: what we reveal (and therefore represent to us and others) out of the infinite universe that God created. As God is invisible, the link of the tools that a speaker or narrator uses is invisible. Yet, without this link, all the words of a sentence are meaningless and can be re-arranged in a way so that they mean, reflect and describe other realities.
All the same, at this point, I should add that, in reality, language is not necessary for communication; it is only a low means of communication. Animals and even insects communicate with one another better than humans do. This fact deletes the stupidity of the idiots like Aristotle, and at the same time it demonstrates that longer we stick to rationalism and the Aristotelian thought, farther from the truth we will be and deeper into wars and misunderstanding we will be plunged.
A man, who has not awakened in the spiritual universe, can never have a clue of what exists in the material universe; this is so because nothing was created in the material universe without a counterpart (soul, spirit, etc.) in the spiritual universe. For this reason, the sciences of all the ancient Oriental nations were comprehensive systems of learning that combined spiritual and material research; ancient scholars never dissociated the spiritual aspect from its material complement of an item, point or issue. Consequently, every man reads a text differently from another, according to their progress in being re-connected with their soul.
Otherwise, one needs to stop in almost every line of a text and make questions about what he reads in order to extract further details and, above all, reach and grasp the deeper meaning of the text.
You are lucky that you realized this issue, namely that you had not read even one single book correctly, before you understood that this serious trouble was real. Most of the people do never reach that level. Even worse, in our days, there are many professors, specialists, experts, researchers and intellectuals who do not reach the point that you mention. They then project their mentality and knowledge, opinion and predilection onto the text that they read, and they don’t truly read the text that they have in front of their eyes, but an imaginative text that they create by failing to separate their personal delusion (i.e. their sick ego/I say ‘sick’ because ego is always so) from the true text that they supposedly read.
V. Rejection of the fallacy of Hellenism: starting point of every effort of De-Westernization
There is no ‘inconvenient truth’ about Ancient Greece. Your sentence is a minimal understatement.
In fact, there is a devastating truth, as documented by numerous sources, which simply deletes once forever the dreadful forgery ‘Ancient Greece’, which never existed.
Whereas Ivan IV and the Muscovites of his time knew the truth, i.e. knew nothing about Ancient Greece, you live within an enormous falsehood that had started being elaborated in Western Europe; thence it was diffused already in the last days of Tatar-Muslim prevalence in Russia. However, it took some time for this falsehood to be diffused outside Western Europe, which is the region where it was produced. The period of the diffusion of this enormous fallacy we call ‘colonialism’. Russia was never colonized at the military level, but even at the times of Romanov, it was colonized at many levels, namely political, economic, socio-behavioral, artistic, educational, academic and intellectual.
The Western European falsehood about Ancient Greece does not only involve distortion and misinterpretation of Ancient Greek and Latin sources, but it also includes systematic and extensive concealment of other historical sources. Now, this concealment is disproportionate, extraordinary and unprecedented. It starts with the Western scholars, who first explored Anatolia, North-Northwestern Africa, Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia, Sudan and Eastern Africa, Yemen, India, and China. These people, before traveling to explore, had studied all Ancient Greek and Latin texts about those lands, peoples, monuments, faiths and civilizations. As you can understand, these views and standpoints were external, irrelevant, erroneous and at times nonsensical. In fact, they did not consist in an authoritative source about those nations, empires and histories.
Herodotus’ and Plato’s descriptions of Iran and Egypt are ridiculous, idiotic and utterly valueless; they have the ‘value’ that an ignorant traveler’s idea has about a land that he has no skills, stamina and predisposition to duly study. The same is valid for other Ancient Greek travelers’ narratives about Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Iran, Anatolia, Egypt and other regions. Those guys did not know even the correct terms to describe the achievements and the traits of the great civilizations they wrote about, let alone the vast theoretical-spiritual background that these terms reflected.
Beyond that, there is an even more disastrous comparison: although there are -in Ancient Oriental sources- many references to the various and different nations that modern European scholars name “Ancient Greeks”, these passages are relatively few, brief and secondary because simply the Ancient Ionians, Aeolians, Achaeans and Dorians were not civilized enough to possibly attract the interest of the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Hurrians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Egyptians and the Iranians. Ionia and Aeolia in Western Anatolia produced a civilization lower than that of the Phrygians and the Lydians who were better documented in Assyrian cuneiform sources. Even more importantly, Greece, i.e. the most confined part of the Balkan Peninsula, south of Mount Olympus, was a peripheral land far from the great centers of civilization.
Only when a serious trouble originated from those lands, like the Peleset-Pelasgian-Philistine reaction against the Achaean siege and destruction of Troy, we have longer descriptions in Oriental historical sources. This was the case of the ‘Sea Peoples’, as the Ancient Egyptians called the Peleset and their allies, Trojans included. When, as allies of the Hittites, the Achaeans were asked to attack Troy and they achieved to conquer the highly important city, the reaction of the enemies of the Achaeans, namely the Pelasgians, was forceful.
Near colorization of part of the bas-reliefs
Part of the bas reliefs of the northern external wall of Ramses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West); texts and bas-reliefs full narrate the three battles that Ramses III won to disperse the Sea Peoples.
Drawing of a larger part of the bas-reliefs
First pylon of the Medinet Habu temple
Ramses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West); view from the southeast
The Anti-Achaean and Anti-Hittite Pelasgians formed an alliance and then rebelled against the Achaeans and ruined them (which is mentioned in the Ancient Egyptian texts and archaeologically evidenced as the conflagration of the Mycenaean fortresses), attacked Hattusha and destroyed the Hittite Empire, invaded the Canaanite coast of Eastern Mediterranean, notably Ugarit (a small kingdom but the Ancient World’s greatest library and center of Translation), and Amurru (today’s Syria), and ultimately attacked Egypt (Kemet).
There Ramses III, after three battles, was able to destroy and disperse the Sea Peoples. The Peleset/Pelasgians, who took part in the invasions, settled in the coast of Southern Canaan and became known as the Philistines / Palestinians. Ionia and Aeolia in Western Anatolia and Ionians, Achaeans an Dorians in the South Balkans (‘Greece’) were plunged in abject misery and barbarism for 400-450 years (1200-750 BCE). When the epic cycle’s most famous poet Homer wrote about the deeds of the Achaeans, he in fact galvanized his contemporary fellow men and called them to form kingdoms and states after the Achaean example and to propagate the pro-Achaean and anti-Pelasgian version of History and narrative (rhapsody) that he composed. But all this was marginal, unimportant and trivial to the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Iranians.
So, this is the disastrous comparison I spoke about earlier:
1- the highly civilized nations of the Ancient Orient did not bother to describe the petty stories, absurd regimes, and endless strives that characterized all those uncivilized and peripheral tribes; and
2- the hardly civilized, ignorant and uneducated Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians, originating from tiny cities-states, which were at times smaller than the area of a major Egyptian temple (like that of Karnak, Luxor), traveled to study in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran (6th – 4th c. BCE), but failed to duly conceive the spiritual and the material universes after the local spirituality, wisdom, science and imperial culture.
That is why, when these people returned back to Ionia, Aeolia, Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria and Greece, they called themselves ‘philosophers’, i.e. ‘friends of wisdom’. In reality, this term is very modest, if not pejorative; this is so because it means that they were not ‘sophoi’ (wise) and they did not possess ‘sophia’ (wisdom). So, they were merely ‘philosophoi’. This means that all those guys, like Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus, Plato and others (who have been propelled to undeserved consideration and absurd evaluation by Western European scholars and intellectuals), knew very well that, in front of an Egyptian, Babylonian or Iranian (Zoroastrian) high priest, hierophant and mystic, they were humble and puerile schoolchildren.
Now, the low position of the peoples of South Balkans and Western Anatolia opposite the great Oriental civilizations is extensively reflected in the Ancient Greek texts. Plutarch wrote about the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan religion (involving Osiris, Isis, Horus, etc.). But no Egyptian priest bothered to write about the petty cults of the clownish pseudo-divinities of the Ancient Greeks (Athena, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon, Zeus, etc.). The reason for this is double:
1- in many cases, the names of the Ancient Greek ‘gods’ were of Oriental origin, and
2- in every case, the cult was weaker and the spirituality nonexistent.
In striking opposition to the aforementioned historical realities, the 19th – 20th c. Western European explorers of colonial times, after their discoveries, excavations, decipherments, representations, essays, treatises and publications about Ancient Oriental civilizations, continued having the Greco-centric and Romano-centric approach that they had prior to their expeditions, researches, vast collection of documentation, and remarkable knowledge acquisition.
Although the texts and the monuments that they unearthed totally canceled their earlier knowledge (which was based on Ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew sources), the Western European Orientalists continued preposterously viewing the anterior (the Ancient Oriental civilizations) through the eyes and the criteria of the posterior which was apparently lower and corrupted.
This absurd attitude only corroborates the fact that what the Western European scholars saw as ‘Ancient Greece and Rome’ was not what is documented in and reflected from Ancient Greek and Roman sources, but their biased delusions and preconceived schemes of racist nature.
For this reason, the Western European scholars did not modify their measures, standards and approaches, after the discoveries made over the past 250 years. They still stick to an absolutely obsolete and fully delusional model that -even worse- they want to impose onto Russia, India, China, Africa, Latin America, and all the Muslims of the world.
You understand of course that this model is false and disastrous in two dimensions:
1- first, it is an evolutionist model that serves to propagate the false concept that in the past the humans were uncivilized and that they progressed gradually until they reached the modern times, and the Western sciences. This is entirely wrong, because the Sumerians, the Akkadians and the Egyptians before 4500 years had spiritual and physical capacities that they gradually lost. It goes without saying that Western scholars want to hide this truth.
2- second, the Greco-Roman model that they intended and tried for more than 550 years to impose encompasses all the evil and corrupt elements that the forces, which selected it, need to diffuse and impose worldwide.
The clash between Orient and Occident is a fake, and that’s why they needed to diffuse Aeschylus’ sickness, paranoia and anti-Iranian racism and Herodotus’ silly lies and heinous bias.
The case of Ctesias clearly helps us understand that the ancient manuscripts must have been drastically tempered with by Catholic monks who copied them. So, there is an extra aspect to examine, analyze and comprehend in this regard.
———————————————————–
Ctesias could not make mistakes; others put lies in his mouth!
Behistun, NW Iran; the cliff with Darius I’s relief and inscriptions
Behistun (Farsi: Bisotun / Old Iranian: Bagastana, i.e. ‘the place of God’ / Ancient Greek: Βαγίστανον όρος) was mentioned by Ctesias, who totally misunderstood the inscription, attributing it to the ‘Babylonian’ Queen Semiramis and describing it as a dedication to Zeus! In reality, the text is part of the Annals of Emperor Darius I the Great, duly detailing his victory over a rebellion; the Iranian monarch dedicated his triumph to Ahura Mazda. However, Semiramis seems to have been an entirely misplaced Ancient Greek legend about the historical Queen of Assyria (but not Babylonia!) Shammuramat. The Assyrian queen was the consort of Shamshi Adad V; she has also been mentioned in the original, Assyrian cuneiform sources as co-regent during the early phase of her son Adad-nirari III’s reign (811-783 BCE). But the Assyrian Queen had nothing to do with Mount Behistun and the Achaemenid Iranian inscription.
If we now analyze the extraordinary errors made by Ctesias on this topic, while also taking into consideration the fact that he lived long in Iran where he served as physician to Artaxerxes II, we will find ourselves in front of impossible inconsistencies. Apparently, he was fluent in Achaemenid Iranian (taking into account that he was involved in the negotiations between the Iranians and the Greeks after the Battle at Cunaxa) or he had excellent interpreters (since this was crucial for the emperor’s health). With all these points confirmed, we have every reason to ask the following: how did Ctesias make so ridiculous mistakes when visiting Behistun and getting information about the holy mountain and the local reliefs and inscriptions?
First, it is quite doubtful that any Iranian, Babylonian or Elamite historian, erudite scholar, and knowledgeable courtier knew anything (or even had access to textual documentation) about the historical Assyrian Queen, who lived 400 years before Artaxerxes II. This means that not a single interlocutor of Ctesias would ever associate the Behistun inscription with her.
Second, and even more deplorable, either Ctesias was fluent in Achaemenid Iranian or he relied on excellent translators and interpreters, it is absolutely impossible that any person related to the imperial administration would ever attribute the Behistun inscription and reliefs to anyone else except Darius I the Great.
This concludes the case about the fallacy that average people and academics alike believe today as ‘Ancient Greek History’: it is an entirely fallacious fabrication of the Catholic monks who copied and in the process distorted the ancient manuscripts, replacing truths with lies, eliminating trustworthy narratives, and inventing silly stories to put in the mouth of ancient authors. Ctesias’ texts that have been saved down to our time were systematically and unrepentantly distorted by the pseudo-Christians monks of Western Europe.
———————————————————–
The endless wars, conflicts and divisions of the so-called Ancient Greek states were superbly reflected in Thucydides’ calamitous descriptions and historical narratives; but that was exactly what the forces that selected it needed. By making it part of the Western European education, they ensured interminable strives and bloodshed in Europe and, by means of colonialism, worldwide.
The utterly Anti-Christian, Greco-Roman model serves also to propagate corruption, immorality and extreme obscenity; several Ancient Greek temples were in reality brothels in which blasphemous orgies were practiced by the idiotic followers of various pseudo-divinities that were miserably fashioned in the Antiquity after the human weaknesses. The focus on Ancient Greece that the biased Western European intellectuals attempted and the modern pseudo-historical dogma of Hellenism are the main responsible for all the problems of our time. As disruptive and destructive elements, they must be cast away by all societies that intend to advance, progress and still preserve their identity, integrity and morality. Unfortunately, the Ancient Greeks had none.
VI. Why Shakespeare and the Western European Theater must be removed from the Russian, Chinese, Indian, African, Muslim and Latin American Education
People accept customarily what is offered to them as education. It is part of what is called ‘conventional wisdom’. But this is extremely erroneous.
So, there is first a question to make about the topic; why, on Earth, should the education of a Russian or Uzbek or Chinese or Indian or Somali or Algerian or Peruvian include texts written by an English author?
Second, in the modern Western world, the value and the importance of everything depends on Marketing. You know about the advertising campaigns of Coca Cola, but you don’t know anything about the advertising campaigns of Shakespeare, which were undertaken by the English embassies, diplomats, academics, etc. The latter lasted longer – clearly.
Third, there are many people nowadays, who realize that something went wrong in the West. Unfortunately, the entire West is a wrong, sick and devious construct whose elaboration spanned over 500-600 years. Now, if someone thinks that all the mistakes, the biased conclusions, and the preconceive ideas occur only at the political level, he simply does not have a clue about how this world functions.
Shakespeare and theater in general were instrumental in the deliberate corruption and decadence of the world. Colonialism is not mere occupation of territories; mainly it is projection (or imposition) of one nation’s culture onto another nation’s culture. Now, if the colonizing power’s culture is in an intentionally corrupted and putrefied condition, colonialism turns out to be a real contamination.
Gillis Mostaert, Passion play in Antwerp; 2nd half of the 16th c.: Christian ‘theater’
There was no theater in Christian times; it was prohibited. And for a very good reason! It was denounced as obscene, vulgar, salacious and disastrous for the moral standards of a Christian society. The only sort of theater that existed in Christian societies was the representation of the Passion of Jesus. Similarly, the sole type of theater that existed in some Muslim societies was the representation of Hussein’s martyrdom in Kerbala; these theatrical acts are performed in independent buildings known as Hussainiya. About:
Islamic ‘theater’ (ta’zieh/تعزیه): painting from Lukhnow, Mughal India (ca. 1800)
Public representation of Hussein’s martyrdom in Kerbala (680 CE) in Shiraz, Iran (1977)
Theater did not exist in monotheistic cultures and societies, like Assyria and Iran.
Historically, Theater started in Egypt. It was a religious, eschatological theater that involved the representation / repetition of acts and stories narrated as a diachronic or supratemporal description of the Creation, the Life and the End of the Universe. Thus, by ‘acting’ / playing the roles of the major driving forces of the spiritual world, the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan sacerdotal colleges believed that they truly contributed to the auspicious developments that they expected to take place at the End of Times. In a way, it was a sort of magic, and they considered as such the inner enforcement of external facts and actions (also known as the royal art of Making). Since it was entirely benevolent, they considered it as moral, because it would contribute to the re-establishment of a perfect (or paradisiacal) order that had been lost.
Ancient Egyptian Opet religious festival procession: representation available on bas reliefs
Widely diffused across the Roman Empire, the Ancient Egyptian religious festival Navigium Isidis, as envisioned in 1902 by the American painter Frederick Arthur Bridgman
Bas-reliefs with representation of the main Divine Beings of the Hermupolitan dogma (known in Ancient Greek as Ogdoad); during the religious festivals, there were theatrical acts that represented the qualities and potentialities of each of them to faithful followers who participated.
Horus, Osiris & Isis: the major driving forces of the divine world, as comprehended and proclaimed in the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan religious dogma.
You can correctly assume that Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, and Hittite eschatology are vast narratives of supreme spiritual endeavors. As such they are at the origin of Ancient Hebrew Biblical (and therefore Christian and Islamic) world conceptualization, worldview, cosmogony, cosmology, eschatology and soteriology. Neither the Messiah nor the Chosen People is an invention of the Ancient Hebrews; as concepts they predate the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah by 2000 years, and there is nothing strange in it. The major Ancient Oriental civilizations constitute a hitherto unequaled peak of spirituality, transcendental power, wisdom and spiritual perfection that later nations, like the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Iranians, the Greeks and the Romans never reached. But the History of Mankind is a narrative of falls, decay, decadence and corruption, and unfortunately those, who could build great pyramids around the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE, could not do so again 2000 years later.
Meanwhile, the formation of polytheistic religions in Babylonia, Phoenicia, Carthage and elsewhere incorporated early theatrical acts in their religious processions, but this was not anymore a human comprehension of the various aspects of the Divine and of their consequences, but a human invention of otherwise nonexistent stories, which were only useful for the spiritual enslavement of the adepts of each and every religion. In this case, the religion and the early theater turned from benevolent into malevolent, monotheism became polytheism, and moral freedom was transformed into sexual exploitation of the victims (i.e. the believers). Spiritual achievements (like levitation, teleportation, materialization/manifestation, etc.) became ‘miracles’ and the great initiates turned out to become mystical swindlers, petty magicians, and slaves of evil spiritual hierarchies.
In Ancient Greece, theater took progressively a form of moral education, but it reflected the political divisions, the tribal conflicts, and the racist character of their elites, therefore giving deliberately biased and viciously erroneous representation of the ‘Other’, notably the Iranians.
Ancient Roman amphitheater in Siracusa (Syracuse), Sicily
In Ancient Rome, the amphitheaters and the circuses soon superseded to the theater, placing the military training and martial sports at the epicenter of the public interest and entertainment. During the Christian imperial times, the interest for the martial arts continued to generate great enthusiasm, massive attendance, and personal involvement as the illustrious Constantinople Tzykanisterion (Циканистерион) testifies to. (https://wiki5.ru/wiki/Tzykanisterion) Of course, this palatial sport demonstrates a Sassanid Iranian influence on the Eastern Romans. However, it also shows that Constantinople was culturally closer to Turan and Central Asia than to Merovingian France. But the ancient Greek theater was, as I said, entirely forgotten, duly rejected, and wholeheartedly despised as a villainous endeavor and obsolete, anti-Christian activity.
The Tzykanisterion was close to the great palace of Constantinople, by the seaside
After the early diffusion of the racist, colonial and fallacious concepts and ideas of the Renaissance intellectuals and anti-Christian magicians, the rise of Classicism brought forth a return to ancient Greek themes; all the same, the movement was a very wrong imitation of partly or entirely misunderstood topics. However, the end result was a sheer degradation not only in terms of art but also with respect to Moral. This we can fully understand, if we compare the representation of a topic by Ancient Greek playwright and the distortion of the same topic by a Modern European poet. The latter is definitely more immoral, more lascivious, and more sacrilegious. By the way, this entry is very distorted and absolutely false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism
Example:
Phaedra, as narrated by Euripides in Hippolytus and by Seneca the Younger in Phaedra, and
Phèdre, as represented by Racine, who was born in France a quarter century after Shakespeare came to life in England.
Morality, Theater and content degradation: Phaedra from Ancient Greece & Rome to French Classicist Theater to Hollywood Cinema
Phaedra in fresco from Pompeii, ca. 60–20 BCE
Phèdre; painting (1880) by Alexandre Cabanel (1823-1889): based on Racine’s play
Jules Dassin’s Phaedra, 1962: a disgrace of ‘art’ produced to merely glorify the immoral elite
———————————————————–
As you understand, the issue is far wider than just one author, notably Shakespeare. It has to do with the entire modern Western European literature, art, philosophy, and intellectual-political life, which set the true foundations of today’s decayed, corrupt and infamous Western world. You will perhaps tell me that the Bolshoi Theater, like many other historical theaters built in Russia during the late 18th, the 19th, and the early 20th c., is part of the Imperial, Soviet and Republican social life of the Russians. You are right; but you surely know that the Western European Theater was not part of the Russian popular culture before the early 18th c.
Introducing the modern Western theater in Russia was a key tool of Westernization. But westernizing the non-western is tantamount to subduing, altering and controlling the de facto opponents of the cruel, racist, colonial, modern Western world.
Art played an important role in this regard; many nations worldwide were corrupted not because of the Western theater but thanks to the Western cinema. But this ‘art’, i.e. the fake art of the modern Western world, is detached from Moral, Religion, Culture and Spirituality.
But in reality, there was never a civilization in which Art was uncoupled from the moral considerations, values and principles of a specific nation. In the disreputable, heinous, racist and atheist state of Ancient Athens, which was duly destroyed by the Spartans after three decades of war, the priests denounced as heresy and blasphemy the fact that the worthless sculptor and painter Phidias dared to write his stupid name on his filthy works. There is no artistic value in an impious and sacrilegious work; such shameful works must be destroyed and pulverized.
As you see, I needed an introduction before proceeding to respond to your comments about my suggestion for removal of the English playwright from the Russian (and other) educational manuals. Now, I will focus on this poet.
Of course, you certainly have an idea about the extraordinary eulogies and the unmatched hyperboles that all the English constantly use when they refer to Shakespeare; examined without exaggerations and biases, his art hinges more on his particularity and bears witness to the mystical contents of most of his works. His plays do not allow us to openly describe him as paragon of the Western European Classicism, as it happens with Racine and his opuses. However, Shakespeare used Ancient Greek and Roman stories, myths, concepts and plots extensively.
Consequently, modern English scholars’ effort to dissociate Shakespeare from Modern European Classicism is absurd. Titus Andronicus, Julius Caesar, Troilus and Cressida, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, Pericles Prince of Tyre, and Cymbeline, namely 8 (out of a total of 38) plays have -even in their title- a direct reference to Greco-Roman Antiquity. This makes of Shakespeare a major champion of Modern European Classicism and a very particular playwright indeed among the other Classicists.
VII. Shakespeare’s black magic trickery against the concept of Messiah, and his vicious hatred of Eschatology and Revelation
When it comes to the needs of today’s Russian Education and to the desires of all Russians to see their fatherland as a major pillar in a multipolar world free of Anglo-Saxon perfidy, madness and criminality, I have to state the following points:
First, Modern European Classicism has nothing to do with the Asiatic civilizations that shaped the ancient cultures, which flourished on today’s Russian soil from Scythians to Huns to Tatars; it is therefore improper for Russian schoolchildren to learn what is not theirs and not to study what is theirs.
Second, Shakespeare does not represent anything related to the culture, the past, the civilization, and the spiritual-intellectual heritage of the Asiatic nations that are adjacent to the Russian Federation, namely the Turks, the Armenians, the Georgians, the Iranians, the Kazakhs, the Turkmen, the Azeris, the Uzbeks, the Kyrgyz, the Tajik, the South Asiatic nations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Tibetans, the Uighurs, and the Koreans. We have therefore to conclude that masterpieces of the literatures of the nations are far more useful for the new Russian generation that will speak Chinese as first foreign language.
Third, there is not a shred of Christian moral in Shakespeare plays; his theatrical plays disastrously encompass unprecedented cynicism, unsurpassed narcissism, absurd arrogance, villainous scheming, abject immorality, loathsome concepts, and plenty of other very negative traits and behavioral notions that are totally unrelated to the core of the Russian soul. Quite often, Shakespeare exacerbates the negative feelings and propels evil characters to the epicenter of the plot; even worse, he does not castigate the evil-minded characters, therefore leaving the audience with the impression that no substantive punishment awaits us at the end.
Fourth, there is not a single element of Russian (or Chinese or Indian or Turanian or Iranian or African or Latin American) value, character or virtue in Shakespeare’s plays. More specifically, and with respect to Russian culture, there are no Ivan Durak, no Baba Yaga, and no three Bogatirs in Shakespeare. And more importantly, there is no Stepan Razin in English history and culture. Quite critically, at the geographical level (whi so much affects and determines Human History), there is no Volga in England. To fully complete, one needs to spell the truth out: there is no heroism in Shakespeare and there are no heroes among the English.
Dobrynya Nikitich, Ilya Muromets, and Alyosha Popovich, i.e. the three Bogatirs after Victor Vasnetsov (1898)
Fifth, in many of his plays, Shakespeare incorporates eschatological and messianic stories and plots, but he does it in a most counterfeit manner. Through his mystical affiliation with the early Freemasons and other secret societies, Shakespeare had been ostensibly initiated in corrupted forms of the Ancient Egyptian Isiac mysteries. Isis- and Horus-related cults flooded, as you know, the Roman Empire in the first 3-4 centuries of the Christian era. Many Isea (Iseum is a temple dedicated to Isis) were excavated and monuments found in Europe, England included. The Egyptian esoteric tradition survived in England clandestinely forming at the antipodes of the Christianization a sub-culture that went down to the Knights Templar and later mystical orders; however, the tradition was progressively corrupted and spiritually dead.
Representation of an Iseum on a Roman fresco from the temple of Isis in Pompeii
Osiris, Horus and Isis: drawing from bas relief, made by the authors of the book ‘Egypt, Handbook for Traveling’ that was published (1898) by the German Verlag Karl Baedeker, the world’s pioneer in travel books. The prestigious edition comprises also 20 maps, 55 plans and 66 views and vignettes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baedeker
The original initiates of Isis’ esoteric orders and the faithful, who adored the goddess in Isis’ temples throughout the Roman Empire, believed the Iwnw Heliopolitan dogma that was also known as Ennead among Ancient Greeks during the Late Antiquity. This comprehensive spiritual system of Egyptian cosmogony-cosmology-eschatology/soteriology was extensively popularized in Greek and Latin thanks to the numerous Isis Aretalogies (Ареталогия). Plutarch expanded on the topic in his De Iside et Ossiride (About Isis and Osiris/ Об Исиде и Осирисе), which is part of the voluminous opus Moralia (Ethics). About:
In several of his plays, Shakespeare ostensibly rewrites the Isis-Osiris-Horus myth. This becomes strikingly clear in Hamlet. In an article of mine published before 30 years under the title “What a priesthood is and how it functions” (Trito Mati, Athens-Greece, September 1993), I established the correct parallels among
a. the original Ancient Egyptian myth,
b. the Revelation by John, and
c. Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
You can find the article (scanned pages of the review) online here (3rd page from the end, in 4 columns):
The correspondence of the major elements of the Ancient Egyptian myth to the main characters of Shakespeare’s play is a vast topic that would need a book to analyze. I herewith provide you with a brief diagram.
Egyptian Myth
Revelation by John
Shakespeare’s Hamlet
Osiris
God
The assassinated King Hamlet, Hamlet’s father
Isis
woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars
Gertrud, the Queen
Seth
Satan/Dragon
Claudius, the fratricidal king (of this world)
Seth (ditto)
{not mentioned}
Polonius, chief priestly figure and father of Ophelia
Nephthys
{woman sitting on a red beast}
Ophelia
Horus
King of Kings
Hamlet
substitute of Seth
beast coming out of the sea/Antichrist
Laertes
Now, all this is not merely useful for comparative literary analysis and for a dissertation in History of Religions. What matters most in this regard is the way Shakespeare was personally involved in the distortion of the Ancient Egyptian narrative, the Isiac myth, and the eschatological/messianic plot. And this is the most obscure and the most vicious part of Shakespeare’s role and work.
Egyptian Isis as the Christian Revelation’s ‘Woman Clothed with the Sun’ / From Apocalypse Picture Book; English, c. 1255-60; Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts (MRMSS) B1 350 B MS M.0524; the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York – http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/16/110814
Egyptian Nephthys as the Christian Revelation’s ‘Woman sitting on a red beast’/ From Beatus of Liébana’s Las Huelgas Apocalypse, Spain, ca.1220 (purchased by Pierpont Morgan, 1910); Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts (MRMSS) B1 363 B MS M.0429; Pierpont Morgan Library – https://www.themorgan.org/collection/Las-Huelgas-Apocalypse/30
Different moments of the ultimately cosmic, eschatological clash between Horus and Seth (: the Antichrist or Laertes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet), as depicted on numerous bas-relief panels of the interior side of the external wall of the Horus Temple at Edfu (Behedet in Ancient Egyptian) in Upper Egypt, 750 km south of Cairo. The Pharaoh Ptolemy X (Alexander I) appears in several bas reliefs as also fighting against Seth, which symbolizes his close cooperation with the Messianic Heliopolitan priesthood and epitomizes the pro-Heliopolitan nature of his deeds. Seth is alternatively represented as hippopotamus or crocodile. About:
The pylon of the Temple of Horus at Edfu: the most voluminous corpus of texts of the world’s eschatological literature
Entire walls covered with panels of symbolic descriptions detailing, in texts and bas-reliefs, the major episodes of the End Times’ mythical (i.e. absolutely real at the spiritual and the material universes) fight between a. Horus (or Hamlet, Ninurta, Etana, Tasmisu, Messiah, Mahdi, King of Kings, Jesus Christ, Saoshyant, Maitreya, etc.) and b. Seth (or Laertes, Ullikummi, Masih ad-Dajjal, Antichrist/Beast, etc.) Brief presentation – interpretation of Horus’ eschatological drama & ultimate Victory: Edfu Temple and the Sacred Drama of Horus https://egyptraveluxe.blogspot.com/2014/11/edfu-temple-and-sacred-drama-of-horus.html
Read first the Ancient Egyptian myth (either Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts or Plutarch’s essay)! You get an impressive feeling of an overwhelming supratemporal victory and an enthralling prevalence of Horus-Messiah, who rules the spiritually rearranged and rejuvenated world as Emperor, having totally eliminated the evil (Seth).
Read the Revelation by John! There, you get an even more fascinating description of the victory of the King of Kings and of the annihilation of a) Satan (Dragon), b) the Woman sitting on the red beast, c) the Antichrist (Beast), and d) the Pseudo-Prophet. It is an identical narrative, which is incorporated within the nascent Christianity, although in Jesus’ words we find no reference to the three latter spiritual entities.
Read now Shakespeare’s Hamlet! Although basic parts of the plot and even the critical clash (Hamlet exterminating Claudius) are there, we observe with extreme indignation that, minutes after vanquishing Laertes, Hamlet dies too, when he and the rest hear the news of Fortinbras arriving. This makes the difference; the evil difference, I mean. Fortinbras is an absolutely unnecessary figure or character. He is absolutely useless and utterly nonsensical.
Only because the Satanic nature of Shakespeare wanted the Messiah (or Horus or Jesus-Christ or Mahdi or Etana or Saoshyant or Maitreya) dead and unable to savor his victory, the need for an extra character was created in the plot. It is a devilish trick against the noblest of all prophecies.
Do you know, Fedor, what Fortinbras means?
It means that there will not be any Kingdom of Heaven, because the Messiah/Horus will die at the moment of his victory. This is the World History’s most hateful, most lowly, and more fallacious concept; it constitutes the most blasphemous rejection of the Christian Revelation by John, and of all the anterior and posterior revelations, eschatological epics, and Messianic narratives. It is a vicious and shameless attempt to exterminate Soteriology and a conscious effort to prevent the Ultimate Emperor and Redeemer from ruling the Mankind with iron fist (inferred in Isaiah 11:4; explicitly stated in Psalms 2:7-9; and repeatedly evoked in Revelation 19:15, 12:5, 2:26-28).
Why is this so? Why is Fortinbras so badly needed to Shakespeare’s mystical and devilish peers? This is easy to answer! The evil societies cannot stand every notion of Kingdom of Heaven, because this brings forth their irrevocable annihilation; they therefore passionately and continually intend to disreputably prolong the present situation of the Fallen Mankind as long as they can. Their ‘poets’ perform therefore all possible acts of Black Magic to obtain the desired results. And the premeditated distortion of an eschatological narrative, plot and development, particularly when it is part of a play repeatedly performed by actors and formidably contemplated / cherished by the audience over the centuries (which means an enormous number of victims whose spirituality was held captive), is a very sophisticated form of Black Magic.
In Shakespeare’s malevolent and black magical eschatology, the Messiah (Horus or Hamlet) wins over the Antichrist (Seth or Laertes), but dies soon after! This irrevocable fact of the World Literature convincingly demonstrates where the location of Evil on Earth is.
Consequently, with a fallen human Fortinbras as bogus-ruler, the present condition will continue, and the (disastrous for Shakespeare and his peers) Kingdom of the Heaven will be delayed or averted.
Shakespeare did not have the strength or the paranoia to make Laertes kill Hamlet. This is genuinely impossible. He therefore did not attack spiritual forces that would madden and annihilate him on the spur of the moment, namely at the time he would be writing such an execrable obscenity. However, his evil nature was good enough to invent the Satanic trick: ‘the Messiah/Horus wins only to die after his victory’. Preposterous!
Exploring Shakespeare’s evil profundity, one can therefore unveil the depth and the extent of the English perfidy. I need now to terminate my lengthy response.
You are very knowledgeable, Fedor! But you seem to forget a critical detail.
Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616.
His active years are thought to have been between 1585 and 1613.
But the most important event of his life was not the coronation of James VI & I, who was the successor of Elizabeth I.
The historically most determinant fact that took place during Shakespeare’s life was the war between Spain and England (1585-1604) and mainly the circumnavigation of England and Ireland by the Grande y Felicísima Armada (also known as Invincible Armada), i.e. the Enterprise of England undertaken by the Imperial Spanish fleet in July-August 1588.
If the Spaniards won, you would never know Shakespeare and his black magical texts, which are idiotically staged in numerous countries worldwide only at their own detriment and to the prejudice of billions of readers and spectators.
You don’t need either Shakespeare or English in Russia. No one needs them.
De-Occidentalization is the guarantee for the Russian victory; and as you can guess, the term comprises also the most resolute de-Anglicization.
Replace therefore Shakespeare in the Russian Education syllabus with the Azeri Nizami Ganjavi, the Armenian Movses Khorenatsi, the Georgian Shota Rustaveli, the Iranian Ferdowsi, the Turanian-Indian Amir Khusrau, the Chinese Guo Jujing (郭居敬) and you will discover all the musical undulations of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade!
Removing Shakespeare from your education and defenestrating England out of the new multipolar world order, you will lose nothing, but you will gain the whole world! And the world will gain peace.
Thank you again for the opportunity you offered me to expand on these topics!
II. Skillful Western European Falsification of Russian History
A. Erroneous contextualization of Archaeology of Northern Asia
B. Deliberate use of overlapping terms: Northern Asia, Siberia, and Scythia
C. Prehistory and Ancient History of Northern Asia are subject to modern borders and to the meaningless attempts for ‘national archaeology’
D. Failure to discern Northern Asia in its entirety and true dimensions
E. Deliberate, multifaceted distortion of the Asiatic Turanian Migrations
F. Minimization of the cataclysmic presence and prevalence of the Turanian nations throughout Eastern Europe
G. European academia-backed biases: malignant disregard of the spiritual value of Kievan Rus, and absurd focus on ethnic, racial and linguistic considerations
H. Erroneous focus on Kievan Rus and disastrous neglect for Volga Bulgaria
I. Concealment of the historical reality of the Turanian (‘Tatar-Mongol’) period
Russia, Ukraine and the World-III: the need for a New UN or how UK, US, France and NATO must be defenestrated from the world (28 March 2023)
megalommatiscomments 
