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-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)
Известный французский академик Жан Батист Дюрозель был уполномочен Комиссией Европейского Союза (в то время Европейских Сообществ) и лично Жаком Делором написать «Европейскую историю Европы». Эта книга обосновывает создание Европейского Союза во 2-й половине 20-го века. как венец всех предыдущих усилий по созданию единого государства на континенте. Книга была написана на французском языке (L’Europe: histoire de ses peuples, Paris, Perrin, 1990, 708 стр.) и должна была стать (как она действительно стала) основным учебником европейской истории для среднего образования всех Государства-члены ЕС. По этой причине на местном уровне были произведены многочисленные переводы, и таким образом книга стала краеугольным камнем европейской идентичности; что касается стран, которые не были государствами-членами в 1990 г., но стали позже, книга была переведена на официальный язык (или официальные языки) каждой страны после ее присоединения.
Как и следовало ожидать, шовинистическое, расистское и фальшиво-европейское государство Греция составляло исключение.
Славян принимают за греков
Созданная колониальными державами Франции и Англии как псевдогосударство и орудие западноевропейских замыслов против Османской империи, «Греция» впервые в мировой истории стала названием государства в соответствии с Эдирнскими/Адрианопольскими договорами. в 1829 г. и Лондонский протокол в 1830 г. В прошлом «греческий» («эллин») был самым уничижительным термином для более чем 1100 лет христианско-римского и восточно-римского правления (330-1453 гг.), тогда как «Греция» была просто географический термин, используемый для обозначения этой маргинальной и в остальном бесполезной провинции.
Эта провинция была последним вместилищем VI в. н.э. катастрофический приток славян. Это массовое вторжение положило безвозвратный конец существованию грекоязычного народа на Южных Балканах. Император Восточной Римской империи Константин Багрянородный писал об этом факте, но псевдоисторики сегодняшнего расистского греческого государства получают зарплату как фальшивые профессора, чтобы дискредитировать этого высокоинтеллектуального императора!
Исповедь древнегреческого небытия
Еще до христианизации Римской империи знаменитый эдикт Каракаллы (Constitutio Antoniniana; 212 г. н.э.) ясно дал понять, что в Римской империи не было «греков», кроме как языковой особенности; безоговорочно согласившись стать гражданами Римской империи, все грекоязычные люди на Балканах (юг Македонии), в Анатолии (Малая Азия) и в других местах признали, что не было греческой интеллектуальной, идеологической, имперской или политической, социально-поведенческой и государственной идентичности. До римского вторжения и последующего объединения всех земель вокруг Средиземноморья «Греция» была просто географическим термином, обозначающим земли к югу от Македонии и Иллирии; но не было этнического, племенного, языкового, интеллектуального, духовного, религиозного, не говоря уже о государственном, единства. Вот почему они убивали друг друга, как мух; а их историографы были низкого уровня, потому что они так и не достигли должного духовного и имперского уровня посвящения. Другими словами, они так и не стали настоящими, безличными и объективными имперскими писцами. Вот почему они писали свой бред (подобно Фукидиду), бесполезно распространяясь на гражданские войны, которые еще больше разжигали ненависть, злобу, раздоры, вражду и войны среди этого несчастного населения.
Столицей Александра был Вавилон, а не Пелла, не Афины!
Только два иностранных царя, Филипп II Македонский и его сын и преемник Александр, вторглись и наложили временный порядок на эти хаотичные элементы. Но Александр презирал все греческое, поэтому он выбрал Вавилон столицей, а согдийскую царевну Роксану женой, после того как заменил себя Дарием III, став таким образом шахом Иранской империи.
Колониальная лесть и имперские обещания южнобалканским бродягам
Еще хуже обстояло дело в южных балканских пределах в 1821-1828 гг., потому что в жилах местного населения славянского, албанского, турецкого, влахского и иного происхождения не было ни капли древнегреческой крови; они говорили на множестве разных языков, и единственным средством общения между ними был османский турецкий язык. Этому несчастному населению преступные колониальные гангстеры, после того, как выдавали себя за «филэллинов» и рассказывали дешевый вздор для идиотов, продавали ложь о якобы славном прошлом, гипотетическим потомком которого будет этот жалкий народ.
Фальшивый новогреческий язык для поддержки псевдогреческого расизма
Поверив в злобно сконструированный псевдомиф об эллинизме, эти группы населения были вынуждены изучать заранее сфабрикованную (находящимся во Франции Адамантиосом Корайсом) идиому (который навязывался в школах диктаторским и геноцидным образом) и были одурачены в течение двух столетий подряд.
Им постоянно рассказывали параноидальную ложь о так называемом великолепии вымышленных древних греков, которые «цивилизовали мир». Это превратило ужасно жалкую и этнически ублюдочную псевдонацию в непомерно высокомерных хвастунов, чья жизнь зависит от непрерывного и истерического осуждения всех других, соседних или нет, наций (особенно македонцев, болгар, албанцев, турок и иранцев) как культурно «низших» людей – предки которых были (опять же гипотетически) «цивилизованы» предками сегодняшних греков!!!
Сегодняшняя Греция действительно является расистским государством по преимуществу.
Затем пришел Жан Батист Дюрозель!
Своей превосходной книгой Дюрозель почти автоматически высмеял всех клоунов греческих поддельных университетов (до сих пор в псевдодемократической, криптототалитарной Греции запрещено создавать частные университеты), в которых невежественные историки, идиотские археологи, бессмысленные политологи, клоунские эллинисты и абсолютно шарлатанские византинологи (sic!) работают (или действуют, если хотите) – не проводить истинные, подлинные исследования, а раболепно поддерживать преступную, расистскую догму эллинизма, которая является наихудшей формой нацизма из когда-либо существовавших.
Гнев шовинистической псевдогреческой толпы против Дюрозеля
Затем, в 1990 году, из-за требования ЕС перевести книгу Дюрозеля на греческий язык, вся ментальная нечистота необразованной, невежественной и дряхлой греческой толпы захлестнула средства массовой информации, распространяя беспрецедентные оскорбления в адрес Дюрозеля, ЕС, Европы, европейских университетов и… остаток мира! Интеллектуально преступные, академически зловонные и умственно жалкие профессора университетов и академики Греции либо хранили молчание, либо встали на сторону толпы, чтобы стать более популярными как якобы защищающие «права» «греческой» нации. Эта ситуация свидетельствует о хорошо скрываемой реальности; фальшивые греки последних двух столетий, которые на самом деле представляют собой испорченное население, лишенное своей истинной восточно-римской (не «византийской») православной идентичности, никогда не чувствовали себя «европейской» нацией. Поэтому их огромный психологический комплекс неполноценности проявляется каждый раз, когда какое-либо реальное событие подчеркивает, что они — второсортная, необразованная псевдострана, без целостности, без дисциплины, без правил, без морали и без смысла существования.
Юго-восточными границами Европы являются границы Албании, Македонии и Болгарии.
Я считаю самым выдающимся достижением своей жизни и самой большой честью то, что я лично защитил Жана Батиста Дюрозеля, его книгу и академически-интеллектуальный подход от всех тех негодяев (толпа и нацистская элита и государство Греции), которые нашли мою Мольбу из 2800 слов для Книга Жана Батиста Дюрозеля как хороший повод оскорбить и меня и выгнать.
Анти-Дюрозельская истерия в Греции и грядущий конец Греции
Мольба была опубликована в греческом еженедельнике Oikonomikos Tahydromos 7 февраля 1991 года, хотя была написана 30 августа 1990 года.
Это вызвало более 30 бессмысленных, оскорбительных и нелепых ответов как от предвзятых ученых (которые писали против меня только для «оправдания» позиций, которые они занимали, не имея надлежащей квалификации — что является очень распространенным случаем в никчемном псевдогосударстве «Греция» ) или необразованная толпа, принявшая защиту мною исторической правды за лично для них оскорбительную! Такова их испорченность, что они не могут понять, что единственное, чего они в конце концов добьются таким образом, — это полное ядерное уничтожение Греции.
The famous French academician Jean Baptiste Duroselle was commissioned by the Commission of the European Union (European Communities at the time) and Jacques Delors personally to author a European History of Europe, which would justify the establishment of the European Union in the 2nd half of the 20th c. as the crown of all earlier efforts to establish one state across the continent. The book was written in French (L’Europe: histoire de ses peuples, Paris, Perrin, 1990, 708 p.) and it was geared to become (as it really did) the basic textbook of European History for the secondary education of all EU member states. For this reason, numerous translations were produced at the local level, and the book became in this manner the cornerstone of the European identity; as regards countries that were not member-states in 1990 but became later, the book was translated to the official language(s) of each country after its adhesion.
As one could anticipate, the chauvinist, racist, and bogus-European state of Greece made the exception.
Slavs taken for Greeks
Being produced by the colonial powers of France and England as a pseudo-state-tool for Western European schemes against the Ottoman Empire, ‘Greece’ became for the first time in World History the name of a state, following the treaties of Edirne / Adrianople in 1829 and the London Protocol in 1830. In the past, ‘Greek’ (‘Hellene’) was a most pejorative term for more than 1100 years of Christian Roman and Eastern Roman rule (330-1453), whereas ‘Greece’ was used as a merely geographical term for this marginal and otherwise useless province which was the final receptacle of the 6th c. CE cataclysmic Slavic influx that put an irrevocable end to the existence of the Greek-speaking people in South Balkans. Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote about this fact, but the pseudo-historians of today’s racist Greek state get their salaries as fake professors in order to discredit this highly intellectual emperor!
Confession of the Ancient Greek Nothingness
Even before the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the famous Edict of Caracalla (Constitutio Antoniniana; 212 CE) made it clear that there were no ‘Greeks’ except as a linguistic particularity within the Roman Empire; by unconditionally accepting to become citizens of the Roman Empire, all the Greek speaking people in the Balkans (south of Macedonia), in Anatolia (Asia Minor), and elsewhere admitted that there was no Greek intellectual, ideological, imperial or political, socio-behavioral and state identity. Before the Roman invasion and the subsequent unification of all lands around the Mediterranean, ‘Greece’ was simply a geographical term denoting lands south of Macedonia and Illyria; but there was no ethnic, tribal, linguistic, intellectual, spiritual, religious -let alone governmental- unity. That is why they were killing one another like flies; and their low level historiographers, who never attained the due spiritual and imperial level initiation to become proper, impersonal and objective, imperial scribes, wrote their nonsense (like Thucydides) uselessly expanding on civil wars – which further proliferated hatred, rancor, strife, enmity and wars among those wretched populations.
Alexander’s Capital was Babylon, not Pella, not Athens!
Only two foreign kings, Philip II of Macedon and his son and successor Alexander, invaded and imposed temporary order on those chaotic elements. But Alexander despised all things Greek, and that’s why he chose Babylon as capital and the Sogdian princess Roxanne as wife, after he substituted himself to Darius III, thus becoming the Shah of the Iranian Empire.
Colonial flattery and imperial promises to South Balkan vagabonds
Now, the situation was even worse in the South Balkan confines in 1821-1828, because not even a droplet of Ancient Greek blood could be found in the veins of the local populations of Slavic, Albanian, Turkish, Vlachic, and other origin; they were speaking numerous different languages and the only means of communication among them was Ottoman Turkish. To those misfortunate populations the criminal colonial gangsters, after posturing as ‘Philhellenes’ and narrating cheap flimflam for idiots, sold the fallacy of a supposedly glorious past of which that wretched populace would be the hypothetical offspring.
Fake Modern Greek language to support Pseudo-Greek Racism
Believing the viciously constructed pseudo-myth of Hellenism, those populations were forced to learn a prefabricated (by the France-based Adamantios Korais) idiom (which was imposed in the schools in a dictatorial and genocidal manner) and were fooled for two consecutive centuries, being incessantly told paranoid lies about the so-called splendor of the fictional Ancient Greeks who ‘had civilized the world’. This turned the execrably miserable and ethnically bastard pseudo-nation to exorbitantly arrogant braggarts whose lives depend on ceaselessly and hysterically deprecating all the other, neighboring or not, nations (notably the Macedonians, the Bulgarians, the Albanians, the Turks, and the Iranians) as culturally ‘lower’ people – whose ancestors were (hypothetically again) ‘civilized’ by the ancestors of today’s Greeks!!!
Today’s Greece is indeed the racist state par excellence.
Then, Jean Baptiste Duroselle came!
With his superb book, Duroselle quasi-automatically ridiculed all the clowns of the Greek bogus-universities (still today, it is prohibited to establish a private university in pseudo-democratic, crypto-totalitarian Greece) whereby ignorant historians, idiotic archaeologists, nonsensical political scientists, clownish Hellenists, and absolutely charlatanesque Byzantinologists (sic!) work (or perform if you like) – not to carry out true, genuine research but to subserviently support the criminal, racist dogma of Hellenism, which is the worst form of Nazism that has ever existed.
The chauvinist pseudo-Greek mob’s anger against Duroselle
Then, in 1990, due to the EU demand for a Greek translation of Duroselle’s book, all the mental sewerage of the uneducated, ignorant and decrepit Greek mob flooded the mass media spreading unprecedented insults against Duroselle, EU, Europe, European universities and … the rest of the world! The intellectually felonious, academically malodorous, and mentally pathetic professors of universities and academicians of Greece either kept silent or sided with the mob to become more popular as supposedly defending the ‘rights’ of the ‘Greek’ nation. This situation testifies to a well-concealed reality; the fake Greeks of the last two centuries, who are in reality a defaced populace deprived of their true Eastern Roman (not ‘Byzantine’) Orthodox identity, never felt as a ‘European’ nation. Their immense psychological complex of inferiority is therefore expressed every time a real event underscores that they are a second class, uneducated pseudo-country with no integrity, no discipline, no rule, no morals, and reason of existence.
The southeastern borders of Europe are those of Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria.
I consider as my life’s most outstanding achievement and most distinct honor that I defended Jean Baptiste Duroselle personally and his book and academic-intellectual approach against all those rascals (the mob and the Nazi elite and state of Greece), who found my 2800-word Plea for Jean Baptiste Duroselle’s book as a good reason to insult me as well and to force me out.
The anti-Duroselle hysteria in Greece and the forthcoming end of Greece
The Plea was published in the Greek weekly Oikonomikos Tahydromos on the 7th February 1991, although it was written and sent on 30th August 1990. It generated more than 30 nonsensical, insulting and ridiculous responses from either biased academics (who wrote against me only to ‘justify’ the positions that they held without being properly qualified – which is the very common case in the meritless pseudo-state ‘Greece’) or uneducated mob that mistook the defense of the historical truth by me as personally insulting for them! Such is their depravity that they cannot realize that the only thing that they will finally achieve in this manner is the total nuclear annihilation of Greece.
The Earth is one and undividable; the historical presence of several major empires over the past 45 centuries does not consist in a division but rather in a union around the same human, universalist-ecumenist ideals. From Sargon of Akkad (薩爾貢/سارگون) to the Qing, the Romanovs, the Ottomans and the Qajar, various empires incarnated these very old, common to all, and permanently cherished ideals in their respective locations. And by entering in endless commercial, cultural and spiritual exchanges, the great realms of Afro-Asia gave new dynamics to the magnificent soar made by the original civilizations that started in the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE in Mesopotamia (美索不达米亚/ بین النهرین) and Egypt. And the Silk-, Spice- and Frankincense Routes across Lands, Deserts and Seas, which are commonly called ‘the Silk Roads’, demonstrated very well the supreme human value, i.e. the Unity of Earth Life, removing in reality all the frontiers across the main landmass where the Mankind dwells. About:
Starting with the late 15th and early 16th c., mankind was hit with an unprecedented plague that originated from a minor and insignificant peninsula, which had never been viewed as the center of a civilization or the location of a meritable kingdom by any civilized nation: Europe. I mainly refer to the current territories of Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, Belgium and England. These lands alone represent nowadays the historical meaning of what people define as “Europe” today.
I. Europe is not a Continent
There is a troublesome hiatus in this regard, and it is necessary to make things clear. When people across the world think today of ‘Europe’ as a so-called continent (‘from the Atlantic to the Urals’), they only demonstrate to what great extent they have been deceived by the propaganda that emanated from the aforementioned modern states. This delusion of a ‘Europe – Continent’ does not exist in History; it’s a fake. The inhuman means of its propagation do not concern the scope of the present article, but surely involve the education, the publications, the mass media, the psychological operations (psy-ops), the so-called ‘political life’ (a low level farcical act), and the pseudo-culture that these states imposed at home and abroad.
Throughout the ages, Europe was never viewed as a ‘continent’ (in the sense we mean now); it did not actually consist in a continent, and -even worse- it was not the land of a civilization that impacted World History. Europe did not represent a unity of culture, tradition, faith, ancestry or language in any sense. In reality, all the useless elements of Asia and Africa ended up in Europe one way or another. And more tragi-comically for the well-propagated Fake History of Europe, the few civilized elements of Asia and Africa, which generated a rudimentary civilization on what is now called ‘European soil’ (Cyprus, Crete, Rome, Macedonia), did so by merely reproducing Asiatic and African values, arts, traditions, concepts and techniques and by bringing with them forms of spirituality, faith, moral, piety and virtue that were typically African or Asiatic in their original form.
What puts European colonials’ pseudo-historical propaganda beyond all intents and purposes is the fact that the very few civilized kingdoms, which were formed on what is now called ‘Europe’ did not identify themselves as ‘European’, did not view ‘Europe’ as a cultural unity or imperial entity, and did not care for the largest part of what we now call Europe, because simply it was worthless to them.
Alexander the Great of Macedonia, the absolute embodiment of Anti-Greek or Anti-Hellenic ruler, deployed enormous effort to succeed to the Achaemenid rulers of Iran. He was not the invader of many lands, as the modern European pseudo-historical propaganda projects him to be; he only conquered the entire Achaemenid Iran because he wanted to be an Asiatic king of kings. That’s why he deliberately made of Babylon his capital and of the Sogdian princess Roxanne his wife. But the central and northern part of the Balkan Peninsula, which would be easy to conquer, fully disinterested him. And the same is also valid for Southern Italy and Sicily where Ionians and Dorians had established colonies, let alone the useless plains of Gaul and the plateau of the Iberian Peninsula.
Achaemenid Iran
And the Roman Emperors repeatedly and convincingly proved that to them Egypt was more important than Gaul, Anatolia was more worthwhile than Iberia, and Syria was more significant than Britain. Romans undertook a naval expedition against Arabia Felix (today’s Aden), but not around the otherwise useless coasts of Sweden, Norway and Finland. Optimus princeps Trajan (98-117; 圖拉真/ تراژان), the greatest Roman emperor of all times, carried out military expeditions down to Characene (today’s southern Iraq and Kuwait) and up to Caucasus Albania (today’s Azerbaijan), but he did not have the slightest concern about the shores of today’s Poland and Estonia or the Azov Sea and the plains of Ukraine. Even more exemplarily, not one Roman Emperor bothered to invade Hibernia, today’s Ireland. About:
Through conquests and treaties, the Romans controlled in Africa a definitely larger territory than in Europe, but today’s forged maps are systematically produced in a way to scrupulously conceal this historical reality. Even worse, scholarly Orientalist bibliography is kept far from the hands of the average public (and therefore not duly popularized in education manuals, publishing houses, and the mass media) in order not to reveal the overwhelming and cataclysmic diffusion of Oriental cults, concepts, virtues, values, lifestyles, faiths, esoteric rites, mythologies, worldviews, religions, arts, symbolisms, cosmogonies, cosmologies, systems of eschatology and messianic soteriology, rites, ceremonials, forms of spirituality, wisdom and erudition across all European territories of the Roman Empire, and also in other lands in Europe. Quite contrarily to the pseudo-historical dogma that the European colonial intellectuals produced by fallaciously naming an entire period ‘Hellenistic and Roman Times’, this same period is indeed ‘Orientalist and Orientalizing Times’, due to the above mentioned prevalence of Oriental cultures and civilizations throughout Europe.
II. Colonial Gangsters, Division of the World, and the East-West Divide
A fake concept for Europe and a bogus-historical dogma were not the only calamities with which the European kingdoms affected the rest of the world; in fact, they were only two and among the last. The six colonial kingdoms used their military edge to inflict great empires and primitive structures with all sorts of disaster, destruction, ruin, death, and unadulterated inhumanity. Settler colonialism and intellectual-spiritual-cultural-intellectual-educational-academic-religious colonialism started with the evil treaty of Tordesillas (1494; پیمان تردسییاس /托德西利亚斯条约) and they soon attained unprecedented levels of monstrosity with the evil deeds of the Spanish and the Portuguese conquistadors. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (1519-1521; فتح امپراتوری آزتک توسط اسپانیا /西班牙征服阿兹特克帝国) before exactly 500 years and the destruction of the highly civilized Aztec capital Tenochtitlan (特诺奇蒂特兰/ تنوختیتلان) only heralded what would follow. About:
The division of the seas as per the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494)
In the beginning of the 16th c., when such terribly inhuman crimes started being perpetrated by the first colonial empires, namely Spain and Portugal, there were still several human empires on Earth: in 1520, the Ottoman Empire covered a sizable territory in Western Asia, Northeastern Africa, and what is now called Southeastern Europe. In Western Africa, the Mali Empire (Manden Kurufaba) was still powerful, although superseded by the Songhai Empire.
In Iran, the Safavids were in power, controlling vast lands from Central Iraq to Herat to Baluchistan. The formidable Turanian-Mongolian Empire of the Golden Horde had split, but from today’s NE Balkans and Poland to the Pacific Ocean, a number of Muslim, Buddhist and Tengrist Turanian-Mongolian khanates controlled a really enormous territory. You needed only to speak Chagatay Turkic to cross (from west to east) the vast lands of the Qasim Khanate, the Crimean Khanate, the Nogai Horde, the Khanate of Kazan, the Astrakhan Khanate, the Uzbek Khanate, the Kazakh Khanate, the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia), the Turpan Khanate, the Yarkand Khanate, and the Four Oirat confederacy. In China, the Ming dynasty was still powerful, and in 1526, Timur’s (Tamerlane’s) great-great grandson Babur took power in Delhi, eliminating the earlier sultanates and founding the formidable Gurkanian Empire of South Asia, which is better known as the Mughal Empire.
The Golden Horde (Turanian-Mongolian Empire)The divided Turanian-Mongolian Empire around 1500The Ottomans around 1520The Safavid Empire of Iran around 1520 which according to Western colonial propaganda was called ‘Persia’, although it was a Turanian Empire.The Mughal Empire of South AsiaThe Songhai Empire in the 15-16th c.
However, none of these empires’ human elites had an idea about the monstrous plans and the atrocious deeds of the then otherwise insignificant colonial barbarians, who aspired to conquer and disfigure the entire world through evil conspiracy, deceitful schemes, pernicious practices, and utterly inhuman deeds. The naivety of the Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, and Ming emperors hinges on the fact that they did not studiously monitor the deeds of the colonial powers; furthermore, they mistook the European colonials for humans, and they did not make proper plans as to how to oppose them. The worst mistake of the great Asiatic and African empires was that they did not perceive the forthcoming encounter and clash in terms of long-term perspective, eschatological agenda, and human race extinction. Still, all these empires cherished traditions and beliefs that described the ‘evil’ extensively; but the Asiatic imperial elites failed to timely identify the European colonials as the evil par excellence.
Hitherto unconceivable concepts were then introduced, and the fallacious version of History, peremptorily produced by the European colonial elites, was instrumental in projecting onto the entire world the aberration of a division between East and West (or Orient and Occident). This forgery had a double headed axe’s use:
a) it made the colonial elites, academics, diplomats, administrators, army officers, soldiers, societies and average people in general utterly believe in their ‘proven’ superiority (whereas they are indeed multiply inferior, degenerate and inhuman), and
b) it convinced the targeted nations’ elites, academics, diplomats, administrators, army officers, soldiers, societies and average people in general that they were irrevocably inferior (whereas they are indeed superior, law-abiding and human in every sense).
III. Colonial Weaponization of Knowledge and Deceitful Schemes against the Entire Mankind (1494-1925)
None of the 16th c. great imperial establishments of Asia and Africa realized the extent of the colonial perversion, subversion and systematic falsification of the World History. Study, research, exploration, knowledge, erudition and wisdom were traits, activities, qualities and virtues invariably attested throughout millennia in Asia and Africa; however, the entire scope and the final target were always the same, namely the discovery of the truth and the improvement of understanding. There was never a claim of superiority and such an attitude or claim would appear as absurd; there was competition and quite often synergy.
All the intellectuals of Ionia, Attica, Aeolia and Macedonia willingly acknowledged that they went to Mesopotamia, Egypt and Iran to be educated in the vast temples- universities of the Oriental capitals, because there was only darkness in the multi-divided and backward, petty states of South Balkans. Scholars from all backgrounds and lands used to flock to Nineveh, to Babylon, to Iwnw (Heliopolis), and to Persepolis, and later to Alexandria, to Antioch, to Nisibis, to Ctesiphon, to Istakhr, to Gundishapur, and during Islamic times to Baghdad, to Cordoba, to Cairo, and to Samarqand without idiotic prejudices of ethnic or national, ancestral or racial superiority.
However, the weaponization of knowledge, as attested in magnificent colonial grand opuses like the famous Dutch “Hortus Malabaricus” (1669-1676) and the illustrious French “La Description de l’Égypte” (1809-1829), showed that the insidious European colonial adventure was not a simple military expedition, an economic exploitation, and a national enslavement, but it consisted in the total deprivation of the colonized nations from their natural and national resources, their urban and architectural environment, their traditional knowledge and cultural heritage, and their own identity.
La Description de l’Égypte – the cover page of the monumental voluminous publication
Even worse, the European colonial plague constituted a systematic and permanent projection of the false identity of subaltern and subservient humanoid onto all the civilized Asiatic and African humans; they had been civilized, but they were forced into abandoning their culture and civilization, into being barbarized and enslaved, and into being transformed into humanoid automatons to serve their barbarian masters, i.e. the inhuman monsters of Portugal, Spain, England, France, Holland and Belgium. European colonialism was therefore the complete, irreversible and ultimate dehumanization of the ‘Other’. In the History of Mankind, we can describe European colonialism as the Crime of Crimes.
Simply, in the case of Luso-Spanish, Dutch, and Anglo-French colonialism, the ‘Other’ was the entire world, and the vicious gangsters and forgers were the most worthless barbarians of Asia’s westernmost and most uncivilized peninsula. The result of the detrimental shock was evident: the Mughal Empire could not last more than 180 years after the publication of the “Hortus Malabaricus”, and the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist less than 100 years after the publication of the “Description de l’Égypte”. The morale of the story is easy to figure out: when the foreigners know ‘your’ possessions better than you do, you better ask the astrologers how much time is left before your state disappears.
The French colonial empireThe English colonial empire
This is so because, if foreigners know ‘your’ possessions better than you do, this means that your state is already useless and dysfunctional. It also means that your religion is apparently worthless and your sacred texts evidently valueless; and this is true, not in the sense that the religion and the sacred texts in question are meritless, but because you lost their true meaning and therefore your understanding of them is nil.
IV. Naivety and Subsequent Fall of the Oriental Imperial Elites: Mughal Empire, Qing China, Czarist Russia, the Ottomans & Qajar Iran
It is interesting that the Opium Wars started only few years before the Mughal Empire disappeared. In 1839, the power of Bahadur Shah II was not greater than that of a puppet king in the Balkans or a tribal leader in Sub-Saharan Africa. Cornered among the Ottomans, the Russians, the English in ‘India’, and the English puppets in the pseudo-state of Afghanistan, the Iranian Qajar shahs could do nothing either to help the Chinese Qing or to organize their own defense with the much demanded final dissolution of Afghanistan and with an attack against British India.
It was too late for them; or perhaps one could say that for Imperial Iran, it was already too late in 1501, when the young shah Ismail Safavi, almost adored as the Messiah/Mahdi Incarnate in his early years, was spending his nights in fabulous banquets and sexual orgies, while the Luso-Spanish armadas were sailing across all oceans, which were literally prohibited to all Muslims, Chinese and the rest by virtue of the Treaty of Tordesillas of which no Iranian intelligence ever heard anything before the 20th c.
Ismail Safavi
Under such circumstances, no one has a doubt why Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar (reign: 1797-1834) did nothing else except losing one more war to the Russians and spending his long days and his even longer nights with his 1000+ concubines, thus laboriously producing no less than 100 children and ca. 600 grandchildren (although several trustworthy historical sources include even higher numbers of heirs). The same is valid for the pious but stupid Ottomans whose best way of correcting a mistake was to commit another.
Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar
And what is the difference between the last Mughal (Bahadur Shah II) and the last Ottoman (Vahdettin)? Having got a kick in the ass, the former died (1862) in Rangoon (Myanmar) where he was exiled; having experienced the same miserable fate, the latter died in exile (1926), in Sanremo (Italy); either in the East or in the West, an exile is an exile. It is therefore a permanent shame and an irrevocable disgrace. No one can raise a claim to Neo-Safavism, Neo-Mughalism or Neo-Ottomanism without being similarly destroyed and eradicated from the surface of the Earth. And quite instructively, today’s China does not play into the Neo-Qing game; neither does Republican Russia develop Neo-Czarist delusions.
Bahadur Shah II, the powerless Mughal emperor when he was still on his throneThe exiled Bahadur Shah II in his small cabinVahdettin, the most execrable and the most miserable of all Ottomans leaves his palace to sail on an English ship to Italy where he lived in exile for the last years of his shameful life
The Opium Wars did not signal only the beginning of the European-American-Japanese colonization of China; they also heralded the beginning of the end for the Romanov. Yet, it was a period of stability for Russia – or so it seemed. From 1825 until 1881, when Alexander II was assassinated at the age of 63, Russia was ruled by only two czars, namely Nicholas I and his son. But there was no foresight, no real study of the European colonials, and no identity clarity.
The Zionist assassination of the Freemason czar Alexander IIRussia’s most shameful spot: the room where Nicholas II and his family were assassinated, thus paying for the mistake to associate Holy Russia to the unholy and devilish colonial states of France and England. Russia’s and the Romanov dynasty’s destiny would be different, if Nicholas II became the ally of Germany and Austria-Hungary and liberated India from the English colonial contamination.
Few people understand that only identity clarity can offer success in the governance of a realm and in the status it rejoices at the international level; on the contrary, identity confusion leads mathematically to defeat and destruction. Imperial Russia was in fact a Western European colonial fabrication – not by means of military invasion but by virtue of colonial stratagems. Colonial investors, agents and diplomats bribed, corrupted and utilized Russian noblemen and royals, and through subtle machinations convinced the Romanovs that they were a ‘European’ power. Thus, the Anglo-French colonials pulled the Russians into their historical forgery, persuaded them that the ‘Russians’ were ‘Indo-Europeans’, dragged them into the fallacious scheme ‘Christianity vs. Islam’ (whereas the English, the Dutch and the French elites were virulently anti-Christian), and engaged them in the same colonial competition (not anymore “Scramble for Africa” but for the entire world). However, all these developments were calamitous for Russia, and finally they led only to the demise of the entire dynasty.
The Russians were subtly made to believe that the ‘common’ enemy that they had with the English and the French was the Islamic World; this was a success of the Anglo-French colonial diplomacy. In fact, the Russians had much in common with the Muslims, whereas they had nothing in common with the Anglo-French colonial contamination.The Opium Wars: one of the worst shames of the History of MankindPu Yi, the last of the Qing emperors
As a virtually Turanian, Asiatic and Oriental superpower (like the Golden Horde), Russia had to support China in the Opium Wars, by making an alliance with Iran and by attacking Afghanistan and invading British India. But when you are an Asiatic and you think you are a European, you cannot possibly opt for the correct decision. That’s why identity clarity matters above all, when it comes to national survival. Identity recognition is a very serious and at times painful process; usually, you are neither what you think (are taught that) you are, nor what you would like to be. Only a very neutral and objective/objectivist standpoint toward past atrocities and a strict detachment from national/nationalist/nationalistic narratives, present dreams, and wishful thinking can offer you the key to your identity.
Similarly, during WW I, Russia had to be the ally of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Japan and Iran against France and England. In such a case, having no apparent reason to keep significant military forces in their western borders, the Russians could support the Ottomans against the English in Mesopotamia, Palestine and Hejaz, while three (3) million Russian soldiers with their Iranian allies could eliminate the fake state of Afghanistan and march on Delhi, invading the English colony and controlling the southern parts of Asia.
States function like human beings; the same rules apply to an individual and to a group of individuals. When someone does not do the correct thing, a mishappening takes always place. Wrong choices are constantly met with disastrous results; It was very unfortunate that the Russians participated with France and England in the vicious dismemberment of Qing China and that, in 1858-1860, through several ‘unequal treaties’ (the expression is an acknowledged historical term), they detached Outer Manchuria (外滿洲 / Приамурье). That’s why less than 60 years after Alexander II did this injustice to China, his grandson Nicholas II was deposed and assassinated. Alexander II was assassinated too (1881); but after his tragic death, Holy Russia still continued to exist. However, after his grandson’s assassination (1918), Holy Russia was no more. The ‘holy’ had been progressively but completely desecrated through the alliance with England and France.
V. Intellectual Colonialism and Orientalism
While the intellectual elites of the European colonial powers composed their false historical dogma on the basis of the intellectual-academic-cultural movements that we now call ‘Renaissance’, ‘Classicism’, and ‘Enlightenment’, arbitrarily distorting the past of their own lands, they also misinterpreted the History of Ancient Rome and the Roman Empire that they –also deliberately and erroneously- associated with them; it was a real usurpation of another nation’s past and cultural heritage. Then, peremptorily selecting earlier rejected philosophers of Ionia, worthless and forgotten politicians of Attica, long dismissed Aeolian poets, self-styled historians of Carian origin, authors of obscure past and unknown ancestry, repudiated tragedians and duly banished comedians, as well as forms of decayed lifestyle involving pedophilia and homosexuality, ritualistic orgies, and other absolutely pathetic and barbarian practices and traditions of various South Balkan tribes, they fabricated -out of thin air- what we now call ‘Ancient Greece’.
Ancient Greece never existed as a historical entity in the sense Ancient Phoenicia did. The royal divisions of the Ancient Phoenicians did not impact their culture and values that are now recognized for their coherence, consistency and uniformity. Quite contrarily, the disparate cultural elements that appear in the historical sources, the divergent religious beliefs and faithless lifestyles that are documented by means of archaeological evidence, and the incessant conflicts that pitched one ‘Ancient Greek’ city against another bear witness to the undeniable reality that ‘Ancient Greece’ never existed. In case, during the Antiquity and the Christian Times, the name had only a geographical connotation. In Islamic Times, it was duly forgotten. It is one more colonial fabrication (just like the European ‘Continent’!) geared to be an element of destructive propaganda and a double headed axe. This is what we now call ‘Hellenism’, i.e. a racist ghost.
Hitherto unconceivable concepts were then introduced, and the fallacious version of History, peremptorily produced by the European colonial elites, was instrumental in projecting onto the entire world the aberration of a division between East and West as per which
a) all the positive values, virtues, elements, contributions and exploits were delivered by the Ancient Greeks and Romans (the so-called ‘West’),
whereas
b) all the negative values, sins, disorders, embarrassments, and shames were caused by all the Ancient Oriental nations, the Eastern Christians of all denominations (Orthodox, Miaphysitic/Monophysitic, and Nestorian), and all the Muslims (the so-called ‘East’).
It goes without saying that the latter (b) were (or rather ‘had to be’) ‘lower’ than the former (a)!!
To add insult to injury, the colonial academic elites turned their intellectual and scientific robbery of the colonized nations’ natural and national resources, urban and architectural environment, traditional knowledge, cultural heritage, and diachronic identity into an unprecedentedly enormous academic fallacy. Colonial explorers, epigraphists, linguists, archaeologists, philologists and historians deciphered dozens of ancient scripts, surveyed and excavated dozens of thousands of archaeological sites, penned millions of speeches, articles, manuals and books, and filled thousands of libraries and museums with an enormous documentation which consists basically in a calamitous, venomous and discriminatory misrepresentation of the historical past of Asia and Africa. This enormous falsehood is now called Orientalism. All the discoveries, analyses, syntheses, conclusions and interpretations of the colonial Orientalist scholars were published and popularized only in a way to preserve the earlier constituted pseudo-historical dogma intact; this means automatically that vast part of the said documentation was concealed far from the average public.
There are many deliberately erroneous aspects of Orientalism; it goes beyond the scope of the present article to refute the atrocities of the Western colonial Orientalists. However, I must herewith mention a persistent and critical dimension of historical falsification that concerns the use of the forged World History that the Western colonials make.
When you initially write and teach a ‘World History’, based on historical sources that cover the period 500 BCE – 1500 CE and then, at a later stage, you discover numerous anterior sources, which reveal to you (with respect to the outright majority of the world’s historical nations) diverse aspects of spiritual exploration, intellectual endeavor, scientific research, cultural life, artistic genius, economic activity, state governance, public administration, military expedition, imperial conceptualization, and interstate relations that cover 2-3 millennia of History (which antedate the period you initially knew about), then you have to amend all your earlier criteria, preconceived ideas, measures of evaluation, moral standards, virtues, world views, concepts, and standpoints, values, theories, ideas, assumptions and conclusions, because they are -most probably- entirely wrong.
When you discover millions of texts in several languages and you get a clear idea of how life was 2000 or 3000 years before the moment you -arbitrarily and due to lack of sources- had taken as the ‘beginning of History’, then everything that you ‘knew’ (before the astounding discovery and the subsequent enrichment of knowledge) is wiped out, obliterated, and considered as obsolete once forever.
If we eventually suppose that the peremptory aberrations and the arbitrary conceptualizations of the Renaissance European colonial intellectuals were not malignant schemes providing only for the enslavement of the entire Mankind but mere errors and erroneous assumptions, then we can safely conclude that all these earlier aberrations and conceptualizations had to be immediately, completely and adequately amended in the light of the enormous amount of evidence unearthed, deciphered, studied, analyzed and interpreted.
Enuma Elish, the ancient Assyrian-Babylonian holy text that consists in the first human narrative of the Creation. After the discovery, decipherment, publication and study of the world’s earliest myths, epics and holy texts, everything changes, and we cannot afford to use posterior criteria to evaluate earlier masterpieces of spirituality and literature. On the contrary, all earlier, Assyrian-Babylonian and Egyptian, cultural and spiritual criteria apply to the evaluation of posterior epics and holy texts, notably those of the Hebrews, the ‘Greeks’ and the Romans. The Hawara papyrus with text of Homer’s Iliad. After the decipherment, study and publication of Ancient Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian and Hittite holy texts, myths and epics, the only value that Homer’s epics can possibly have is the one that the Ancient Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian and Hittite criteria allow us to assess.
The fact that this development did not happen at all and the evident practice that today’s West European and North American colonial academics and intellectuals continue diffusing the same, preconceived and widely imposed falsehood are enough to convince all persons of good intentions that the European pseudo-historical dogma has always been deliberately and inanely false from A to Z.
VI. The Fake Science of Geopolitics
Since the misrepresentation of the ‘Other’ reached such extent, it was normal for the colonial elites to develop additional nonsensical theories, which were laboriously portrayed as ‘scientific disciplines’. In fact, they were merely wishful thinking defense mechanisms that lacked historicity, objectivity, authenticity, veracity and congruity; in brief, they were tools of propaganda and means to fool the eye. One of these arbitrary schemes is what people now call ‘geopolitics’. There is no geopolitics in any sense, and there can’t be any; the term is totally meaningless and self-contradictory.
Coined by the Swedish political scientist and politician Rudolf Kjellén (1864-1922), the term ‘Geopolitics’ (initially Geopolitik in Swedish and German) contains two linguistic elements in striking contradiction to one another. Being composed of two Ancient Greek words (γη+πολιτική/ge+politiki) that mean ‘earth’ (or ‘land’) and ‘politics’, the term was geared to purportedly describe “the study of the effects of Earth’s geography (human and physical) on politics and international relations”.
This assumption raises many points; first, ‘earth’ (γη) is not ‘geography’; second, ‘geography’ (lit. description of the earth) was already an ancient science that the Ancient Greeks and Romans learned from the Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians and other ancient and highly civilized nations. Modern geography is a scientific discipline dedicated “to the study of the lands, features, inhabitants, and phenomena of the Earth and planets”, but Modern Geography and Ancient Geography are two completely different disciplines, methods, concepts and endeavors. This is still preliminary.
The main problem of the term ‘Geopolitics’ (‘earth’ and ‘politics’) is precisely that the Earth (or land) is unrelated to politics, and actually no politics can possibly apply to the Earth or most of the surface of the Earth. ‘Politics’ constitutes a very specific and historically marginal system of governance that can concern only a city-state (polis). There is no ‘politics’ in an empire, a kingdom, a nomad confederation, and a sizable realm of any racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and spiritual background. There was no ‘politics’ in Ancient Egypt, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Hittite Anatolia, Cush (Ancient Sudan), Carthage, Iran, Yemen, Turan, and China. There was no ‘politics’ in any Balkan or Anatolian kingdom; and there was no ‘politics’ in Seleucid Syria, Attalid Pergamum, Bactria, Sogdia or Kushan.
Jean-Baptiste Regnault, Alcibiades taken by Socrates. Politics can exist in a small city-state with no hereditary rule. However, a major state, let alone an empire, cannot be ruled by means of politics. As it is only the result of negotiations, material compromises, desecrated social life, corruption and impiety, politics is an improper, immoral and calamitous system even for the unfortunate cities-states that happen to be organized in this manner. But Western Europeans could not possibly understand this reality, because they had disastrously idealized the misery of Ancient Athens, one of the world’s most disreputable states.
Ancient Rome offers a good example in this regard; there was no politics in the Kingdom of Rome (Regnum Romanum; 753–509 BCE); there was politics in the Roman Republic (Senatus Populusque Romanus; 509-27 BCE); and there was no more politics in the Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum; 27 BCE-476 CE).
Subsequently, there was no ‘politics’ in the Eastern Roman Empire, in the Sassanid Empire of Iran, in the Gupta Empire, in Han, Tang, Yuan or Ming China, in the Islamic caliphates, sultanates, emirates, and khanates, in the Christian kingdoms of Western Europe or in any other nomadic confederation, realm or dominion. No system of governance can possibly be called ‘politics’ except for the republican administration of a city-state with democratic participation in the rule.
Certainly, the currently prevailing confusion makes everyone imagine that politics means governance and vice versa, but this represents only one more aspect of the multifaceted colonial propaganda that was diffused worldwide during the 19th and the 20th c. Useless to add, for any sizable realm larger than a modest self-governed city, there is no ‘politics’ today; the system is a tyranny disguised as ‘republic’ or ‘democracy’ and there cannot be any comparison between today’s fake politics and Ancient Roman or Athenian politics, except in terms of corruption, evil character, pernicious attitude, and social disorder.
So, to return to the initial point, “the effects of Earth’s geography (human and physical) on politics and international relations” (as per another definition of the fake term) should be rather called “geo-imperium”, “geo-tyranny”, “geo-dictatum” or “geo-control”; perhaps the best term would be “geo-sovereignty”. This is also proven by the deplorable contents that all the Western colonial academics, intelligence and military experts, diplomats and intellectuals invariably gave to the fake term ‘geo-politics’. Suffice it that one studies these ‘contents’ to realize that ‘geo-politics’ is an ahistorical mixture of criminal colonial targets with incessant distortions of the historical past. It has nothing to do with the ‘governance of one city with non-hereditary rule.
Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840–1914) came up with a debased theory, as per which the Ottoman Empire, Qajar Iran, Qing China, Japan, and the colonial pseudo-state of Afghanistan were facing existential threats from the so-called ‘two monsters’, namely England and Russia. This nonsense can only be the invention of a cruel American pro-French/pro-Republican colonial, who felt that -despite France’s disproportionate control of African lands- Paris did not play an important role in the so-called ‘Big Game’ between Russia and England. Had the Vietnamese Nguyen dynasty survived the French colonial onslaught, Mahan would surely have invented a much larger ‘zone of threatened realms’ (probably between the 10th and the 40th parallels north, not only between the 30th and the 40th parallels north)! He presented himself as a Christian, but he was a Biblical racist and therefore a pseudo-Christian.
Until today, Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) is viewed as the principal heresiarch of the geo-political fallacy. All that he did was to draw fake lines, which did not represent historical realities in any sense. His long celebrated ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’ (1904) reflected the harsh antagonism of German, Russian and English scholars and explorers in parts of today’s Central Asia and Western China. Many people read this book, but do not know that it was written immediately after the first expedition (1900-1901) of Sir Marc Aurel Stein (1862-1943) in Central Asia, during which the Hungarian Jewish-English explorer and British Intelligence officer carried out surface surveys, extensive reconnaissance, and excavations at Dandan Oilik, an oasis of the Taklamakan Desert. Mackinder’s book was published only months after Aurel Stein’s ‘Sand-Buried Ruins of Khotan Personal Narrative of a Journey of Archaeological & Geographical Exploration in Chinese Turkestan’ (1903).
Mackinder’s texts reflect colonial concepts, diplomatic efforts, and Orientalist terms and explorations; at the time, Aurel Stein was still using currently obsolete terms like ‘Serindia’ (China, Indochina and India viewed as an entity) and ‘Innermost Asia’ (Central Asia, Western China, Mongolia, Central and Eastern Siberia) because his time was a period of pioneering research in those territories that had not been visited by Western European colonials until then. At those days, colonial Orientalists had already gathered enough evidence to fully document the History of Turan and to understand how internal Turanian (Turkic and Mongolian) conflicts generated endless historical waves of immigrants either to the South (in today’s China) or to the West (in today’s Central Siberia, Central Asia, Iran, Western Siberia, Eastern and Central Europe). This reality is hidden behind Mackinder’s concept of ‘pivot’ that he defined as the central point in his otherwise nonexistent ‘World-island’. However, his pivot area was not historically pivotal. Worse, it never existed as a geo-historical entity!
Even if we take the Afanasievo culture (3300=2500 BCE; in the Altai Mountains) and the Andronovo culture (2000-900 BCE; north of the Aral Lake) as signs of early and successive migratory waves, we cannot afford to define today’s NE Siberia, Central Siberia, Central Asia, and Iran’s northern and central parts as the real geographical ‘pivot’ of History. Quite contrarily, pivotal for the World History was the so-called ‘Fertile Crescent’ – another pseudo-historical term that denotes Mesopotamia, Syro-Palestine and Egypt. It is from there that civilization spread to the rest of the world. But in 1904, these regions were controlled by the Ottomans (Mesopotamia and Syro-Palestine) and the Anglo-French colonials (Egypt), and there was not much at stake. Contrarily, in the lands that Mackinder described as ‘pivot’, the possible limits of a) the German involvement, b) the English infiltration, c) the Russian advance, and d) the Chinese presence were unknown, whereas all borders were essentially ill-defined.
Last, Mackinder’s tripartite division of the world {into World-Island, offshore islands (England and Japan), and outlying islands (America and Oceania)} is nonsensical either at the historical or the geographical level. Why didn’t he include Indonesia? Probably because it was already colonized by the Dutch and nothing was at stake there. Inane!
On the other hand, Karl Haushofer (1869-1946) produced a geopolitical system that reflected many historical concepts and approaches to imperial governance. In strong contrast with Mackinder’s bizarre abstractions and ahistorical maps, Haushofer’s ideas appear sound and solid. But they are not … ‘geopolitical’! They represent merely a traditional imperial worldview, and they constitute the basics of the state prosperity and expansion as documented in 18th dynasty Kemet (Egypt), Sargonid Assyria, Achaemenid or Sassanid Iran, Han or Tang China, the Abbasid caliphate, and the Timurid Empire.
As a matter of fact, there is nothing ‘new’ or ‘modern’ in Haushofer’s ideas; they are correct, but they constitute the antipodes of the colonial nonsense that we nowadays call ‘geo-politics’. I simply wonder why the distinguished German scholar did not have the courage to decry ‘geo-politics’ as a fake science and to portray the Anglo-Saxon colonial paranoia as the supreme danger for the Mankind’s survival.
The notion of the organic state, the theory of Lebensraum, the need for self-sufficiency-self-reliance (autarky), and the division of the world into spheres of influence or distinct realms (pan-regions) can be found in cuneiform, hieroglyphic, Chinese, Middle Persian, Arabic and Farsi historical sources – millennia before Haushofer put them down on a piece of paper. But they were not described as ‘geopolitical notions’; they were viewed as basics of imperial governance. The only element that did not exist during the Antiquity and the Christian-Islamic times is the delusion of dichotomy between land power and sea power. But in this, Haushofer was apparently influenced by those whom he had to firmly oppose but failed to do so: his Anglo-Saxon opponents.
As it could be expected, on the earlier basis of ahistorical sketches and arbitrary aberrations, further fallacies and false notions were progressively added. Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943) expanded the erroneous concept as per which today’s NE Siberia, Central Siberia, Central Asia, and Iran’s northern and central parts are the ‘pivotal’ area. He then peremptorily and therefore erroneously divided the Afro-Asiatic landmass into a) the so-called ‘heartland’ and b) the ‘rimland’. These jolly delusions never existed in the History of Mankind; they actually do not consist in any worthwhile synthesis or serious interpretation of the existing historical sources. They only reflect the Anglo-Saxon regimes’ final goals, and the evil methods that they intend to use in order to achieve them; in other words, one can surely describe them as ‘wishful thinking’ and properly decry them as the most serious threat against the entire Mankind.
Fake lines, fake borders, fake concepts and fake science: geo-politics
Before ending this unit, I feel obliged to shift the discussion from the false and fake ‘geo-politics’ to the true and genuine ‘geographical determinism’. When it comes to topics pertaining to the Earth’s impact on empires, peoples and cultures, one has to point out that these topics did not come to surface only in Modern Times; they have constituted an integral part of all the major civilizations of World History. They were known as part of the ancient wisdom, knowledge and sciences; and this was already known to Orientalists, historians and philologists. This knowledge we presently define as ‘geographical determinism’.
Ancient erudite scholars, high priests, mystics and explorers always viewed the material universe as hinging on the spiritual universe; consequently, they were adamant in identifying concordances between the two entities. Part of their scientific knowledge and understanding depended on their spiritual wisdom and exploration. Among the scientific disciplines that they developed and which they viewed as an undividable unity of spiritual and material knowledge and wisdom, ‘geographical determinism’ was only one.
Geographical determinism was not only a concept and a theory, but a practice and a set of criteria as to how to live in Ancient Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Hittite Anatolia, Elam, Cush, Canaan-Phoenicia, and Iran. The same is valid for Carthage, Yemen, the Indus Valley, Turan, and China. The choice of dwelling places, the urban plans, the construction of temples and palaces, the orientation of cities, the identification of sacred sites, the direction of prayer, the selection of specific locations for rock reliefs and inscriptions, the recognition of the correct spots to place enormous statues, pillars and obelisks, altars and thrones, in one word everything, depended on the conclusions drawn after a deep study of geographical determinism.
NinevehEtemenanki, the world’s holiest location as per the BabyloniansIshtar’s Gate, Babylon – Berlin MuseumParsa (Persepolis), the Achaemenid capital of Iran. Not only the selection of major sites (for palaces and temples) but also the minor details of a society’s daily life were arranged on the basis of geographical determinism.
In fact, the interconnection of the spiritual and material universes is the sole factor that denotes and specifies the nature and the traits of every single geographical point, therefore revealing its uniqueness, importance and possible use. High priests, mystics and hierophants were able to duly explore and describe the locally particular interaction of the five elements (i.e. Ether, Soft Waters, Earth, Air, and Salt Waters) and the subsequent generation of electromagnetic flow per point. This is how they concluded as regards the eventual use of the geographical point, ground, space or area.
It matters little whether you delve in Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian and Iranian Cosmogony and Spiritual Ontology (see above, as regards the five elements) or you explore the Traditional Chinese Wuxin (五行) Ontology, as per which the five elements are the following: Metal (initially conceived as Gold and corresponding to Ether), Water (evidently conceived as Soft Waters), Earth, Wood (corresponding to Air) and Fire. The conclusions were always identical. At the end of the day, either you were at the banks of Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, Huang-he (黃河/Yellow River) or Chang Jiang (黃河/Yangtze), geographical determinism functioned always as (to use a modern term) a fully accredited ‘urban environmental acupuncture’.
Traditional Chinese Wuxin (五行) Ontology
The ‘woke’ attitude to transfigure the term and turn ‘geographical determinism’ into ‘environmental determinism’ reveals only the ignorance and the paranoia of the corrupt left-wing social-justice movements and ideologies that currently exist in the worthless and already defunct Western world. This is so, because ‘geography’ meant always the study of the environment (not only the earth) in historical periods.
VII. From the Great Game to the Final Game
European colonial powers’ expansion brought destruction, barbarism, pandemics, wars, deaths, misery, poverty, inhumanity, demolition of cultures, and deracination of millions of people. European colonialism caused also two world wars and a 44-year long ‘cold war’. For these nefarious results and for all the crimes perpetrated, the European colonial states (Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, Belgium, and England) and their derivatives (USA, Canada, and Australia) will have to pay dearly for their attempt to annihilate so many historical nations, destroy their traditions, and uproot their cultures.
Quite unfortunately, the Western colonial and neo-colonial powers did not regret and did not repent for the calamitous and inhuman deeds that they carried out worldwide. There is a serious reason for this grave mistake and unacceptable attitude; the unrepentant savages of US, UK, NATO and their allies are controlled by forces that push the world to the edge, as they advance in the implementation of an eschatological agenda that provides for the extermination of more than nine tenths of the current world’s population. If this claim appears farfetched, one has only to read the text of the magnificent monument known as the Georgia Guidestones; it will be enough.
The persistent manner by which the ruling classes of the colonial powers seek to achieve the extermination of the largest part of world’s population is not a reason for inactivity and despair. There are opposite forces actually working to avert the evil plans, cancel the targets, and lead the colonial powers to self-destruction, social chaos, climactic disorder, ultimate implosion, and total decomposition. Constituting a continuation of the Shanghai Five, which started in 1996 as a mutual security agreement between China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) consists in the greatest alliance in the History of Mankind as it represents more than 40% of the world’s population and almost 25% of the global GDP.
Offering a multi-level synergy in diverse fields, such as security, economy and cultural cooperation, SCO was launched in 2001 with the additional engagement of Uzbekistan; it was considerably enlarged in 2017 with the participation of Pakistan and India as full members. Observer status was offered to Mongolia (2004), Pakistan, India and Iran (2005), Afghanistan (2012) and Belarus (2015). Dialogue partner status was extended to Sri Lanka (2009), Turkey (2012), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia and Nepal (2015).
SCO expanded in parallel with the groundbreaking Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR) and in cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU: Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia as members and Uzbekistan, Moldova and Cuba as observers). On 17th September 2021, Iran was accepted as full member state (the technical and legal processes may take more than a year to be completed) and Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia were granted dialogue partner status.
Tacikistan’ın başkenti Duşanbe’de Şangay İşbirliği Örgütü’nün (ŞİÖ) Devlet Başkanları Zirvesi düzenlendi. Zirve toplantısına katılan İran Cumhurbaşkanı İbrahim Reisi (solda), Tacikistan Cumhurbaşkanı İmamali Rahman (sağda) tarafından karışlandı. ( İran Cumhurbaşkanlığı – Anadolu Ajansı )
Governed by consensus, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not the anti-NATO or anti-EU as many people think; however, if we take into consideration the brilliant failures of NATO where one member sabotages the goals of the other and the final impasse of the European Union where every plan has been in deadlock after the European refugee crisis (2015) and the Brexit referendum (2016), no one needs to repeat the experience of these two bodies or to function similarly. The Turkish-Greek row for the case of NATO and the courageous, constant and resolute opposition of the Visegrad Group to the Brussels authorities constitute the perfect examples in this regard.
Being a forum for cooperation, synergy and engagement rather than a typical regional alliance, SCO will be able to gradually encompass Southeast Asia and Africa, thus leaving US, UK, Canada, Australia, France and Holland to implode all on their own. To mark an outstanding success as the world’s first superpower with human face and without colonial past, Beijing must steadily maintain a multilayered approach to international affairs, distinguishing bilateral alliance from multilateral cooperation.
Drawing on hitherto successes and capitalizing on its enormous resources, China must act as the liberating force within a world plagued with colonial divisions, racist concepts, discriminatory prejudices, delusional Euro-centric theories, and historical falsifications. Creating the image of a popular superpower, China must build on Education, Culture, Intellect, Science, Humanity and Justice, unveiling to all and demolishing forever the myths, the delusions, the aberrations and the forgeries that supported the West European and North American colonial adventure, i.e. mankind’s worst nightmare.
megalommatiscomments 