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’
Western Orientalist historiography; early sources of Iranian History; Prehistory in the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia
6- Western Orientalist historiography
The modern Western European specialists on Iran were first based on the Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Latin sources and on travelers’ records and descriptions. On his way to China, the Italian Franciscan monk Odoric of Pordenone was the first European to probably visit (in 1320) the ruins of Parsa (Persepolis) that he called ‘Comerum’. The site was then known as Chehel Minar (چهل منار /i.e. forty minarets) and later as Takht-e Jamshid (تخت جمشید/i.e. the throne of Jamshid, a great hero of Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and of the Iranian legendary historiography about which we discussed). The Venetian Giosafat Barbaro visited the same location in 1474 and, being the victim of the delusions about which I spoke already, he attributed the erection of the majestic monuments to the Jews!
After the rise of the Safavid dynasty and the formation of the two alliances (the French with the Ottomans and the English with the Iranians), an English merchant visited Persepolis in 1568 and wrote a description that was included in Richard Hakluyt’s ‘Voyages’ (1582). Old Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions were first noticed and reported by the Portuguese António de Gouveia, who visited the site in 1602 and wrote about it in 1611. It is only in 1618 that the Spanish ambassador (to the court of the Safavid Shah of Iran Abbas I/1571-1629; reigned after 1588) García de Silva Figueroa associated the location with the great Achaemenid capital that was known as Persepolis in the Ancient Greek and Latin sources.
The Italian Pietro Della Valle spent five years (1616-1621) in Mesopotamia and Iran, visited Persepolis (1621), made copies of several inscriptions that he noticed there and took them back to Europe, along with clay tablets and bricks that he found in Babylon and Ur. This was the first cuneiform documentation brought to Europe. With respect to Persepolis he wrote that only 25 of the 72 original columns were still standing.
Good indication of the lunacy that Western Europeans experienced at those days due to their erroneous reading of the untrustworthy Ancient Greek historical sources about Achaemenid Iran is the following fact: after traveling in Asia and Africa, Sir Thomas Herbert wrote in his book (1638) that in Persepolis he saw several lines of strange signs curved in the walls. These were, of course, Old Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions, but at the time, the modern term ‘cuneiform’ had not been invented; however, excessively enthused with Greek literature about Ancient Iran, he ‘concluded’ that these characters ‘resembled Greek’! He mistook cuneiform for Greek! So biased his approach was!
The term ‘cuneiform’ (‘Keilschrift’ in German) was coined (1700) by the German scholar and explorer Engelbert Kaempfer, who spent ten years (1683-1693) in many parts of Asia. The monumental site of the Achaemenid capital was also visited by the famous Dutch artist Cornelis de Bruijn (1704) and the famous jeweler Sir Jean Chardin, who also worked as agent of Shah Abbas II for the purchase of jewels. He was the first to publish (1711) pertinent copies of several cuneiform inscriptions.
The German surveyor Carsten Niebuhr took the research to the next stage when he copied and published (1764) the famous rock reliefs and inscriptions of Darius the Great; in fact, he brought complete and accurate copies of the inscriptions at Persepolis to Europe. He realized that he had to do with three writing systems and that the simpler (which he named ‘Class I’) comprised 42 characters, being apparently an alphabetic script. Niebuhr’s publication was used by many other scholars and explorers, notably the Germans Oluf Gerhard Tychsen, who published the most advanced research on the topic in 1798, and Friedrich Münter, who confirmed the alphabetic nature of the script (in 1802).
The reconstitution of the Iranian past proved to be far more difficult a task than that of the Ancient Egyptian heritage. This is so because, if we consider the Old Achaemenid Iranian cuneiform and the Egyptian hieroglyphics as the earliest stages of the two respective languages and scripts, Coptic (the latest stage of the Egyptian language) was always known in Europe throughout the Christian and Modern times, whereas Pahlavi and Middle Persian (the corresponding stages of the Iranian languages) were totally unknown. For this reason, Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, the first French Iranologist and Indologist, played a key role in the decipherment of the cuneiform writing, although he did not spend time exploring it. But having learned Pahlavi and Farsi among the Parsis of India, he managed to study Avestan and he translated the Avesta as the sacred text of the Zoroastrians was preserved among the Parsi community. Pretty much like Coptic was essential to Champollion for the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphic, the pioneering work of Anquetil-Duperron and the knowledge of Avestan, Pahlavi, Middle Persian and Farsi helped the French Antoine Isaac Silvestre de Sacy and the German Georg Friedrich Grotefend make critical breakthroughs and advance the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid.
Grotefend’s Memoir was presented to the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in 1802, but it was rejected; in fact, he had deciphered only eight (8) letters until that moment, but most of his assumptions were correct. He had however to wait for an incredible confirmation; after Champollion completed his first step toward the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1822, he read the Egyptian text of a quadrilingual inscription on the famous Caylus vase (named after a 18th c. French collector). Then, Champollion’s associate, the Orientalist Antoine-Jean Saint-Martin, announced that Grotefend’s reading of the imperial Achaemenid name ‘Xerxes’ did indeed correspond to what the Egyptian hieroglyphic text testified to. This situation generated an impetus among Orientalist scholars and explorers; until the late 1830s and the early 1840s, Grotefend, the French Eugène Burnouf, the Norwegian-German Christian Lassen, and Sir Henry Rawlinson completed the task.
Shush (Susa), an Elamite and later an Achaemenid capital, was explored in 1851, 1885-1886, 1894-1899, and then systematically excavated by the French Jacques de Morgan (1897-1911), whereas Pasargad (the early Achaemenid capital) was first explored by the German Ernst Herzfeld in 1905. Persepolis was excavated quite later, only in the 1930s by Ernst Herzfeld and Erich Schmidt of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Not far from Hamadan (the ancient capital Hegmataneh/Ekbatana of the Medes), the splendid site of Mount Behistun (Bisotun) had become world-famous even before it was excavated (initially in 1904) by Leonard William King and Reginald Campbell Thompson (sponsored by the British Museum). This was due to the fact that the famous trilingual Behistun inscription and the associated reliefs were carved at about 100 m above ground level on a cliff, and explorers had to scale the cliff. Several fascinating descriptions of the extraordinary location were written by travelers and visitors, before academic work was carried out there. Putting his life in risk, Rawlinson copied the Old Achaemenid text in 1835, and this helped him advance considerably the decipherment of the script.
Without the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid, it would be impossible for Rawlinson to decipher the Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, and later for others to read the Hittite script which enabled us to have access to the most important and the most original Anatolian literature of pre-Christian times.
Behistun (Farsi: Bisotun / Old Iranian: Bagastana, i.e. ‘the place of God’) 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. Now, Semiramis seems to be an entirely misplaced Ancient Greek legend about the historical Queen of Assyria (not Babylonia!) Shammuramat. The Assyrian queen was consort of Shamshi Adad V and co-regent with her son Adad-nirari III (during his reign’s early phase). But the Assyrian Queen had nothing to do with Mount Behistun and the Achaemenid Iranian inscription.
In the early 17th c., Pietro della Valle was the first Western European to come to Behistun and sketch the remains. As a matter of fact, many European travelers and explorers visited Behistun, saw the impressive inscription, and disastrously misinterpreted it, due to their preconceived ideas, mistaken readings, and unrealistic assumptions.
A foolish English diplomat and adventurer, Robert Sherley, visited the location in 1598, and he considered the astounding reliefs and the inscriptions as ‘Christian’! Napoleon’s subordinate, General Claude-Matthieu, Comte de Gardane, visited the place in 1807 only to see in the monuments the representation of ‘Christ and his twelve apostles’! In 1817, Sir Robert Ker Porter thought that the impressive relief and inscriptions detailed the deeds of Emperor Shalmaneser V of Assyria and the transportation of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel to the NE confines of Assyria. Last, quite interestingly, the German spiritual-scientific society Ahnenerbe, which used Hitler for their non-Nazi, highly secretive projects, explored Behistun in 1938.
7- Early sources of Iranian History: Assyrian-Babylonian Cuneiform
The early sources of Iranian History are Assyrian-Babylonian historical documents pertaining to the military, commercial and/or administrative activities of the Neo-Assyrian kings in the Zagros mountains and the Iranian plateau; these sources shed light on the earliest stages of Median, Persian and Iranian History, when the ancestors of the Achaemenids were just one of the many tribes that settled somewhere east of the borders of the Assyrian Empire.
Since the 3rd millennium BCE, Sumerian and Akkadian historical sources referred to nomads, settlers, villages, cities, strongholds and at times kingdoms situated in the area of today’s Iran. Mainly these tribes and/or realms were barbarians who either partly damaged or totally destroyed the Mesopotamian civilization and order. That’s why they were always described with markedly negative terms. On the other hand, we know through archaeological evidence that several important sites were located in the Iranian plateau, constituting either small kingdoms or outstanding entrepôts and commercial centers linking Mesopotamia with either India or Central Asia and China.
For instance, settled somewhere in the Middle Zagros, the Guti of the 3rd millennium BCE constituted a barbaric periphery that finally destroyed Agade (Akkad), the world’s first empire ever; and in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, the Kassites descended from Middle Zagros to Babylon, after the Old Babylonian kingdom was destroyed (in 1596) by the Hittite Mursilis I, and they set up a profane kingdom (Kassite dynasty of Babylonia) that the Assyrians never accepted as a heir of the old Sumerian-Akkadian civilization.
As both ethnic groups learned Akkadian / Assyrian-Babylonian, their rulers wrote down their names, and thus we know that neither the Guti nor the Kassites were a properly speaking Iranian nation; the present documentation is still scarce in this regard, but there are indications that some of these people bore Turanian (or Turkic) names.
For thousands of years, South Zagros and the southwestern confines of today’s Iran belonged to Elam, the main rival of Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia, and Assyria. Viewed as the true negation of the genius of Mesopotamian civilization, Elam was ruled by the ‘kings of Shushan and Anshan’; the two regions corresponded to Susa (and the entire province of Khuzestan in today’s Iran) and South Zagros respectively. The name that modern scholarship uses to denote this nation and kingdom is merely the Sumerian-Akkadian appellation of that country. In Elamite, the eastern neighbors of the Sumerians called their land ‘Haltamti’. Their language was neither Indo-European (like Old Achaemenid and Modern Farsi) nor Semitic (like Assyrian-Babylonian); it was also unrelated to Sumerian, Hurrian and Hattic, the languages of the indigenous populations in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Recent linguistic research offers tentative approaches to the relationship between Elamite and the Dravidian languages, thus making of it the ancestral language of more than 250 million people.
Elamite linear and cuneiform writings bear witness to the life, the society, the economy, the faith and the culture of the Elamites, as well as to their relations with the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. But they cannot help us reconstitute the History of the Iranian plateau, because the Elamites never went beyond the limits of South Zagros.
With the rise, expansion and prevalence of Assyria (from the 14th to the 7th c. BCE), we have for the first time a Mesopotamian Empire that showed great importance for the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian plateau; consequently, this means that, for the said period, we have more texts about these regions, which earlier constituted the periphery of the Mesopotamian world, but were gradually incorporated into the ever expanding Assyrian Empire. Thanks to Assyrian cuneiform texts, we know names of tribal chieftains and petty kings, cities, fortresses, ethnic groups, etc., and we can assess the various degrees of Assyrianization of each of them; but it is only at the time of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BCE) that we first find a mention of the Medes and the Persians. The former are named ‘Amadaya’ and later ‘Madaya’, whereas the latter are called ‘Parsua’ (or Parsamaš or Parsumaš).
Assyrian cuneiform texts about the Medes and the Persians more specifically are abundant during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) and at the time of the Sargonids (722-609 BCE). It is noteworthy that the Parsua were first located in the region of today’s Sanandaj in Western Iran and later they relocated to the ancient Elamite region of Anshan (today’s Iranian province of Fars), which was devastated and emptied from its population by Assurbanipal (640 BCE). After the great Assyrian victory, which also involved the destruction of Susa, Assyrian texts mention the grandfather of Cyrus the Great, Cyrus I, as Kuraš, king of Parsumaš. He sent gifts to Nineveh and he also dispatched his eldest son (‘Arukku’ in Assyrian from a hypothetical ‘Aryauka’ in Ancient Iranian) there – nominally as a hostage, but essentially as a student of Assyrian culture, sacerdotal organization, and imperial administration and procedures.
The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Tiglathpileser III
Sarrukin (Sargon of Assyria) with his son and successor Sennacherib (right)
8- Pre-History in the Iranian plateau, and Mesopotamia
During the 4th, the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE, the major hitherto excavated Iranian archaeological sites are the following:
Tepe Sialk
Located near the modern city of Kashan, in the center of the Iranian plateau, and excavated in the 1930s by the Russian-French Roman Ghirshman, the site was first occupied in the period 6000-5500 BCE. The remains of the zikkurat (dating back to around 3000 BCE) show that it was the largest Mesopotamian style zikkurat. Tepe Sialk IV level (2nd half of the 4th millennium BCE) testifies to evident links with Sumer (Jemdet Nasr, Uruk) and Elam (Susa III). The site was abandoned and reoccupied in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BCE (Tepe Sialk V and VI). Its location and the archaeological findings let us understand that the site was a key commercial center that linked Mesopotamia with Central Asia and China.
Tureng Tepe
Located close to Gorgan in Turkmen Sahra (NE Iran) and excavated by the American Frederick Roelker Wulsin in the 1930s and by the French Jean Deshayes in the 1950s, the site was inhabited in the Neolithic and then continually from 3100 to 1900 BCE, when it appears to have been the major among many other regional settlements and in evident contact with both, Mesopotamia and Central Asia. There was a disruption, and the site was occupied again only in the 7th c. BCE (Tureng Tepe IV A) by newcomers.
Tepe Yahya
Located at ca. 250 km north of Bandar Abbas and 220 km south of Kerman, the site was of crucial importance for the contacts between Mesopotamia and the Indus River Valley; it was also in contact with Central Asia. Excavated by the Czech-American Clifford Charles Lamberg-Karlovsky, the site was inhabited from ca. 5000 to 2200 BCE and then again after 1000 BCE. The genuine ‘Yahya Culture’ covered the first half of the 4th millennium BCE. The Proto-Elamite phase started around 3400 BCE (Tepe Yahya IV C); few proto-Elamite tablets have been unearthed from that stratum. This period corresponds to the strata Susa Cb and Tepe Sialk IV. During the 3rd millennium BCE, the site appears to have been the center of production of hard stone carving artifacts; dark stone vessels produced here were found / excavated in Mesopotamia. Similar vessels and fragments of vessels have been found in Sumerian temples in Mesopotamia, in Elam, in the Indus River Valley, and in Central Asia.
Not far from Tepe Yahya are situated several important sites that testify to the strong ties that the entire region had with Sumer and Elam in the West, the Indus River Valley in the East and Central Asia in the North; Jiroft gave the name to the ‘Jiroft culture’ which is better documented in the nearby site of Konar Sandal and covers the 3rd millennium BCE. Further in the east and close to the triangle border point (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan), Shahr-e Sukhteh was an enormous site which thrived between 3200 BCE and the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. It was associated with both, the ‘Jiroft culture’ and the Helmand culture, which was attested in several sites in South Afghanistan. Elamite texts were also found in that site, which already offered many surprises, involving the first known artificial eyeball and the earliest tables game with dice.
Several important prehistoric Mesopotamian sites demonstrate parallels and contacts with the aforementioned sites, notably
– Tell Halaf (near Ras al Ayn in NE Syria; the Neolithic phase lasted from 6100 to 5400 BCE, and the Bronze Age covers the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE),
– Tell al Ubaid (near Ur in Dhi Qar governorate; 6500-3700 BCE),
– Tell Arpachiyah (near Nineveh; the site was occupied in the Neolithic period, like Tell Halaf and Ubaid),
– Tepe Gawra (close to Nineveh; the site was occupied from 5000 to 1500 BCE),
– Tell Jemdet Nasr (near Kish in Central Iraq; 3100-2300 BCE), and
– Uruk {near Samawah in South Iraq; type site for the Uruk period (4000-3100 BCE), it was a major Sumerian kingdom and it was the world’s most populated city in the middle of the 4th millennium BCE with ca. 40000 inhabitants and another 90000 residents in the suburbs}.
In the next course, I will present a brief diagram of the History of the Mesopotamian kingdoms and Empires down to Sargon of Assyria – with focus on the relations with Zagros Mountains and the Iranian plateau.
Tepe Sialk
Tureng tepe
Tepe Yahya
————–
To watch the video (with more than 110 pictures and maps), click the links below:
HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN – Achaemenid beginnings 1Α
I. Ошибочное восприятие Сталина у большинства людей сегодня
II. Ошибочное восприятие Второй мировой войны современными обывателями
III. Настоящая Ялтинская конференция
IV. Большая игра никогда не заканчивалась
V. Добрые намерения и злые цели
VI. Рузвельт и Сталин: как Авраам Линкольн и Александр II
VII. Настоящий, скрытый Сталин: опытный мистик
VIII. Посол Турции говорит о жизни Сталина в Артвине и Стамбуле
IX. Сталин в Османской Анатолии: 1911-1912 гг.
X. Турецкий государственный деятель Риза Нур отметил, что Сталин понимал турецкий
XI. Культурный фон Сталина: искажен и неизвестен большинству людей
XII. Митраистское иранское культурное наследие Грузии и Сталин
XIII. Длинная, тяжелая тень Сасанидов
XIV. Несмываемая печать на исламе: иранское интермеццо
XV. Переплетенное исламское и христианское культурное наследие Грузии, и Шота Руставели
XVI. Русские переводы Руставели и псевдонимы Сталина
XVII. Археологические раскопки и открытия востоковедов до пребывания Сталина в Анатолии
XVIII. Текстовые источники информации о Митре и митраистских мистериях для Сталина
XIX. Духовность, религия, эсхатология, сотериология, вымирание человечества и Сталин
XX. Основные темы духовных исканий Сталина в Анатолии – 1. Тавроктония и Распятие
XXI. Основные темы духовных исканий Сталина в Анатолии – 2. Митраическая троица, христианская троица, духовность и Сталин.
XXII. Основные темы духовных исканий Сталина в Анатолии – 3. Солнечная природа митраизма / Непорочное рождение из скалы.
XXIII. Как сталинские митраистские медитации в Анатолии сформировали его принятие решений
1. Войны понтийского царя Митридата VI с Римом.
2. Митраистские пираты Киликии в борьбе с Римом: осквернение Греции и Сталин.
3. Посещал ли Сталин величайший в мире монумент Митры в Немрут-Даге?
4. Митраистские медитации Сталина и антисвященническая позиция
5. Митраистская версия ассирийско-вавилонского Гильгамеша: Вератрагна и его связь с Гераклом в Немрут-Даге
6. Митраистская анатолийская имперская духовность против скандинавской мифологии: Сталин против Гитлера
XXIV. Рим, Новый Рим, Третий Рим, и Сталин
XXV. Митраизм, христианство, Сталин и антихрист
Table of Contents
I. The erroneous perception of Stalin among most people today
II. The erroneous perception of WW II by average people today
III. The true Yalta Conference
IV. The Big Game never ended
V. Good intentions and evil purposes
VI. Roosevelt & Stalin: like Abraham Lincoln & Alexander II
VII. The real, hidden Stalin: an experienced mystic
VIII. A Turkish ambassador speaks about Stalin living in Artvin and Istanbul
IX. Stalin in Ottoman Anatolia: 1911-1912
X. Turkish statesman Rıza Nur noted that Stalin understood Turkish
XI. Stalin’s cultural background: distorted & unknown to most
XII. The Mithraic Iranian cultural heritage of Georgia & Stalin
XIII. The long, heavy shadow of the Sassanids
XIV. An indelible stamp on Islam: the Iranian Intermezzo
XV. The intertwined Islamic & Christian cultural heritage of Georgia, and Shota Rustaveli
XVI. Rustaveli’s Russian translations and Stalin’s pseudonyms
XVII. Archaeological excavations and Orientalist discoveries prior to Stalin’s sojourn in Anatolia
XVIII. Stalin’s textual sources of information about Mithra and the Mithraic mysteries
XIX. Spirituality, Religion, Eschatology, Soteriology, the Extinction of the Mankind, and Stalin
XX. Major themes of Stalin’s spiritual quest in Anatolia – 1. Tauroctony and Crucifixion
XXI. Major themes of Stalin’s spiritual quest in Anatolia – 2. Mithraic Trinity, Christian Trinity, Spirituality and Stalin
XXII. Major themes of Stalin’s spiritual quest in Anatolia – 3. Solar nature of Mithraism / Immaculate birth from the rock
XXIII. How Stalin’s Mithraic meditations in Anatolia formed his decision-making
1. Pontus’ King Mithridates VI’s wars with Rome
2. Cilicia’s Mithraic Pirates in fight with Rome, the desecration of Greece, and Stalin
3. Did Stalin travel to visit the world’s greatest Mithraic monument at Nemrut Dagh?
4. Stalin’s Mithraic meditations and anti-sacerdotal stance
5. The Mithraic version of the Assyrian-Babylonian Gilgamesh: Verethragna, and his association with Heracles in Nemrut Dagh
6. Mithraic Anatolian Imperial Spirituality vs. Nordic Mythology: Stalin vs. Hitler
XXIV. Rome, New Rome, the Third Rome, and Stalin
XXV. Mithraism, Christianity, Stalin and the Antichrist
The idea that most of the people around the world have about Stalin is entirely false. This is due to the fact that atheists, materialists, Marxists-Leninists, liberal socialists, socialist-democrats, evolutionists and all the trash of Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi Khazarian pseudo-intellectuals and bogus-academics have first perceived, then interpreted, and last analyzed/presented Stalin and his historical role through the most erroneous, Trotskyist misunderstanding/distortion of the Georgian-origin Soviet statesman. But Stalin was an unconditional transcendentalist and a remarkable mystic.
Mithraic Tauroctony from a Mithraeum in Syria (currently in the Israel museum in Jerusalem): a mythical-religious topic early conceived by evil forces as purely eschatological symbolism
Human sacrifice: dead bodies wait for cremation in Dresden after the bombardment of the ‘Allied’ forces.
I. The erroneous perception of Stalin among most people today
According to this irrelevant story, Stalin (1878-1953) was a resolute materialist, a convinced Darwinist, a devoted Marxist-Leninist, and a heartless dictator who decimated entire nations, before purging the old guard of Communist-Bolshevik partisans, relocating populations, and sending millions to jail. There is only little truth in all this. In fact, Stalin was as realist as Kemal Ataturk; he therefore had to appear to others in the way he did in order to succeed Lenin and eliminate Trotsky. Many may agree with the last sentence, stating that this is part of the well-known History.
But there is also the ‘Other History’; the one that is unknown, because it did not happen. This is, in other words, the negative reflection of the reality. All the same, because this ‘other’ or ‘unknown’ History did not happen, this does not mean that it was not attempted. And indeed many secret and known organizations and ‘societies’ tried to prepare several developments which finally did not occur. It is essential for a true Historian to know well these failed attempts; in fact, he only then understands History as the Absolute Sphere that contains the outcome of all the desires, feelings, thoughts and attempts of the humans.
II. The erroneous perception of WW II by average people today
The unhappened History would trigger indeed far more spectacular developments than what the so-called WW II did – if it happened; part of the evil plan that Stalin triumphantly averted was that Trotsky would succeed Lenin and stay for some time in Moscow, incessantly planning his ‘global’ revolution, which so well reflects the paranoia, the deviance and the putrefaction of today’s ‘American’ (in reality: Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi Khazarian) Left. Today, few people can guess the monstrous and inhuman tyranny that comes after the eventuality (May God forbid!) of the American Left’s prevalence.
On the contrary, we know very well what would have happened, had Stalin failed to eliminate Trotsky; it is very simple. Hitler would have invaded, destroyed and demolished the Soviet Union, implementing in the 1940s what Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the American Left trash intend to carry out now: the complete decomposition and dismemberment of Russia. This is so because, as Charles de Gaulle always knew, the USSR was in reality ‘Russia’. If the above statement seems incredible to you, this is only due to the fact that, via a mental mirror game, the true Nazis made the world believe that Hitler was a Nazi and the paragon of Nazism.
As a matter of fact, Hitler was only the Venice Ball mask of Nazism.
The true Nazis were those who fully instrumentalized and utilized Hitler, detaching him from the spiritual tutorship of the great mystic Rudolf von Sebottendorf and usurping the Thule Gesellschaft from the very founder of the society, who had to flee to Turkey. Hitler was merely one of the tools of the true Nazis, i.e. the Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi Khazarian Satanists, who were identical then to Trotsky and today to the American Left.
III. The true Yalta Conference
This reality was encrypted in the eschatologically dramatic and historically tragic painting elaborated by Vitaly Komar (Виталий Комар; born 1943) and Alex Melamid (Александр Меламид; born 1945) in 1984 under the title ‘The Yalta Conference’ (Ялтинская конференция). The painting was repeatedly decoded in a distorting manner and duly misinterpreted in order not to disturb those who are embarrassed every time their criminality is revealed in the daylight and every moment they realize that their irrevocable end is about to befall on their wretched heads.
Of course, the painting raises plenty of serious questions; but if -as many forgers and cheaters pretend- the supposed meaning of the painting is that Hitler prevailed by fooling the (three) participants of the illustrious Yalta Conference, then why one of the participants is missing (W. Churchill)? The answer is simple: England was the epicenter of Nazism, the real producer of Hitler, and the true planner of all of his movements. Then, Churchill does not appear in the painting, simply because he was not fooled, being rather in the know. About:
I don’t intend to discuss either the (crypto-) Nazi English fabrication of Hitler in the 1920s or the apocalyptic painting in the present article. I need only to state at this point that -as historian- I don’t consider the so-called ‘WW I’, ‘WW II’, and ‘Cold War’ as independent episodes or isolated facts, but as an uninterrupted continuity of the evil, Nazi, Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi Khazarian colonial plans against Prussia / Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, Czarist Russia, Qing China, the Ottoman Empire, Qajar Iran, and the Mughal Empire. It is a clash that has lasted for more than 300 years under various forms, and certainly the most enduring, frontal opposition until now took place between the Anglo-Saxon pseudo-states (UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.) and (Monarchical-Communist-Republican) Russia.
When it comes to Imperial Germany, the real moment of victory of the ‘Entente cordiale’ was not the abdication of the Kaiser (November 1918), but the rise of Hitler (January 1933).
When it comes to Imperial Russia, the real moment of victory of the ‘Entente cordiale’ was not the abdication of the Czar (March 1917), but the rise of Lenin (October / November 1917).
Pseudo-Nazi (or only partly and reflectively Nazi) Germany was geared to be the tool of the final split of the Russian Empire. Many people have failed to notice (let alone understand) that this was already attempted during the period November 1917-November 1918. Numerous ‘lands’ and nations declared independence quite early, notably Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus, Estonia, Poland and Latvia.
Furthermore, several other republics declared their independence in 1918, although most of them did not last for long: Tuvan People’s Republic (Тувинская Народная Республика), Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (закавказская демократическая федеративная республика), Kuban People’s Republic (Кубанская Народная Республика), Idel-Ural State (mainly a Tatar state named Ural-Volga state in Tatar; Урало-Волжский штат), Kaluga Soviet Republic (Калужская советская республика), North Ingria or Republic of Kirjasalo (Республика Северная Ингрия или Кирьясало); similar phenomena took place also in Central Asia, notably the Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic.
V. Good intentions and evil purposes
It would be correct and accurate to observe that the theoretical foundations on which these developments (secessions) took place can be retraced back to the famous essay by Stalin ‘Marxism and the National Question’ (1913) and to the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia (Декларация прав народов России), which was one of the earliest documents signed by the revolutionary government only on the 15th November 1917, just 8 days after the October Revolution (7th November or 25th October 1917, according to the Old Calendar).
In fact, if the demolition and the split of Imperial Russia into a total of 40-50 states did not occur in the period 1918-1922, this is due mainly to two factors:
First, the evil colonial forces realized that this was quite premature, because they did not possess local stooges and docile pawns among all the nations and the states that would emerge. In this case, they would be met with eventually nasty surprises.
Second, Lenin and the Soviet government feared that many seceded nations could eventually fall into the hands of monarchists, republicans, local landowners, various reactionary pseudo-religious leaders, and private businessmen; even more so, since they had to face a Civil War in many parts of the Empire.
All the same, this early experience must have been a very good lesson for Stalin, who apparently realized that anyone’s best intentions can always be used for the worst purposes, notably by inhuman, evil and criminal forces and secret organizations. It is very clear that during his many years in power, Stalin acted differently, promoting centripetal forces.
What good is it for all the nations and the ethnic groups of the world to accept the equality among the peoples, to ensure free development of all national minorities and ethnographical groups, and to recognize the right of every people to free self-determination, national sovereignty, and even secession and formation of a separate state, if all this serves ultimately the interests of evil, inhuman monsters that will be able -through use of deliberate fraud and extremely sophisticated lies tailored as per the ignorance of every local leader, elite and nation- to exploit this situation in order dominate these seemingly independent nations and to totally enslave them by means of corrupt pawns, involving bribed gangs, clownish politicians, bogus-academics, pseudo-intellectuals, lawless legislators, fraudulent judges, infidel religious ‘leaders’, treasonous military officers, nationally calamitous diplomats, criminal businessmen and untrustworthy ‘statesmen’ like those of today’s Greece, Cyprus, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc.?
VI. Roosevelt & Stalin: like Abraham Lincoln & Alexander II
The main fact is therefore that Stalin effectively averted the -much desired by the Nazi rulers of England- disintegration of Russia (USSR) in 1941 – something that Trotsky would prove unable to do. How did Stalin manage to do that? Many people fooled by Western propaganda would answer this question by mentioning details of the Lend-Lease Act that US President F. D. Roosevelt signed on 11th March 1941. This is only partly true; even worse, those who think that the US ‘saved’ Soviet Union do not know the true nature of the US-UK relationship at the time; they actually confuse it with the present circumstances. Yet, we know that, on plenty of occasions, Roosevelt humiliated Churchill in their meetings.
In fact, the American aid helped Soviet Union to avoid heavier casualties and longer war. And the personal relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin was parallel to that between Abraham Lincoln and Czar Alexander II. The villainous English hated the American and the Russian rulers on both occasions.
The evil English hysteria unleashed: in a cartoon from the London Punch magazine (1863), the Russian Czar and the American President are depicted as tyrants, under the paranoid label “Extremes meet”; Abraham Lincoln addresses Alexander II with the words: “I see that we are both in the same situation: you are with your Poles, I am with the southern rebels”. From: https://историк.рф/journal/15/aleksandr-avraam-i-drugie-ofitsialnyie-litsa-6f.html
————————————–
Consequently, the main question stands before us: how did Stalin manage to save the USSR and to avert the defeat and demolition of the Russian Empire (which was then named Soviet Union’)? I would simply respond to this question with just few words:
– With his great spiritual force!
VII. The real, hidden Stalin: an experienced mystic
This may sound bizarre to many. But surely not to Alexei Alexandrovich Menyailov!
This Russian mystic and intellectual (Алексей Александрович Меняйлов; born in 1957) has already researched the topic and published several books about Stalin, fully counterbalancing the earlier mentioned, Trotskyist disfigurement of the Soviet statesman and the conveniently naïve idea of an atheist, materialist, evolutionist, Marxist-Leninist Stalin. Menyailov’s books have titles that speak for themselves; I will only mention here a few.
Сталин: посвящение Волхва (Stalin: the Consecration of the Magician)
Сталин: Путь волхвов (Stalin: The Way of the Magi)
Сталин. Прозрение волхва (Stalin. The Enlightenment of the Magician)
Сталин. Тайны Валькирии (Stalin. Secrets of the Valkyrie)
Сталин. Культ девы (Stalin. The cult of the Virgin)
In his many books and videos, Menyailov revealed a totally different and spiritually powerful Stalin in striking contrast to the nonsensical portrait and disinformation, which prevailed in this regard for long. With respect to Stalin’s spiritual force and material achievements, the Russian author focuses on the young Georgian’s years in exile and on the Shamanist-Tengrist initiation rituals in the Siberian taiga (boreal forest) to which the arrested revolutionary was introduced after he escaped from the prison and during his period of hiding; those were apparently Stalin’s true formative years. Certainly, Alexei Alexandrovich is not the only to dig in this direction. As the topic is vast, I don’t intend to further explore it within the limits of the present article.
VIII. A Turkish ambassador speaks about Stalin living in Artvin and Istanbul
One element that can shed more light on Stalin’s spiritual formation is the period of almost 24 months during which the Soviet leader seems to have disappeared from all screens (1911-1912). In fact, after the middle of 1910 and until the beginning of 1913 (when Lenin’s disciple traveled to Vienna), Stalin’s biography has been mainly a matter of purely theoretical reconstruction. For someone known to have constantly escaped jails, any illegal border-crossing appears to be a minor issue, particularly if we speak about mountainous terrains and pre-electronic times.
The topic of Stalin having spent one or two years in the Ottoman Empire is not new; individuals, journalists and ambassadors have spoken about that in the past. I will now mention only a few – merely on indicative basis.
The veteran Turkish diplomat Ender Arat, speaking to the journalist Şenol Çarık in an article-interview about one of his books, mentioned Stalin’s presence in Artvin, in today’s NE Turkey. As a matter of fact, the former Turkish ambassador’s remarkable book highlights selected episodes from the sojourn of many worldwide important people in Turkey (or earlier in the Ottoman Empire); indeed, many famous Russians, Hungarians, Poles, Jews, Germans, and Austrians lived in Turkey during a certain period of their life.
Ender Arat’s book is titled ‘Türklere Güvendiler – Tarih Boyunca Türk Topraklarına Sığınanlar’ (They Trusted the Turks – Those who have taken Refuge in Turkish Lands throughout History); it was published by Tarihçi Kitabevi in 2016 and republished in 2020. It can be found here:
Despite the fact that the said book concerns numerous famous persons, who resided in Turkey for some time, the interview-article’s title revolves exclusively around the Soviet statesman:
Stalin’in bilinmeyen Artvin dönemi (Stalin’s unknown period in Artvin)
The interview-article was published on 8th March 2016 under the subtitle:
Emekli Büyükelçi Ender Arat, tarih boyunca bu topraklara sığınanların kitabını yayınladı (Retired Ambassador Ender Arat has published the book about those who took refuge in these lands throughout history)
The excerpt about Stalin is rather brief, but it also makes state of his travels up to Istanbul.
Mesela Stalin daha Stalin değilken, Gürcistan’dayken, Artvin’de bir köye gelip domuz avlıyor, İstanbul’da domuz satıyor.
An English translation reads:
For example, when Stalin was in Georgia, at the time he was not called Stalin, he came to a village in Artvin and hunted wild boars, and then he sold them in Istanbul.
Ambassador Arat refers to the time Stalin had not yet been given this illustrious nickname by Lenin, and he was then known merely through his Georgian name and surname Ioseb (Joseph) Dzhugashvili (also spelt Jughashvili; Иосиф Джугашвили). It is only after 1913, at the age of 35, that the young revolutionary started being called ‘Stalin’.
The aforementioned brief mention would be almost entirely immaterial without the reference to Istanbul where Stalin used to travel and sell the skin of wild boars that he had hunted; this is so because at the time Artvin was part of the Russian Empire.
When the Russian army occupied Artvin during the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-1878, there was an exodus of Ottoman populations and an influx of Georgian and Armenian newcomers; Artvin belonged then to the Batumi region (область), i.e. the same province where Stalin used to reside after 1901. The Adjara capital functioned indeed for him as a true gate to the Ottoman Empire.
IX. Stalin in Ottoman Anatolia: 1911-1912
There have been many other testimonials as regards Stalin’s movements and sojourn in parts of the Ottoman Empire – for the same always period, i.e. from some time in the second half of 1910 until some moment in 1912.
In an article posted on 20th September 2007, the Russian portal Islam News (https://islamnews.ru/news-7368.html) reproduced a feature (Сталин провел два года в Турции и знал турецкий язык, i.e. ‘Stalin spent two years in Turkey and knew Turkish’) that had been earlier published in the magazine Most, which was a periodical issued at the time by the Russian-Turkish Association of Friendship and Entrepreneurship. According to the publication, I. V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin) smuggled his way to Anatolia and hid there for two years in the village of Tashburun (today inhabited by ca. 2000 people), Akyazi district, Sakarya region.
Living in the house of his friend from Batumi, Vezir Yurt (apparently an Adjarian, i.e. Georgian Muslim), Stalin needed to cross a distance of about 190 km to reach the Ottoman capital.
According to the same portal, “Nejmi Colak, one of those who knew him (: Stalin) in Turkey, says that at that time he (: Stalin) used the surname Beriyashvili”. This is quite plausible, as Stalin was already known for his numerous pseudonyms and various nicknames; trying to appear as having an unusual surname, the paradoxical émigré apparently fabricated this hypothetical family name out of a basically Mingrelian family name (Beria or Berya, like that of the famous Soviet statesman Lavrentiy Pavlesdze Beria; 1899-1953) conventionally Georgianized with the addition of the surname ending –shvili. Stalin’s absolutely extraordinary father, who was literate and multilingual (something extremely rare for a shoe maker), may have introduced -thanks to his Ossetian origins and Mingrelian acquaintances- his young son Ioseb Besarionisdze (later Russianized as Iosif Vissarionovich) to some of his Mingrelian friends or colleagues.
In any case, when it comes to Stalin, all things Mingrelian are in reality a constantly recurring matter, particularly if we also take into account the notorious ‘Mingrelian affair’ (Мингрельское дело), a story stupendously invented to best inculpate several Soviet officials due to their contacts with Western diplomats.
The portal Islam News states that the testimonial about Stalin’s biannual residence in Tashburun is due to Kemal Yurt, who was (back in the middle 2000s) over 80 years old; he was the son of Stalin’s friend and refugee from Batumi Vezir Yurt in whose house Stalin stayed. Vezir Yurt and Stalin had known one another in Batumi and they were constantly in contact.
Stalin in young age; painting by Irakli Moiseevich Toizde (1902-1985; Ираклий Моисеевич Тоидзе) About:
Kemal Yurt noted that, in one of the letters written by Stalin a year after his return to Russia (1913) and dispatched to Vezir Yurt, the Communist activist expressed the desire to move to the Ottoman Empire again. Kemal’s father dissuaded him from going, writing: “You are already known here. Don’t come or they’ll kill you”. It is however noteworthy, as a sort of ‘parallel lives’, that Vezir Yurt was elected headman of the village, and he held this position for many years, when his old friend was the sole ruler of the USSR.
The same story was published under the title ‘Stalin Türkiye’de saklanmış’ (Stalin hid in Turkey) in the high circulation Turkish daily Hurriyet on 21st April 2005.
X. Turkish statesman Rıza Nur noted that Stalin understood Turkish
The same article provides two more independent testimonials of people whose relatives and ancestors had encountered the young Georgian fugitive and later recognized him, when the Turkish newspapers started publishing pictures of the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the USSR (after 1922). The fact that Stalin spoke and understood Turkish is also revealed by an episode narrated by a very bizarre and controversial Turkish physician, writer, politician and statesman Rıza Nur (1879-1942).
Early elected as deputy (from Sinop) in the second term of the Ottoman Parliament (Meclis-i Mebûsan; 1908), Rıza Nur was also elected in the first and the second terms of the Turkish Parliament (Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi). He took office in several ministries (notably he was Minister of Health for the period 1921-1923), and he participated in the Moscow Treaty (Moskova Antlaşması, 1921) and the Lausanne Treaty. Openly self-declared as homosexual and known for his endless demands for unusually bold reforms, Rıza Nur clashed with many crypto-Islamists around Kemal Ataturk and he was finally forced to leave Turkey in 1926. He then lived in England for several years, taught Turkic languages and Turkology, authored several articles and books, entrusted his biography to the British Museum (so that it is published posthumously), and he was ultimately allowed to return to Turkey, after Kemal Ataturk’s death (1938), due to the persistent English diplomatic demands.
Moscow Treaty
The disreputable and squalid rascal, criminal and traitor Kadir Mısıroğlu (1933-2019), a clownish humanoid widely acknowledged as MI6 informer, agent and pawn known for his demented, execrable, and treacherous Neo-Ottomanist propaganda, was secretly entrusted by the British Museum with the treacherous and insidious task of publishing in Turkey Riza Nur’s biographical book in order to intentionally generate intellectual-educational- social-political turmoil. Of course, the book was duly and automatically banned in Turkey, because the liberal ideas and narratives of the author would eventually tarnish the image and the heritage of Kemal Ataturk among idiotic average people who would consider the founder of Modern Turkey as intolerably tolerant toward Rıza Nur, a man who explicitly and blatantly stated that he was ‘feeling like a woman’.
Rıza Nur wrote that, when he was sent (along with Yusuf Kemal and Ali Fuad) by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to Moscow to conclude the border treaty (which became known as Moscow Treaty) and to get, if possible, financial help, the Turkish delegation failed to find common ground with Georgy Chicherin (Георгий Васильевич Чичерин; 1872-1936), the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. They then decided to meet with Stalin, whom they considered a more efficient person, although Stalin did not hold an important position, being merely People’s Commissar for Nationalities of the RSFSR (Народный комиссар по делам национальностей РСФСР; 1917-1923) and People’s Commissar of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate of the RSFSR (Народный комиссар рабоче-крестьянской инспекции РСФСР; 1920-1922). At this point, one must take into consideration that Stalin became Secretary General (Генеральный секретарь ЦК КПСС) only in 1922; even worse, Stalin’s military command (1918-1921) was at times controversial and he was repeatedly accused by Trotsky and Lenin for ‘strategic mistakes’ in the Polish-Soviet war, during which Stalin appeared to be defiant, disobeying orders to transfer his troops and to assist Tukhachevsky (Михаил Тухачевский) in attacking Warsaw.
According to Rıza Nur’s narrative, immediately before the meeting, Stalin witnessed an argument among the Turkish delegates, who spoke in Turkish. One of them was shy enough to ask financial help from the Soviet government, which too had to face many problems, wars and local uprising, and said: “I can’t ask the Communists for money, ask for it yourself”. Rıza Nur was more resolute and replied pointing out that they do not ask the money for themselves but for their motherland; he then went on stating that “the one who asks is equivalent to one beggar, and the one who does not give is equivalent to two beggars”. Upon hearing this, Stalin smiled, in an indication that he had understood it all, and subsequently greeted them. The border agreement was concluded as the Turkish delegation wanted it to be, and Stalin agreed with the Turkish demand for some financial help (something that Lenin was already willing to offer to Kemal Ataturk as early as 1920). Details:
XI. Stalin’s cultural background: distorted & unknown to most
Most of the people worldwide have a very erroneous idea also about Stalin’s cultural, intellectual, educational, literary, and ethnographic background. They view Stalin as a Russian of the end of the 19th c. and of the beginning of the 20th c., but this is fully wrong. It would be certainly worse to view the young Stalin as a European, even up to the (minimal) degree that average Russians were Europeanized or westernized in the last three or four decades of Imperial Russia. Only the Russian elites were then partly Europeanized; I say so, because there was an Orthodox Russian part of the Czarist elite, which rejected with vehement indignation and absolute disgust any sort of Europeanization or Westernization.
Georgia was indeed part of the Russian Empire, but Georgians were very different from the Russians in every sense. Georgians are Christian Orthodox, but for the early Christian period of their past, they were Monophysites (or rather Miaphysites), which makes them far closer to the Armenians, to the Aramaeans of Syria (and, in any case, originally Iberia/Georgia depended on the Patriarchate of Antioch), Mesopotamia and Phoenicia (Lebanon) and to the Copts of Egypt than to the Russians or the Eastern Roman Orthodox peoples (Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Albanians, etc.).
Only their rivalry with the also Monophysitic (or Miaphysitic) Armenians and the embarrassing attempt of the latter to get involved in the administration of the Georgian Church pushed -after many long centuries- the Georgians to accept Constantinopolitan Orthodoxy and to organize two events to subsequently denounce and utterly reject the Armenian Church:
– the Third Council of Dvin (in 607), and
– the council of Ruisi-Urbnisi (in 1103).
Perhaps most of today’s Russian priests, monks and theologians would pronounce these Georgian toponyms with some difficulty, but Urbnisi, a historic site known for its majestic monuments and outstanding role in the History of Georgia, is located only few kilometers away from Gori, the city where Stalin was born.
Although an integral part of Oriental Christianity, Georgian Orthodoxy has only the name common with the Eastern Roman, the Early Slavonic and the Modern Russian churches. On the contrary, the Georgian Church is culturally and historically closer to the Monophysitic and Nestorian Aramaeans of Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, as it is clearly demonstrated by a multitude of historical sources, notably the famous story of the Thirteen Assyrian Fathers. Since the term ‘Assyrian’ may appear odd, I have to herewith clarify that the Nestorian Church or rather Patriarchate, was first based in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, then in Abbasid Baghdad, and later in Qudshanis, near today’s Hakkari (SE Turkey), and it was named (in Syriac Aramaic) after the historical land of Assyria: Edta Atureta d-Madenha, i.e. ‘Assyrian’. This occurred in spite of the fact that it was initially an entirely Aramaean Church before numerous Asiatic nations, notably Sogdians, Turkic nations, Mongols and Chinese, accepted Nestorianism.
The story of the Thirteen Assyrian Fathers, who preached Christianity in Georgia, and the theological and liturgical foundations of Georgian Christianity were among the topics that Stalin studied scrupulously for five years (1894-1899) in the Russian Orthodox Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi (at the age of 16-21). Reacting against the Russian priests who were teaching there, Stalin realized very well (and in young age) the value of national identity and the importance of cultural integrity. He never became a Russian. This means that even fewer were the chances of him ever becoming a Europeanized or westernized intellectual and activist – let alone a European or Western.
It is not only with respect to Christianity that Stalin was an entirely (and consciously) Oriental (and not Muscovite, Kievan or Constantinopolitan, let alone Catholic or Protestant) young intellectual; Georgia’s Antiquity is irreversibly intertwined with that of Iran. For a large part of their Ancient History, Georgians lived in an Iranian imperial province (satrapy). This may appear natural, since the entire Caucasus region, Anatolia, the southern part of today’s Ukraine, Crimea, most of today’s Romania and Bulgaria, involving Thrace and Macedonia, were also parts of the Achaemenid Iranian Empire (550-330 BCE), pretty much like today’s Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, Indus Valley region, and the Arabian Peninsula’s coastlands of the Persian Gulf. In fact, pre-Islamic Georgia was independent from Iran only when the Empire was weak, notably during the Arsacid Parthian dynasty (250 BCE – 224 CE).
This historical reality is quasi-entirely concealed in the forgery published by the Nazi Wikipedia as ‘History of Georgia’:
XII. The Mithraic Iranian cultural heritage of Georgia & Stalin
Thank God, there was no Wikipedia at the time of Stalin; but all the monuments, the historical texts, the inscriptions, the traditions, the legends, the myths and the epics were there. The historical past of Georgia has nothing to do with that of Ancient Rome, except for some Roman military expeditions which were parts and episodes of the interminable Roman-Iranian conflict. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, the Universal Imperial concept and discipline of Iran (of which Georgia and the entire Caucasus were an integral part), and the legacy of the Achaemenid dynasty have always been part of Georgia’s history, culture and heritage; the same is valid for the terrible civil wars, which were caused (as early as during the reign of Kabujiya/Cambyses II in the late 6th c. BCE) by the evil and polytheistic Mithraic Magi, who opposed the monotheistic imperial rulers of Achaemenid Parsa (Persepolis),
The aforementioned is valid for the comprehensively Iranized (or Orientalized) Macedonian kingdom of Pontus that controlled parts of Georgia (Iberia). It is also noteworthy that the monarchs of that kingdom fully abandoned their earlier culture and religion, and they were solemnly named after, and sacramentally blessed by, Mithra (Mitra; also known as Mehr). That’s why they wholeheartedly propagated their new religion throughout Anatolia and across the surrounding seas. More importantly, ruling in the name of Mithra, Pontus King Mithridates VI (135-63 BCE) supported the Cilician Mithraic pirates, who caused terrible damage to the Roman interests, desecrated the most important temples of the blasphemous barbarians of Greece, and duly profaned the peak sanctuary of Mt. Olympus, i.e. Ancient Greeks’ supposedly holiest place.
Mithraism is an integral part of the Georgian identity. The House of Mihran (i.e. the dynasty of the Mithraic faithful nobles), which was one of the seven royal houses of Iran, is at the origin of the kings of Aluank (Caucasian Albania; basically known as Ardhan in Parthian and as Arran in Middle Persian), of the kings of the Armenian Gardman, of the kings of the Armenian Gogark, and of the Chosroid dynasty of Georgia (which was based mainly in Kakheti). The Georgian (Iberian) Chosroid kings (Khosrovianni), who accepted Christianity (337 CE), ruled from 284 CE until 580 CE as vassal kings of the Sassanid emperors of Iran (even after the death of Vakhtang I in 522 CE); their offspring offered an Iranian royal continuity in Caucasus down to the Guaramids and the Nersianids (who ruled as erismtavari, ‘great dukes’ in parts of Georgia from 588 until 786, with intervals of Islamic occupation), as well as to the Bagrationi (the Georgian Bagratids), who ruled from 888 CE {when king Adarnase IV (ca. 870-923) took power over part of Georgia} until 1810, when the Russians canceled the Treaty of Georgievsk, which was signed in 1783, and abolished the Georgian Monarchy. This was the true historical past of Stalin and this is what he learned as his own national past, thanks to his home and school education.
The first Chosroid monarch, Mirian III of Iberia (277-361; reigned after 284 as vassal), bears a Mithraic name, as Mirian in Georgian is the equivalent of Mihran. The name of the dynasty is due to the (non-ruling) father of Mirian Chosroes (Khusraw), and this is a typically Iranian name of high spiritual, universal and imperial connotation. The Georgian Chronicles (Картлис цховреба /Kartlis Tskhovreba), which were composed first in the 8th c., make state of his conversion to Christianity (337 CE), following the ministry of Nino, a female Cappadocian monk; his second wife, queen Nana of Iberia, accepted the Christian faith first. All three were canonized in Georgia as Equal-to-Apostles (motsikultastsori/равноапостольный); in spite of the evident Christianization, the Chosroid dynasty is filled with rulers bearing Iranian names and venerating Mithraic concepts, symbols and traditions. Perceiving the historical developments within the correct contextualization, one can safely state that the Christianization of Georgia and Armenia consisted merely in the evangelization of a part of the wider Iran. And Stalin’s mother was a devout Christian, well versed in the theological dogma, and very knowledgeable in Ecclesiastical History. About:
In fact, the vast symbolic, liturgical and spiritual thematic, which was transferred from Mithraism to Christianity, thus totally disfiguring the teachings of Jesus, helped perpetuate the presence of Ancient Iranian spiritual, religious and cultural concepts within Georgian Christianity. This fact concerns also several other religions that were formed or diffused and prevailed in the region, Islam included. Of course, Stalin was not an Orientalist, neither did he study Orientalism to know these topics in detail, but he was inevitably impacted by them as I will explain below. This definitely makes of him an original Oriental. About:
We have to demonstrate a similar historical understanding for the role that the flamboyant Sassanid Empire of Iran (224-651 CE) played in the formation of the Georgian soul, tradition and spirituality. In fact, the country was an Iranian province and, despite its apparent Christianization, the cultural life was entirely Iranian. The Sassanid reassessment of Zoroastrianism, as undertaken by Kartir (a major high priest, a revered mystic, and a great religious and imperial reformer who lived during the 3rd c. CE), brought about
a) a striking contrast to, and virulent rejection of, Mani and his religion (Manichaeism),
b) an unprecedented and divinely consecrated heroism,
c) a formidable effort to make of the Achaemenid ancestors of the Iranians the legendary and exemplary figures of a Divine Order (without involving though a typical ancestor veneration),
d) a universal vocation, role, and mission of Iran to save the world within an eschatological context, and
e) a paramount change in terms of religious intolerance, military brutality, imperial commitment, and behavioral determination. This overwhelming transformation has left enormous traces in Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia, and many other parts of the Turanian-Iranian world throughout the ages.
In fact, no other empire in the world could have served as better paradigm to both, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, than the Sassanid Empire of Iran. The Roman Empire did not develop or represent any mythical or legendary reference to the ancestors of the Romans except for the very limited attempts of Virgil, Horace or Ovid; even these poets did not envision any universal role, let alone vocation, for the Romans.
The Roman poets, who recalled the Roman national past, retracing it up to Aeneas and Troy, who attempted to reveal human wisdom in rhymes, and who envisioned human and divine interaction, were not sacerdotal masters, spiritual mystics or universal hierophants able to possibly position Rome in terms of Cosmogony, Cosmology, Eschatology and Soteriology. They were low-level talented artists, who wrote for merely personal or social purposes to please the Roman elite around them. In fact, for the worldwide standards of a truly universal empire, the Roman Empire is a most failed state – either you examine its pre-Christian period or you focus on the Eastern Roman imperial model.
Hitler’s references to the Nordic mythical context and Stalin’s calls for the Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная война) and exultations of the heroes of the motherland (герои родины), despite their great dissimilarities, are culturally closer to the Sassanid Iran than to the, spiritually impotent and intellectually weak, Roman Empire where Art acquired value per se, due to the total absence of true spirituality, sacerdotal potency, divine order, and universal appeal.
The extraordinary centripetal dynamics launched by Kartir triggered also centrifugal forces; Mazdak, a 5th c. – early 6th c. Iranian priest, the worldwide first to evangelize a Communist society, unleashed a thunderous religious attack against the Sassanid establishment, before failing and being banned. But both movements motivated and galvanized several generations of formidable opponents to the Omayyad and the Abbasid caliphs, leading people to either military resistance (like the Khurramites) or secession {like in numerous cases attested during the period of Islamic History that is known as ‘Iranian Intermezzo’, a term aptly introduced by the Russian Orientalist Vladimir Minorsky (1877-1966)}.
All the above was of vital importance for the History of Georgia and, more particularly for the survival of Georgian Christianity. In a way, the continuance of the Christian kingdom of Georgia depended basically on its Iranian nature, character and affiliation. As Iranian periphery, Georgia (like Armenia) was occupied during the early Islamic invasions. Resistance against the caliphates of Damascus and, after 750 CE, Baghdad was multifold throughout the territories of the Caliphate:
a- Islamic (notably led by the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Taleb who were the only rightful pretenders to the title of Caliph),
b- Iranian spiritual and cultural (involving notably the Khurramites who were sort of Neo-Mazdakites), and
c- Christian (mainly in Georgia and Armenia).
XIV. An indelible stamp on Islam: the Iranian Intermezzo
In fact, it is the success of the Iranian spiritual and cultural resistance that brought about groundbreaking results as early as 200 years after prophet Muhammad died (632 CE). In fact, the Abbasid Caliphate was vast and difficult to rule (from Morocco to the borders of China and from Siberia to Mozambique); the Caliphs had to care mostly about their survival because the outright majority of Muslims virulently opposed them. That’s why centrifugal forces were early developed and formidable militants of Iranian ancestry, culture and faith seized sizeable mountainous or remote lands and, one way or another, seceded from the Abbasid Caliphate.
This overwhelming phenomenon took various forms; sometimes a local feudal lord, who remained Mazdean for 70 or 80 years after the Islamic invasions, accepted Islam nominally, helped militarily the governor who was sent from Baghdad, and then gradually reduced him to impotency, making him unable to prevent the seizure of power at the local level. This was the case of the Samanid rulers (819-999), who imposed Iranian-Turanian culture and language over a large part of NE Iran and Central Asia, while being ceremonially Muslim.
Another example was the Tahirid dynasty (821-873), which was launched by Tahir ibn Husayn, an Iranian of noble descent who served the Caliph al-Ma’mun in his fight against his brother al-Amin only to be rewarded with the governorship of first Mosul and then Khorasan. First from Merv and then from Neyshapur the Tahirids ruled independently, only nominally accepting the authority of the Caliph at Baghdad.
And this was in fact the manner through which the Abbasid Caliphate totally collapsed already 100 years after its rise (750 CE); in fact, by the middle of the 9th c., the ruler at Baghdad was a powerless figurehead merely receiving news about ‘his’ provinces, which were controlled -in his name- by various Iranian and Turanian combatants whose culture was markedly Sassanid Iranian, although they nominally acknowledged Islam as religion.
The Samanids, the Tahirids, the Saffarids of Khorasan (861-1003), the Sallarids of Caucasus (919-1062), the Ziyarids of Northern Iran (931-1090), and above all the Buyids (934-1062), who held the Abbasid Caliph captive in his palace in Baghdad, ruled all lands between Syria and Pakistan, and used the Sassanid title ‘Shahanshah’, actively promoting the reinstatement, the rehabilitation, and the reinvigoration of all Sassanid ideals, virtues, principles, values and concepts. At the same time, an Iranian origin family, the Barmakids (Бармакиды/برمکیان), managed to obtain great power as advisers of the imperially inexperienced Abbasids, thus gradually transforming them into culturally Iranian caliphs of Muslim faith. In parallel, and as part of the imperial emancipation of the Abbasid family, Aramaeans and Iranians transferred their libraries and schools to Abbasid Baghdad, thus forming the greatest center of science, learning, research, translation and wisdom in the then world, namely the Bayt al Hikmah (بيت الحكمة/ Дом мудрости).
Only because the aforementioned developments caused the central Abbasid force to vanish into thin air, was it possible for the Caucasian Christian kingdoms of Georgia and Armenia to be reconstituted in the late 9th c. It is to be however reminded that these two seceded kingdoms constantly fought against one another. For all these reasons, one has to realize that, before the arrival of the Seljuks, the borderlines of the different kingdoms or emirates that were located between the Eastern Mediterranean coast lands, the Persian Gulf shores, the Indus River Valley, and Central Asia were moving like the sand of the desert. About:
When it comes to the wider Caucasus region, of major importance for developments that took place in Georgia and Armenia is the establishment of the Sajid dynasty (889-929; Саджиды / ساجیان). Muhammad ibn Abi’l-Saj Devdad was the founder of the dynasty, as he benefitted from his father’s fight against the already mentioned legendary rebel Babak Khorramdin, the leader of the Khurramites. Muhammad’s father, Abu’l-Saj Devdad (after whom the dynasty is named) was a Sogdian from Osrushana (Уструшана/اسروشنه) in Transoxiana (in today’s Uzbekistan), who served the Abbasid Caliphs in many battles, first against the Khurramites (837 CE) and later against other dissidents and rebels during the 9th c. Although he was appointed as governor of Khuzestan (today’s SW Iran), he joined forces with the Saffarids because of the spectacular disintegration of the Caliphate, which convinced numerous experienced military rulers that they could contain or even subdue the Caliph.
Similarly, the rise of the Mazyadid dynasty in Shirvan (in today’s Azerbaijan) under Haytham ibn Khalid in 861 further weakened the Abbasid ability to possibly bring the Caliphate’s Northern provinces under control. The historically Iranian title Shirvahshah (شروانشاه) was reintroduced and, after the Mazyadids, the later branches of the same dynasty, i.e. the Kasranids and the Darbandis, ruled large parts of the Caucasus region from 861 until 1538 (witnessing many ups and downs).
One must bear all this in mind in order to understand how the Georgian Bagrationi dynasty and the Armenian Bagratids (880-1045) were able to establish their small kingdoms in the 880s. One has also to add that, in the vicinity of Caucasus, few pre-Islamic Iranian dynasties survived for centuries after the Islamic conquests in the southern coastland of the Caspian Sea, i.e. the quasi-inaccessible northern valleys of the Elburz mountain range; the Dabuyids (a dynasty originating from the Sassanid Emperor Kavadh I) controlled that region (known in Farsi as Tabaristan / طبرستان) from 642 until 760, whereas the Karenids (also known as Qarivand) controlled the western parts of Tabaristan (currently named Mazandaran) from 550 until the 11th c., constantly fighting against the Abbasids.
XV. The intertwined Islamic & Christian cultural heritage of Georgia, and Shota Rustaveli
The aforementioned brief description helps also understand another fundamental aspect of the Georgian culture; this has to do with a deep cultural exchange and interrelationship between Muslims and Christians that took place in the Caucasus region, in Anatolia, in Central Asia and many other parts of the Islamic world. As Christians and Muslims interacted within the domain of the Iranian Civilization, a remarkable phenomenon of cultural flocculation was produced, which prevented acculturation from happening – thank God! In fact, this situation cancels totally the racist Western notion and theories of ‘acculturation’.
Acculturation is defined as ‘assimilation to a different culture, typically the dominant one’. Assimilation is described as ‘a two-way process in which the majority culture is changed as well as the minority culture’. Quite contrarily, flocculation is ‘a process by which a chemical coagulant added to the water acts to facilitate bonding between particles, creating larger aggregates which are easier to separate’.
In fact, to establish a parallel with the aforementioned definitions, Georgian Christianity and Iranian Culture did not ‘meet’ within the land of the Islamic Caliphate. Such an approach would be very superficial and erroneous. In reality, Christianity and Islam encountered one another within the soft waters of Iranian Culture and Civilization. Referring to the above definition, the ‘water’ was the Iranian Civilization, the particles were ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’, and the ‘chemical coagulant’ was common cultural life itself.
Then, without any change in the religious dogma, without any compromise in liturgical matters, and without any renunciation of their Christian past and identity, Georgians were greatly impacted by the Sassanid Iranian Cultural Renaissance of the 9th – 10th c., which stimulated poets, mystics, spiritual masters, and visionaries to reassess, reinstate and recompose the Iranian Imperial Universalism in Kartir’s heroic and divine terms, while also incorporating prophet Muhammad and his Islamic preaching within the eternal recapitulation that is now called World History. The narration of noble and heroic deeds of early, divine dynasties became then revelatory of the human condition, because the various aspects, the braveries and the sins, of many different kings and heroes could be poetically sculpted in order to create new, diachronic hyper-characters, who were able to encapsulate in one ‘person’ the achievements and/or the weaknesses of many.
The first Iranian Muslim to excel in these universally Iranian epics was Ferdowsi (فردوسی; 940-1025); his absolutely misunderstood, grand opus Shahnameh (شاهنامه) is not a merely chivalric romance, as fallacious English Orientalists constantly pretend, but a unique, supratemporal epic in which the superb poet elaborated multilayered heroic characters reflecting the past and heralding the future. For the Muslim world from the Balkans, Russia (and Tatarstan), Anatolia and the Caucasus region to India, Central Asia, and Siberia, Ferdowsi (Фирдоуси) impacted the culture of the Iranians, the Turanians and many other nations as much as prophet Muhammad did, whereas his fabulous epic Shahnameh (Шахнаме; more than 100000 verses) was astutely considered as ‘second Quran’ in terms of divine revelation.
Ferdowsi had an enormous impact on the language, the education, the literature, the popular religion, the culture and the spirituality of many nations; one century later, the national poet of Azerbaijan Nizami Ganjavi (نظامی گنجوی/Nizami Gəncəvi / Низами Гянджеви; 1141-1209) reproduced many of the legendary topics that Ferdowsi narrated, giving fully eschatological context to his portraits of the Sassanid Emperors Bahram V (420-438) and Khusraw II (590-628) and of Alexander the Great in his masterpieces Haft Peykar (هفت پیکر; ‘Seven Beauties’), Khosrow and Shirin (خسرو و شیرین), and Eskander Nameh (اسکندرنامه; ‘the Book of Alexander’) respectively. Amir Khusraw Dehlevi (1253-1325; امیرخسرو دهلوی), the father of Hindavi Literature (in the subcontinent), emulated these topics in the late 13th and the 14th c.; he was not only the national poet of Hindustan, but also a leading mystic and an accomplished musician who merged the traditional Iranian, Arabic, Turanian and Indian singing into what has been known as Qawwali (a devotional song of Muslim mystics). About:
What Nezami Ganjavi did in Azerbaijan and Amir Khusraw carried out in India, Shota Rustaveli (1172-1216; شوتا روستاولی / Шота Руставели) accomplished in Georgia. The national poet about whose life little is known composed the famous epic ‘The Knight in the Panther’s Skin’ (Vepkhist kaosani), which is truly flooded with Iranian themes, concepts, values, names, heroic deeds, mythical-eschatological connotations, and brave, honest characters. In fact, the main hero of the epic (the knight Tariel who wears the panther’s skin) is the Georgian literary emulation of Rustam, one of the foremost Iranian legendary heroes about whom Ferdowsi and all the other great poets and mystics composed thousands of verses. This is easy to conclude, when one takes into account that Rustam used to wear babr-e bayan (بَبْرِ بَیان), namely a magical, ever-lasting suit made of the skin of a tiger or leopard or panther, which makes the person that wears it invisible and invulnerable to weapons, fire and water.
It is not possible to expand on this topic within the limits of the present article, but it is essential to state that this enthralling epic poem reflected and determined the Georgian identity, culture, traditions and values. The Georgian national epic is at the middle of the dogmatic distance between Islam and Christianity; there are references to the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Quran, but most of the characters are Muslims. This is so because in the 12th and the 13th c. there was no real antagonism between the two religions among people living in the Caucasus region. Every trouble started much later, and only after the calamitous infiltration of numerous Catholic and Protestant missionaries, English and French colonialists, and villainous, racist academics who deliberately spread hate, discord, enmity and rancor; it was then that a historical revisionism was attempted by the small part of the Georgian elite that was westernized (with the help of their foreign -mainly French and English- masters).
In fact, these vicious Western missionaries, academics, ‘explorers’, agents and diplomats, who reached there with perfidious mentality, evil intentions, and insidious targets, incited the Georgian priests to burn and destroy all manuscripts of Rustaveli’s majestic epic under the pretext that ‘it was not Christian’, but in reality because it very much defined and consolidated Georgian soul as entirely Oriental, and absolutely clear of the Greco-Roman contamination that these Western gangsters intended to diffuse instead.
XVI. Rustaveli’s Russian translations and Stalin’s pseudonyms
All this and much more was indeed part of Stalin’s culture, education, religious traditions and world conceptualization. It is well known that Stalin loved very much the aforementioned masterpiece of the National Georgian Literature and he wanted to make it widely known to Russians. Only in the period 1935-1940, there were four (4) complete poetic translations of the epic in Russian (Konstantin Balmont, 1933; Georgy Tsagareli, 1937; Shalva Nutsubidze, 1937; Panteleimon Petrenko, 1938). And for a lavish celebration of Rustaveli’s 750th birthday, celebrated in 1937, the Bolshoi Theater was chosen as the correct venue.
Quite interestingly, there was an earlier (actually the first) Russian translation of the epic and even an independent book (of biographical content) about Rustaveli, which was written by the translator himself (also in Russian). The translation (Барсова кожа-Грузинская поэма Шота Руставели / Panther skin–Georgian poem by Shota Rustaveli) was published in Tbilisi in 1888. Three years earlier (1885), also in Tbilisi, the book was published under the title: Шота Руставели – Грузинский народный поэт (Shota Rustaveli – Georgian popular poet).
The author and translator was a renowned journalist with a career spanning over the 19th and the early 20th century. Son of a Polish officer (of the Czarist army) and of a Georgian lady, he was born in the Caucasus region in 1837 and he died around 1912, after having authored several books and been the editor-in chief of various important publications. All the same, his translation and book remained unknown to almost all; they were out of reach for most of the 20th c.; the sole reason for the confiscation and the concealment of these publications seems to have been a rather mysterious, personal involvement of Stalin himself.
– Why does a ruler decide to literarily ban a book about the national poet of his own fatherland and the translation of the poet’s grand opus – particularly if this leader so much adores this poet and finds great pleasure in repeatedly reading the illustrious epic?
The late Prof. William Vasilievich Pokhliobkin (Вильям Васильевич Похлёбкин; 1923-2000) believed that he found the reason; either he is right or not, the fact is that the Czarist officer’s son, author and Russian translator of Rustaveli, was named Evgeniy Stepanovich Stalinsky (Евгений Степанович Сталинский). And for Prof. Pokhliobkin, the reason for the removal of Stalinsky’s publications from every public library and bookshop is the fact that Stalin wanted to hide the true origin of his own (and most famous) pseudonym, which was an abbreviation of the translator’s name.
Speaking about Stalin’s pseudonyms, we can discover other traces of Iranian cultural impact. One of his earlier pseudonyms was Koba; many believe that the young rebel selected this pseudonym for him, after identifying his role in real life as that of the homonymous hero of a novel written by the Georgian writer Alexander Kazbegi (1848-1893; Александр Казбеги). In the novel Patricide (Отцеубийца), Koba is a character-embodiment of justice, truthfulness and respect for women; a Caucasian bandit, who has no respect for any authority, defends the poor, and takes revenge on wrongdoers, the hero of the novel fascinated the mind and imagination of the young Joseph Dzhugashvili. About: (Russian translation) https://www.litres.ru/aleksandr-kazbegi/otceubiyca/chitat-onlayn/
The aforementioned interpretation of the origin of the pseudonym Koba is only partly true; in reality, the Georgian novelist used a name that was historically known to Georgians. This was the Modern Georgian rendition of the name of the Sassanid Emperor Kavadh I (pronounced Qubad in Farsi: قباد یکم /Кавад I/473-531; ruled 488-496 and 499-531), who was one of the greatest Sassanids, even more so because he supported the revolutionary, Communist, high priest and visionary Mazdak and his groundbreaking reforms that he wanted to initiate in order to entirely overhaul the socio-economic structure of the Empire.
After eight (8) years of controversial rule, Kavadh I lost his throne due to his extraordinarily brave and adventurous character and because of his determination to adopt the ideas and the concepts of someone, who wanted to confiscate the lands and the fortunes of the landowners, i.e. the imperial nobility, and to distribute the national wealth proportionally to all the subjects of the Empire; even the women should be common to all men as per Mazdak’s teachings, which were put to use for some time. All the same, escaping to Turan and getting reinforcements, the toppled monarch managed to quickly return and to rule for more than three decades, also invading (partly) the vassal kingdom of Chosroid Georgia (Iberia); but Kavadh I had to permanently forget Mazdakism, which was definitely the World History’s first conceptualization and implementation of a Communist society.
Kavadh I’s historical importance pales indeed, if it is compared with the sublime, universal significance of his legendary counterpart, namely Shah Kay Kawad of the ‘mythical’ Kayanian dynasty that Ferdowsi prodigiously envisioned and marvelously narrated in his majestic epic Shahnameh. And such the spiritual, moral and imperial importance of Ferdowsi’s epic characters was that, many centuries after the national poet of Iran died, Seljuk sultans of Rum in Anatolia were named after Kay Kawad (notably Kayqubad I).
The Georgian Chronicles do not mention Mazdak, but the greatest Islamic historian al-Tabari (839-923; Ибн Джарир ат-Табари / الطبري) wrote extensively about the controversial imperial reformer in the 5th volume (out of 40 volumes of the recent English edition) of his History of the Prophets and the Kings (تاريخ الرسل والملوك/Tarīkh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk); in this part of his text (or volume of the publication), the illustrious historiographer, theologian, mystic and scholar covers mainly the History of the Sassanid Empire. As Tabari was widely known, read and quoted not only among Muslims but also by Syriac Aramaean, Georgian and Armenian scholars, historians and various writers, it is certain that his narratives were shared among several non-Muslim populations. It makes therefore sense to assume that Stalin’s pseudonym Koba reveals key aspects of his Georgian and therefore Iranian cultural background.
XVII. Archaeological excavations and Orientalist discoveries prior to Stalin’s sojourn in Anatolia
If I expanded so much on Stalin’s national, socio-cultural, educational, intellectual and spiritual background, it is because it is essential to understand who exactly the young man truly was. When Joseph Dzhugashvili at the age of 33 decided to escape from the czarist prisons and to secure a calm place for survival, meditation, spiritual exercises and practices, he was not at all a European or a Westerner with knowledge of, or interest in, Dante, Pascal, Shakespeare, Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Goethe, Lamartine, Fichte, Victor Hugo, and various other cornerstones of the Modern Western European intellectual life. He was an Oriental, a Caucasian, culturally very familiar with Anatolian and Iranian Muslims, with Turanian mystics, with Iranian epics, with Asia (and not with Europe), and with a legendary reconfiguration of the Pre-Islamic Antiquity and of the Divine, Imperial Universe (Ferdowsi, Nizami Ganjavi, Shota Rustaveli, etc.).
Anti-czarist projects and activities were certainly a common ground between Stalin and Lenin, his 8 years older mentor, whom the young Georgian met in 1905, but in reality, when it comes to education and culture, the main two Soviet sovereigns had very little in common during their first 33 years of life. It is very clear that Lenin and Stalin did not have the same reading of Karl Marx. Lenin was a Marxist, and Stalin was a Leninist; but Stalin was a Marxist only in the sense that he was a follower and a disciple of Lenin. More importantly, Stalin did not view Lenin in the way Lenin viewed Marx.
Stalin’s time of visit to Ottoman Anatolia coincided with an overwhelming colonial movement of academic-intellectual explorations, mainly undertaken by French, English, Belgian and Dutch scholars, who generated a treacherous antagonism in order to benefit from the work of their German, Austrian, Italian, Russian, Danish, Swedish, Swiss and American competitors; this occurred because the latter did not realize that what they were doing only contributed to the -fabulously beneficial to the colonial powers of France, England and Holland- academic, educational, cultural, intellectual, artistic and spiritual colonialism, which is now known as ‘Orientalism’.
Orientalism was not an accurate representation of the Ancient Oriental, Oriental Christian, and Islamic civilizations, but a monstrous, deliberate, systematic and racist distortion of the historical reality that the criminal colonial academia intentionally adjusted to their already elaborated inhuman forgery, which they called ‘Greco-Roman Civilization’, ‘Judeo-Christian culture’ or simply ‘Western world’. It is clear that the inhuman forgers wanted to pull Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Qajar Iran, Qing China, and all the lands that they had already colonized (notably the vast Mughal Empire of South Asia, the sultanates of SE Asia, and Africa) into their bogus-historical revisionist dogma that started with the Renaissance and expanded ever since,
a) criminally usurping the local and/or regional cultural identity of hundreds of millions of people,
b) shamelessly substituting their cultural identity with a fake,
c) physically exterminating dozens of millions of people in different manners, and
d) totally revising, altering and disfiguring the earlier History of the Mankind.
Due to the aforementioned practice, hundreds of archaeological, historical, linguistic and philological projects were undertaken, ancient scripts deciphered, monuments and sites unearthed, languages studied – and ferociously misinterpreted, falsified, and at times concealed only to justify the evilness of the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon racism and to vindicate the fabricated myth of Hellenism, the constructed falsehood of Catholic Christianity, and the Anti-Oriental, Anti-Asiatic and Anti-African paranoia of the colonial elites.
Numerous important archaeological sites were then excavated in the already colonized territories of Egypt, Greece, Sudan, India, Tunisia, etc., throughout the ailing Qajar Empire of Iran, and notably in the still vast territory of the Ottoman Empire without however the idiotic sultan Abdulhamid II (1842-1918; reigned from 1876 to 1909, being a nominal figurehead afterwards; عبد الحميد ثانی / Abdülhamid II / Абдул-Хамид II), the most pathetic and useless of all Ottomans, understanding anything. The unfathomable historical resources of his country were being stolen, the pre-Islamic past of his empire was uncovered only to be distorted and adjusted to heinous plans, and the silly trash Abdulhamid II was still smiling to the ambassadors of France and England! Even worse, the discoveries were popularized, discussed and introduced into educational manuals, always as per the forged representation that each Western explorer and scholar established.
Newspapers were spreading the news of each and every archaeological exploration and excavation which was tantamount to material discovery and intellectual-academic-spiritual disguise and cover-up.
Before Stalin crossed the Ottoman Empire from its northeastern confines to the northwestern fringes, the following major sites were explored and unearthed in Mesopotamia: Nineveh in 1842, Nimrud (ancient Kalhu) in 1845, Ur in 1853-1854 (and again later in 1922-1934), Khorsabad (Dur Sarrukin, the capital of Sargon of Assyria) in 1855, Babylon in 1899, Assur (the main Assyrian capital) in 1903, Hatra (the famous Aramaean caravan-city, one of the most important stations on the Silk Roads; surveyed by Walter Andrae of the German excavation team working in Assur from 1906 to 1911), Uruk in 1912-1913, and many other sites – without forgetting the very spectacular monuments of Taq-i Kasra in Al Mada’in (the Sassanid capital Tesifun / Ctesiphon) that the French explorers Eugène Flandin and Pascal Coste visited in 1851 and confessed about the stupendous imperial gate: “the Romans had nothing similar or of the type”.
By that time, in Iran, many sites were already explored and excavated too; Parsa (Persepolis), known as Chehel Minar (چهل منار /i.e. forty minarets) during the Islamic times, was one of the most visited (by Western Europeans) sites; various travelers from Europe reached there in 1320, 1474, 1568, and 1602, whereas in 1618 the Spanish ambassador (to the court of the Safavid Shah of Iran Abbas I/1571-1629; reigned after 1588) García de Silva Figueroa was the first to associate this location with the great Achaemenid capital that was known as Persepolis in Ancient Greek and Latin sources. Pasargad (the early Achaemenid capital) was first explored by the German Ernst Herzfeld in 1905, whereas Shush (Susa), an Elamite and later an Achaemenid capital, was explored in 1851, 1885-1886, 1894-1899, and then systematically excavated by the French Jacques de Morgan (1897-1911).
Not far from Hamedan (the Ancient Median capital Hegmataneh / Ekbatana), the splendid site of Behistun (Bisotun) had become world-famous even before it was excavated (initially in 1904) by Leonard William King and Reginald Campbell Thompson (sponsored by the British Museum); this happened because the famous rock reliefs and inscriptions of the Achaemenid Darius the Great were copied and published by the German surveyor Carsten Niebuhr in 1764 and then used by the German Georg Friedrich Grotefend to decipher the Old Persian cuneiform script. He deciphered 35 cuneiform signs of the Old Achaemenid in 1802. Later, Sir Henry Creswick Rawlinson studied and fully deciphered the script in 1838. Without the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid, it would be impossible for Rawlinson to decipher the Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, and later for others to read the Hittite script which enabled us to have access to the most important and the most original Anatolian literature of pre-Christian times. Last, quite interestingly, the German spiritual-scientific society Ahnenerbe, which used Hitler for their non-Nazi, highly secretive projects, explored Behistun too – in 1938. And to the Georgians, the northwestern parts of Iran were like their backyard.
Again in the Ottoman Empire, Rekem/Petra (the capital of the Nabataean Aramaean state, which controlled most of the territory of today’s Jordan) was first explored in 1907, whereas the Nabataean royal necropolis Hegra (Mada’in Saleh) was visited by the famous German explorer Johann Ludwig Burckhardt in 1812 and by Charles Montagu Doughty in 1876. Early in the 20th c., the site was expected to be duly explored {because of the vicinity of a station built for the Ottoman Hejaz Railway (that was constructed between 1901 and 1908), which passed through the site}; but it was quite unfortunately never explored, let alone excavated, before the year 2000, due to the rise of the barbarian Wahhabi pseudo-Muslims and their allies, namely the criminal Saudi puppets of UK and US. These obscurantist forces carried out the anti-Ottoman revolt of 1916, destroyed the station and the railway, and stupidly prohibited all excavations in their hitherto illegally occupied territory.
In the region of Anatolia, three major sites attracted explorers, archaeologists and scholars. The ruins of Hattusha, the capital of one of the world’s most formidable military forces, i.e. the Hittite Empire, were discovered (in Boğazköy, near Yozgat) in 1834 by the French Charles Texier. The first excavations started in 1893 and, after 1906, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society) excavated the site thoroughly until 1951 (almost uninterruptedly), unearthing 25000 cuneiform tablets written in Hittite, Assyrian-Babylonian, and other ancient Oriental languages. Most of the tablets were found already in 1906 by Hugo Winckler and Theodore Makridi, an Ottoman-Turkish archaeologist of Greek origin. This extraordinary archaeological treasure, known as the Boğazköy Archives, opened the way for the decipherment of the Hittite by the Czech Orientalist Bedřich Hrozný whose first solid conclusions were published in 1915. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/hattusha-excavations-continue-for-more-than-a-century-176616
It is noteworthy that Hattusha/Boğazköy is located on the historical road between Constantinople/Istanbul and Theodosiopolis/Erzurum that Stalin took to move from Artvin to Adapazarı. It is therefore very probable that he visited the site of Anatolia’s first empire and he watched the enormous, massive walls of the Hittite capital, although by that time no one knew that in 1596 BCE the Hittite king Mursili I (1620-1590) undertook from that very location the longest military expedition ever undertaken until his time, and after crossing 2000 km, he destroyed Babylon.
Of lesser importance was the discovery of Hisarlık by Heinrich Schliemann, who started excavating there in 1870 and found what is believed to be the Ancient Anatolian city of Tarwisha or Wilusa that the Ancient Greeks called Troy or Ilion. After the death of the amateurish, fraudulent and surely untrustworthy Schliemann, Wilhelm Dörpfeld continued the excavation of the site and published his findings.
Far more important than the excavation of Hisarlık (Troy) was the discovery of cuneiform tablets near Kayseri (Caesarea of Cappadocia) around 1880. After an amount of them was bought by the British Museum, Ernest Chantre started excavating for two seasons in 1893; Hugo Grothe continued in 1906, and then Hrozný unearthed more than 1000 cuneiform tablets (in Assyrian-Babylonian), which document in detail the deeds of the Assyrian karum (trade post) in Kanesh (or Nesha), in today’s Kültepe (20 km SW of Kayseri), for the period 2050-1750 BCE. As a matter of fact, the great Assyrian entrepôt and trade community constitutes the world’s earliest known instance of international trade; the topic was elucidated by my former professor, the Assyriologist Paul Garelli in his thèse d’État ‘Les Assyriens en Cappadoce’ (Paris, 1963).
Eclipsing the aforementioned sites, the most outstanding discovery that took place in Anatolia in the late 19th c. is that of Nemrut Dağı (Немрут-Даг / Mount Nemrut). The monumental site at the peak of the 2130 m high mountain is apparently the foremost Mithraic sanctuary ever found; it was established out of three enormous terraces (eastern, northern and western) located around a tumulus (with height of 49 m and diameter of 152 m), namely the tomb of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 BCE). The burial chamber has not yet been discovered, but due to the inscriptions found, we know that the magnificent king explicitly boasted to descend from Darius the Great (through his father’s family) and from Alexander the Great (through his mother’s family).
Turning point in the diffusion and the transplantation of Mithraism from Central Asia and Iran to Greece, Rome and Europe, Mount Nemrut sanctuary features five enormous and several other smaller statues and reliefs in each of its terraces (the northern is lost due to an earthquake). The majestic marble sculptures represent (from left to right):
Apollo-Mithra-Hermes-Helios (spiritually the preponderant deity of the sacred place),
Tyche-Commagene (Fortune, as embodiment of the Iranian Mithraic goddess Anahita, identified with the kingdom of Antiochus I),
Oromazdes (the Iranian God Ahura Mazda linked with the Ancient Greek god Zeus),
Antiochos I of Commagene (as divinity), and
Artagnes (the Iranian god Verethragna associated with the Ancient Greek hero Hercules), with one eagle and one lion on each side of the five enormous statues.
The site was first studied by the German engineer Karl Sester in 1881, then explored by Otto Puchstein of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (German Archaeological Institute) in 1882, and finally studied by an Ottoman-German team (under the Ottoman archaeologist Osman Hamdi Bey and the sculptor Osgan Effendi who started working there in 1883). Thanks to the discovery of a long inscription in Ancient Greek many historical, religious and spiritual points were elucidated, and the general public read the results of the excavations and the associated research already in 1890.
XVIII. Stalin’s textual sources of information about Mithra and the Mithraic mysteries
– Beyond all the archaeological and epigraphic discoveries that were published in newspapers and magazines, what were Stalin’s sources of information about Mithras, Mithraism, Mithraic mysteries, and Mithraic spirituality?
Stalin was not a historian or an archaeologist by formation; but he advanced much in his formation of Christian theologian in the Russian Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary, as I already said. This means that he must have greatly benefitted from the library of that academic institution and the advice of highly educated men like
a) the famous archimandrite Seraphim Mesheryakov (Серафим Мещеряков / born Яков Михайлович Мещеряков; 1860-1933), who was the rector of the famous Tiflis Theological Seminary, member of the Georgian Imeretian Synodal Office (1893-1898) and later became an active member of the Obnovlenchestvo (Обновленчество / Renovation) movement, and
b) the bishop Hermogenes (Germogen) Dolganev (Гермоген Долганёв / born Георгий Ефремович Долганов; 1858-1918), who was inspector (1893-1898) and rector (1898-1901) of the Tbilisi Seminary; this brave man opposed Imperial Russia’s westernization and moral decay, facing Rasputin personally and even threatening him in an effort to contain his evildoing. However, by the time he was promoted as rector of the Tbilisi Seminary, the young Joseph Dzhugashvili may have already shaped his personal opinion about the historical role of Christianity and the true essence of the forces which -from Rome- imposed Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Then, he apparently envisioned another future for himself, and ceased to be interested in the Seminary; consequently, the bishop Hermogenes decided to finally expel him.
In the Seminary, Stalin must have probably become acquainted with a great number of apologists and Fathers of the Christian Church, like the Carthaginian Tertullian (155-220; Тертуллиан) and Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390; Григорий Богослов), who wrote much about the Mithraic mysteries, as well as the beliefs and the cults of the Mithraists, who then (2nd – 4th c. CE) appeared to be the greatest rivals of, and the most formidable challenge to, Christianity.
When it comes to Tertullian (who wrote in Latin), there have been several 19th c. Russian translations that Stalin may have read in his youth: the first bishop Athanasius of Moscow translated the ‘Apologeticus pro Christianis’ in 1802 (Квинта Септимия Флорента Тертуллиана Защищение христиан против язычников. / Пер. еп. Афанасия. М., 1802. 230 стр.); the lieutenant-general Igor V. Karneev (Егор Васильевич Карнеев; 1773-1849) published his translation of selected works of Tertullian in four parts (1847-1850; the last two parts posthumously/available online: http://www.odinblago.ru/tertulian_1/); and in the 1910s, N. N. Shcheglov (Н. Н. Щеглов) and Archbishop Basil Bogdashevsky (Архиепископ Василий; born Дмитрий Иванович Богдашевский) published another Russian translation of the apologetic, dogmatic and polemical works of Tertullian.
With respect to Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the major Fathers of the Christian Church, there have been Russian translations of his works already in the second half of the 18th c., notably the publication of Fr. Turgenev in 1783 and that of archbishop Irenaeus (Архиепископ Ириней; born Иван Андреевич Клементьевский) in 1798 (involving 13 homilies). However, it is more probable that Stalin used the 6-volume, edition (complete works of Gregory of Nazianzus) of the Moscow Theological Academy (Московская духовная академия; 1843-1848); this edition, slightly abridged, was reprinted in 1912 by the Publishing House P. P. Shoikin (in Sankt Petersburg). It is available online: http://www.odinblago.ru/sv_grigoriy_t1/
Remarkable textual evidence about the diffusion of Mithraism throughout the Mediterranean, narratives concerning the adoption of Mithraic cults, concepts and symbols by the nations of the Roman Empire, and descriptions of the penetration of Mithraic esoteric mysteries among the Roman society the young student Stalin may have got while reading texts of several authors of the Late Antiquity. Authors like the Phoenician Porphyry (Порфирий), the Greek Plutarch (Плутарх) who was the high priest of the Oracle of Delphi, Ancient Greece’s holiest temple, the Roman Dio Cassius (Дион Кассий), the Carthaginian Lactantius (Лактанций), and the Upper Egyptian Nonnus (Нонн Панополитанский) expanded on various topics associated with Mithraism. The same is valid for a very particular Egyptian, who stands literally between the two worlds, namely Early Christianity and the Egyptian Memphite Theology of Ptah: Origen (Ориген).
Russian translations from the Ancient Greek and Latin texts existed already at the time; Stalin may well have found them in the Seminary Library and discussed them with his instructors. Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives’ (and most importantly the Life of Pompey where the Greek author documents the desecration of the most important temples of Ancient Greece by the Mithraic pirates of Cilicia, who imposed Mithraism throughout Western Anatolia, Southern Balkans, and Southern Italy) were translated in 1814-1821 by Spyridon Yurevich Destunis, the Ottoman-origin, Christian Orthodox Russian scholar, author and diplomat (1782-1848). https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Плутарховы_сравнительные_жизнеописания_славных_мужей_(Плутарх;_Дестунис)
There was also the translation (Жизнеописания Плутарха) published in 1862 by Vladimir Guerrier (1837-1919; Владимир Иванович Герье), a French-origin Russian historian and academic.
However, I believe that it is more probable that Stalin used the then most recent Russian translation of the ‘Parallel Lives’, which was prepared in 1889 by Vasilii Alexeevich Alexeev (Василий Алексеевич Алексеев; 1863-1919) under the title Жизнь и дела знаменитых людей древности (Life and deeds of famous people of the Antiquity):
As regards Lactantius, the first Russian translation dates back in the 18th c.; it was published by Ivan Nikitich Tredyakovsky (Иван Никитич Тредиаковский) in 1783, whereas Igor V. Karneev (Егор Васильевич Карнеев) produced, in the middle of the 19th c., a very much criticized (for linguistic inaccuracies) translation of Lactantius’ works in two volumes (1848).
Origen’s works were repeatedly translated to Russian during the 19th c., notably by Ivan Nikolaevich Korsunskiy (Иван Николаевич Корсунский) in 1884, 1886 and 1897; I. N. Petrov’s translation appeared in 1899 (И. Н. Петров, Творения Оригена), whereas Leonid Ivanich Pisarev (Леонид Иванович Писарев) published (Kazan, 1912) Origen’s famous work ‘Against Celsus’ (Κατά Kέλσον / Contra Celsum / Против Цельса), which is available online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Origen/protiv_celsa/
There may have been no Russian translations of the complete works of Dio Cassius, Nonnus, and Porphyry at the end of the 19th c. and the beginning of the 20th c., but as a Seminary student, Stalin was in the propinquity of several priests, theologians and monks, who were well versed in Ancient Greek and Latin and knew the modern bibliography. They could have narrated to their student all the stories of Mithraic content that are included in the works of these authors, notably Porphyry’s ‘On the caves of the nymphs’. About:
XIX. Spirituality, Religion, Eschatology, Soteriology, the Extinction of the Mankind, and Stalin
The core of every religion revolves around a specific and detailed vision of Cosmogony, Cosmology, Eschatology and Soteriology, therefore constituting a diachronic view of the History of the Mankind; this view is expressed in absolutely mythical terms through use of codified symbols that reveal to every human mind what the human soul can perceive out of the spiritual universe.
As a particular vision of the Truth, no religion can be communicated in rational terms, because human ‘reason’ is the epicenter of the Human Fall, and consequently every ‘reason’ or ‘logic’ destroys the Truth. It cannot be otherwise; as it is a purely mental -non-spiritual- activity, ‘reason’ is indeed handicapped from its inception. It therefore can never perceive the Truth, because reason is material, whereas the Truth is spiritual of essence.
The Fallen Man’s challenge is that, either he likes it or not, he exists for the Truth and not vice versa; it is therefore the Fallen Man’s task to subdue, contain, and eventually eliminate ‘reason’ in order to achieve illumination, unite with his soul, and attain spiritual-corporeal synergy. The revelations that every religion’s codified symbols can offer are always there. You don’t need the high priest of Ishtar in Assyria in person to initiate you in the perception of the realities permanently encoded in the Assyrian monotheists’ symbols; you can do it by yourself. Suffice it that you empty yourself from all unnecessary misperceptions, useless biases, egoistic elements, and unsolicited assumptions that the Fallen World into which you came was devilish enough to force you to make or develop.
Every moral code included in a religion is in reality appended to the interpretation of its codified symbols; that is why the monotheistic and polytheistic priesthoods, in their ceaseless fight, which shaped Human History, developed themes and added narratives as regards the deeds of God (or of the gods). Through these narratives, the different priesthoods reflected or projected spiritual patterns, motions, movements, conditions, motivations and attitudes onto the souls of their followers. In the light of this reality, any insane researcher could describe all the religions as simple psy-ops, but this is preposterous; this is so because you can never define the original fact or situation by taking any posterior, altered, and distorted fact or any unfortunate circumstance as a point of reference. The beginning point is always the original one – not the ulterior, decayed and degraded one. Modern times’ psy-ops are launched by demented materialists, who have no clue about the spiritual universe, let alone its laws, rules and realities.
But by reflecting spiritual patterns, movements, motivations and attitudes onto the souls of their followers, the ancient priesthoods drew them closer to the Divine or to the rejection of the Divine (: the fallen hierarchies). So, if one is foolish enough today to take an ancient religion as psy-ops, he must realize that the so-called ‘psy-ops’ had fundamentally targets of spiritual nature. Priesthoods turn humans to either good or evil; negative spiritual forces may be always there and they stand for temptation or deception, but humans yield to temptation, being induced at a moment of weakness. That is why what really matters is what you do (or what everyone does), not what the others are able or foolish enough to devise; every human is fully capacitated to timely outmaneuver or outfox the most negative, the most vicious, and the most monstrous plot or trap.
When a polytheistic priesthood unleashes negative patterns, motions, movements, conditions, motivations and attitudes -via absurd themes and evil narratives-, a huge flux of terrible calamity is directed against their followers and believers; then, the good character and the gallant morals disappear, civilization moves away from its original roots, and various forms of inhumanity, barbarism, vulgarity, cruelty and corruption start to appear. A debased, barbarian society is a good tool in the hands of an evil sacerdotal or ‘royal’ elite: these are the lawless societies, the devilish priests, and the ignoble rulers that we so often encounter throughout Human History.
– What are fallen hierarchies, negative spiritual forces, polytheistic priesthoods, and negative patterns, motions, movements, conditions, motivations and attitudes?
I believe that the term ‘rejection of the Divine’ is the best response to the above question. Any form, intension, predisposition or scope that denies the Creation and the world that it encompasses (in its own terms) is a repudiation of the Creator and an ostensible effort to move from the status of ‘Being’ to that of ‘Nonbeing’. It is the absurd ‘existence’ of someone or something who/that -in reality- does not want to ‘exist’.
And this entire affair is something that the Mankind had always to deal with, because the quintessence of every eschatology is about ‘Being’ and/or ‘Nonbeing’; the scope of every soteriology is about ‘Being’. That is why there cannot be religion without eschatology and soteriology. All these stories started very early with the antediluvian split of the originally united, monotheistic, priesthood; that fact was a sheer interference of the fallen hierarchies into the human condition. And this fact was first (before the Flood) prophesied and later (after the Flood) mythologized as the dismemberment of the Osirian body.
Quite unfortunately, this entire affair will end in a very bad manner because, for
– for the monotheistic priesthood, ‘eschatology’ means the ‘struggle of the good people to ideally preserve the condition of Being’, but
– for the polytheistic priesthood, ‘eschatology’ means the ‘struggle of the good people to ideally bring about the condition of Nonbeing’.
This ubiquitously manifested polarization takes an even more atrocious appearance, because for the polytheistic priesthood ‘soteriology’ means the achievement of ‘Nonbeing’. In other words, the Salvation of the Mankind is its total extinction and disappearance.
This is very clearly stated in Manichaeism, the religion that Mani solemnly preached in Seleucia-Ctesiphon on the 19th April 240 CE, just one week after the coronation of the Sassanid Iranian Emperor Shapur I (12th April 240 CE) to whom Mani dedicated his book ‘Shabuhragan’ (which means ‘the book of Shapur’).
Manichaeism was reviled by Christians and Muslims alike for many long centuries; its monastic aspect must have been seen as an impact on Christianity by Stalin. An absolutely non-heroic faith of self-denial like Mani’s spiritual-religious system must have not attracted Stalin. On the contrary, it is quite possible that it looked quite disgusting and inhuman to him.
But the fact that the polytheistic priesthood intends to produce an unprecedented sacrifice of the Mankind at the End of Times (a long lasting conflagration as per the terms of Manichaeism), in order to bring about the instinctively pursued target, i.e. the human annihilation, can also be identified within the context of many religions, Mithraism included. And this is what the young student of the Tbilisi Seminary must have sensed. On the other hand, the continuance of the ancient priesthoods down to our times under the form of religious orders and secret societies was also apparent to him.
The means by which the polytheistic Mithraic priesthood of Central Asia prefigured the extinction of the Mankind was the narrative about Mithras slaying the Bull or, to put it according to the original expression, Mithras killing the Celestial Bovines. That deed was a sacrilege.
XX. Major themes of Stalin’s spiritual quest in Anatolia – 1. Tauroctony and Crucifixion
Tauroctony (bull-slaying) is a particularly revolting theme; in real terms, it is a divinely unwanted and therefore unnecessary sacrifice. Its origin dates back to the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, and its first mention is attested in the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh in which the two friendly but different heroes, Gilgamesh (identified with the Biblical and Islamic Nimrud) and Enkidu, slay a bull. All the same, in later periods, the monotheistic priesthoods of Assyria did their ingenious best to conceal the topic and that is why, in replacement of the historical truth, they mythologized Gilgamesh as a lion hunter.
When the theme of bull-slaying was introduced by the early Iranian-Turanian Magi in Central Asia, it caused terrible friction and the benevolent Magi kicked the evil ones out. The theme was banned among the majority of the local mystics and tribal spiritual leaders; furthermore, there is no mention of it in Tengrism, Shamanism, and the earlier forms of Ancient Iranian and Ancient Indian religions; as a matter of fact, the sacralization of the cow in the Hindu beliefs is also an extreme reaction to this very ancient mythical topic. Zoroaster too erased every trace of the topic, which is not mentioned in the Avesta, and that is why the Iranian Magi of the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE) hated so much the emperors, who were strictly aligned with the monotheistic dogma of Zoroastrianism. Mithra in Zoroastrianism is merely the solar aspect of the only god: Ahura Mazda. Reversely, Ahura Mazda in Mithraism is an obsolete deity, similar to the ‘dei otiosi’ (inactive gods) of the Ancient Romans. At this point, I need to add that labeling Zoroastrianism, a fully monotheistic dogma, as ‘dualism’ is a cover-up of the blasphemous polytheistic priests of Anti-Christian (‘Catholic’) Rome.
As the evil and inhuman, Mithraic sacerdotal college proceeded to the West and reached the Iranian plateau, one cultural vestige was left in Central Asia only to survive down to our days: buzkashi, a collective sport in which horse riders attempt to grab the decapitated carcass of a goat and hold it for as long as possible or ride with it to the finish line. However, in reality, buzkashi is a form of substitute to the bull-slaying; and as such, it remains until today a cherished tradition among numerous people in many countries in Asia. The Biblical and Quranic traditions relate also to a well-known substitute to an unnecessary sacrifice: a lamb instead of Isaac (as per the Biblical tradition) or Ishmael (according to the Quranic textual references). Similarly, a substitute for Stalin in Anatolia was the practice of boar hunting, which was, literally speaking, ‘bull-slaying in reverse’.
At the very beginning of the Sassanid times (first half of the 3rd c. CE) a nobler sport was invented in Iran, in replacement of the buzkashi among the imperial elite: chowkan (چوگان/chowgan in Farsi). Indicative of where the line of distinction between Civilization and Barbarism lies, the Sassanid imperial game was introduced in the Eastern Roman Empire as tzykanion and a majestic tzykanisterion (a special stadium for this sport) was erected in New Rome-Constantinople as early as the reign of Theodosius I (408-450). But this culture failed to be further diffused west of the Balkans where the bull-slaying theme was propagated only to stay down to our times in the form of the Corrida de toros (bullfighting).
Fugitive in the Ottoman Empire, Joseph Dzhugashvili must have spent much time, contemplating the real meaning of tauroctony and examining why, in striking contrast to Anatolia, Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia, Russia and Siberia, this theme was widely diffused, promoted, propagated and cherished in the Western parts of the Roman Empire, while being also mentioned by several ancient authors.
Tauroctony is the eschatological dimension of Mithraism. In this sacrilegious act, the evil spiritual force of Satan, i.e. Mithra, wants to exterminate the Mankind, which is symbolized as a ‘Bull’. In different eschatological conceptualizations established by monotheists, there is a constant reference to the end clash between the ‘Good’ and the ‘Evil’; quite contrarily to that approach, in all eschatological conceptualizations that were established by polytheists, there is no end clash at all. There is a dead end. In Manichaeism, there is a universal conflagration. In Mithraism, there is a mass killing, that of the ‘Bull’. The concept of the Celestial Bovines reflects the early spiritual force and omnipotence with which the Man was created. The Man has been created as ‘Celestial’; not ‘Earthly’! This irrevocable transcendental reality was later echoed by Jesus in his ‘Kingdom of the Heaven’.
What makes us equate Mithra with Satan? One of the easiest possible responses relates to Mithra’s true position: initially, he was always subordinate to Ahura Mazda (or Oromazdes in Commagene). There was never a form of Mithraism in which Mehr or Mitra would occupy the position of Ahura Mazda in the Early Iranian religion or in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s statue was not placed at the center of the five statues that we encounter in Nemrut Dagh’s three terraces; the central statue was clearly that of Oromazdes (Ahura Mazda). But within the purely or entirely Mithraic environment (i.e. in the Western part of the Roman Empire), Ahura Mazda was inactive and apathetic, pretty much like the ‘Father of Greatness’ in Manichaeism. In fact, Mithra was never the God of an original religion. He was always the god of the alteration, the disfigurement and the corruption of an original religion; that is why he can be equated with the Demiurge of Manichaeism and of the various Gnostics, with the Satan of the Biblical and the Quranic texts, and with the ‘Ruler of this world’ as per Jesus’ words (Gospel of John, XIV:30).
These analogies can be very easily assessed and understood at the simple linguistic level; when Mani wanted to name the ‘demiurge’, who created the structure of the present world, he used in Middle Persian two words that mean ‘living spirit’ (: Mihr yazd), thus involving one of the two names of Mithra (Mehr and Mitra).
The young Joseph Dzhugashvili must have understood in Anatolia the very crucial significance of the fact that the evil Magi, who intend to finally exterminate the Mankind in order to service their Master, failed to diffuse their main theme in Iran, India, Central Asia, Caucasus and Anatolia, but they were successful indeed in flooding the Italian Peninsula and the western part of the Roman Empire with Mithraea filled with representations of the tauroctony. In fact, in every Mithraeum, the most sacred part (which corresponds to the ‘holy of the holies’ of a Christian church) was decorated with a bull-slaying relief.
The theme of Tauroctony in a Mithraeum was supplanted by the concept of the Crucifixion in a Church. When Stalin was in Anatolia, more than 10 years had already passed after he left the Tbilisi Seminary; his originally negative conclusions about Christianity must have been nuanced in Anatolia. Simple observation shows that, throughout the lands where Oriental Christianity prevailed, there had never been any representation relating to the bull-slaying topic.
Then, this observation may have revealed to the young inquisitive explorer the reality hidden from the eyes of the entire world, which was then at the eve of what is now called WW I. The evil sacerdotal force that wanted to annihilate the Mankind since times immemorial, after having failed to control Mesopotamia, Iran, Central Asia, Caucasus and Anatolia, migrated to Rome where they formed a strong foothold, then diffused the tauroctony theme, and later replaced it with the Crucifixion cult, thus shifting from the Mithraic narratives to the Christian apologetics.
Stalin must have had an idea about the schisms (869 and 1054) between the Eastern Roman Orthodox Church and ‘Catholic’ Rome; he knew that the reason for the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire was the Anti-Constantinopolitan hate, rancor and malice of Rome. This must have had cataclysmic impact on his perception of extant threats against Russia, the Orient, and the entire Mankind.
If ‘New Rome’ (Constantinople) opposed and rejected Rome up to the point of a mutual excommunication, this simply meant that Rome had ultimately ceased to be ‘Rome’ and therefore the only true Rome was ‘New Rome’, since Rome had turned out to be a -properly speaking- Anti-Rome.
If the Roman (in reality: ‘Anti-Roman’) sacerdotal force managed to finally destroy ‘New Rome’, this fact clearly meant that they would attempt to do exactly the same with the ‘Third Rome’, i.e. Russia, because Moscow postulated to be the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire.
And if Rome (in reality: ‘Anti-Rome’), after the two schisms, did not care much about the fact that Constantinople chose the appellation ‘Orthodox’ for the Eastern Roman Church, this demonstrates that they truly did not show a genuine interest in the true Christian faith, but only in the manipulation of the Christian populations (if possible all of them: ‘Catholic’) as per their own real and concealed plans. After all, the persistence of the ‘Roman’ (in reality: ‘Anti-Roman’) Church in the use of the cognomen ‘Catholic’ for themselves in reality fully encapsulated their millennia long aspiration to entirely entrap, deceive and annihilate the Mankind.
This helps us understand that, as early as 1912, Stalin may have been able to perceive the lurking dangers and accurately identify their origin. He was then better placed than Czar Nicholas II to assess the extent to which Russia’s position in the world was seriously endangered by the Mithraic – Anti-Christian force which ruled from Rome. It is true that the imperial authorities reacted strongly to the Jesuit infiltration which was undertaken as early as 1907 with the formulation and diffusion of Imiaslavie, a heretic spiritual-religious theory and movement as per which the ‘name of god’ is ‘god’ himself! This sort of name exultation ends up in evildoing in the name of God.
Certainly, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church denounced the treacherous belief; in June and July 1913, Russian naval forces disembarked in Mount Athos to impose the decision and to arrest the heretics, injuring many and killing few monks, but this was merely a small local and temporal reaction.
Quite contrarily, and seeing things in a wider context, Stalin may have anticipated, even before these events in Mount Athos, the notorious Jesuit-demonic spectacle at Fatima (Portugal) in 1917 and the subsequent postulation as regards the so-called Consecration of Russia, which is tantamount to Russian enslavement to the Anti-Christian rulers of Rome, who have long been preparing the forthcoming tauroctony and extermination of the Mankind.
In the light of Stalin’s Mithraic contemplations, Russia emerges de facto as the frontal opponent of the sacrilegious pseudo-Christian forces, which need first to desecrate Russia in order to achieve their blasphemous plan providing for the extinction of the Mankind. Even more importantly, on the basis of the aforementioned, the young fugitive, who had already been enthralled by mythical figures, legendary characters, and novel heroes like Koba, must have first identified his role, his destiny, and his calling: he had to properly defend the simple, good and innocent people, to duly fight the evil priests who wanted to sacrifice the Mankind, and to ultimately defeat the tool of the Papo-Caesarist elite. From that moment on, Stalin -similarly to both, his heroic paragon in the novel and the illustrious Sassanid Emperor Kavadh I in real History- was a fully committed Caesaropapist, absolutely conscious of his task and scope. He would do everything to rise in power and he would kill as many as needed to prepare Russia for battle in order to avoid Russia’s unnecessary sacrifice, desecration and extinction.
But would he have the support of Tyche-Russia, just like Antiochus I of Commagene, who was in company of Tyche-Commagene at the peak sanctuary of Nemrut Dagh? Only his further initiation in other Mithraic mysteries would tell.
XXI. Major themes of Stalin’s spiritual quest in Anatolia – 2. Mithraic Trinity, Christian Trinity, Spirituality and Stalin
Many religions contained trinities in their Cosmogony, therefore automatically projecting this element onto their cosmologies, eschatologies, and soteriologies, and thence further on, onto the lives of their believers and their societies. This point has nothing to do with monotheism or polytheism; in monotheism, every trinity is perceived as reflecting different aspects of the Divine Being, whereas in polytheism, the three parts of the trinity are rather viewed individualized.
Technically speaking, the eventual mention of several ‘gods’ in the sacred texts of a religion does not necessarily make of it a ‘polytheist’ system, because these ‘gods’ may have been viewed as aspects or emanations of the One God. Reversely, the strict reference to one ‘god’ does not make of a religion a ‘monotheistic system’, because eventually basic parts of the dogma and the cult or -even worse- ulterior theological interpretations may be of absolutely polytheistic nature, concept and character.
These two words of Greek etymology (‘monotheism’ and ‘polytheism’), which are of ample use nowadays, are indeed very simplistic and quite wrong; in fact, they should be rather avoided and respectively replaced by the terms ‘sacred (or divine) faith’ and ‘profanity’ (or blasphemy). Only clear terms of spiritual connotation can accurately denote the nature of the Divine and that of the opposition to the Divine; in this regard, simply ‘rational’ or ‘technical’ terms should not be in use, because in reality they consist in sheer abuse.
As per the Ancient Sumerian and Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian) representation of the Divine Order, Anu, Enlil and Ea (ENKI in Sumerian) formed an early trinity that reflected God’s control over the Sky (or Heaven or Ether), the Air, and the Soft Waters respectively, and its reflection on every human being. This is not a form of ‘polytheism’, but the way of the early Sumerian and Akkadian sacerdotal colleges to accurately describe the nature and the consequences of the divine arrangements with which the humans were created to comply. The early Mesopotamian priests, back in the 4th millennium BCE, did not have the need of prophet Muhammad to castigate the Roman and Constantinopolitan priests, who viewed the essence of Ether as an independent ‘person’ (‘Holy Spirit’) and considered it possible that a human being could eventually be ‘God’. Every faith and every preaching reflect the time, the needs, and the context of its proclamation.
Similarly, in the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw (Heliopolitan) dogma, which was composed as Cosmogony, Cosmology, Eschatology and Soteriology at the same time, there were two trinities: Osiris-Isis-Horus and Isis-Horus-Seth.
The former reflected the pattern ‘father-mother-son’ at its transcendental and symbolic dimension, while it also heralded the typical tradition of the Pharaonic families (in which very often princes married their sisters). It was -in its conception- a supratemporal narrative of the History of the Mankind from A to Z, with focus on the predestination of Man, i.e. his victory over the Evil, the cancellation of the Evil’s deeds, and the ultimate reacquisition of the spiritual potency with which Man was initially created.
The latter was of entirely eschatological content, as it detailed the End Clash in terms far more extensive than in any other religion’s sacred texts; within this context, Isis absolutely portends the ‘Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars’ (Revelation by John 12:1), her ‘child’ (which is interpreted as ‘Jesus’ by Christians) being actually a reflection of Horus, whereas the ‘beast coming out of the sea’ (Revelation by John 13:1; which was interpreted as the ‘Antichrist’ by Christians) consists merely in a later version of Seth (or -to transfer the topic within the context of Hittite Anatolian Eschatology- of Ullikummi, the ‘monster that rises from the sea’ only to be defeated by Tasmisu, the Hittite Horus or Messiah or Christ or Mahdi, etc.).
It is not necessary for a monotheistic priesthood to endow its creature, i.e. the dogma, the cult, and the theological interpretation of its religious narrative, with a trinitarian form; in many ways, this is rather an assumption expressed by modern scholarship, and not a distinction explicitly made by ancient believers. Quite contrarily, for a polytheistic priesthood, a trinitarian system has a particular use: as it also follows the pattern ‘father-mother-son’ at its simple, sociological-anthropological order (in a reverse effort to totally destroy the Divine Order ‘as above so below’ and to turn it to an Evil scheme ‘as below so above’), the trinitarian system comprises very long and extensive narratives, through which it de facto alters the original form of the religion.
These narratives help expand the cultic endeavors among the faithful exponentially. The increased cultic endeavors contrive, after black magical patterns, the believers to further engage in material acts that dissociate them from their souls and spiritual tasks, therefore transforming them into mere slaves of their priests. Larger the cultic part of a religion is, stronger its polytheistic character becomes. At the end, this fake, putrefied form of ‘religion’ has absolutely nothing to do with the spiritual universe; all it has to do is about practicing homicidal acts, namely the spiritual-intellectual-cultural subordination of the faithful to the priesthood. This evil development fully engages the so-called priesthood in the true governance of the society or country, transforming it into an undeserved, unsolicited and treacherous dictatorship. Then, this status of ‘religion’ was correctly specified by Karl Marx as ‘the opium of the people’ (‘das Opium des Volkes’) in 1843 (in his Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie / Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right); but no original religion was ever like that.
The first ostensibly trinitarian dogma in the World History of Religions is the Ancient Egyptian Theban polytheism, which was a middle of the 2nd millennium BCE religious-theological construction of the Memphite polytheistic priesthood of Ptah; this system was an attempt to put together a state religion of absolutely Papo-Caesarist function. Amun of Thebes, as per the earlier Ancient Egyptian monotheistic religions {the Iwnw / Heliopolitan system (known as ‘Ennead’) and the Hmnw / Hermupolitan faith (known as ‘Ogdoad’)}, was a profane and evil abomination. That is why the illustrious reaction against the evil Theban polytheistic priests was of so strong Caesaropapist nature; it was superbly undertaken by the magnificent mystic, spiritual master, art theoretician, and poet, Pharaoh Akhenaten (reign: 1354-1336), who finally closed down all the temples and proclaimed Aten as the sole God, therefore prohibiting anthropomorphism in the Egyptian Art.
The Theban Trinity Amun-Mut-Khonsu of which we first hear around the 16th c. BCE (with the rise of the 18th dynasty) caused enormous friction among the people and was rejected by the royal family; the process was very long and caused a terrible religious schism and a disastrous civil war after which Egypt (: Kemet in Ancient Egyptian) never recovered. It destroyed the spiritual life of the Ancient Egyptians, rendering them unable to properly perceive the dynamic symbols that had been established by means of sophisticated composite, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic, representations. Only due to the abomination of the Theban Trinity was the Roman poet Juvenal able 16-17 centuries later to pertinently articulate his historic question:
– Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens Aegyptos portenta colat? (‘Who knows not, O Bithynian Volusius, what monsters demented Egypt worships?’ / From Satire XV ‘An Egyptian Atrocity’)
However, Juvenal could have never fathomed the original form of the Ancient Egyptian religion and spirituality; he merely encountered its most decayed form. One has also to add that the Theban Trinity Amun-Mut-Khonsu was constructed in order to later empower the profane polytheistic priests to develop the blasphemous theory of Theogamy, which they first did in the case of Hatshepsut to justify her impious, illegal and anarchic rule. The concept that God can possibly enter into a sexual intercourse with a human (and in Hatshepsut’s case, her mother Ahmose, the Great Royal Wife of Thutmose I) by taking the material form of a human (and in this case, that of Hatshepsut’s father) is a spiritual sacrilege.
Mithraism is a trinitarian religion, with Cautes and Cautopates forming a Solar Trinity with Mithra. A trinitarian god would be such a profanity in Iran and Central Asia that it would automatically cause capital punishment. Within the entirely monotheistic environment of Zoroastrianism, as it is reflected in the Mihr Yasht (Mihr yašt), the Zoroastrian Mithra (i.e. an entirely solar divinity-aspect of Ahura Mazda’s Benevolence and Justice) was mythologized as accompanied by two minor deities (or divine attributes), namely Rashnu (Rašnu) and Sraosha (Sraoša). But within the religious-magical environment setup by the Magi, the minor divinities were promulgated to the auroral (Cautes) and vesperal (Cautopates) hypostases of Mithra, who represented the meridian aspect of the heliocentric cult.
The Mithraic Trinity gives a temporal dimension to the faith and the cult of the Mithra worshippers; religiosity is then appended to the daily rhythm of life and vice versa. The need of the Magi to fully control the life of their adepts ended up with the emergence of the earlier nonexistent concept of Time. That’s why, while establishing the Mithraic Trinity, the evil mystics and enemies of Zoroastrianism had to also drag Zurvan (‘zruvan’ in Avestan Persian means ‘time’) to the forefront of their cult. They thought that the deity of ‘endless time’ (‘zervan akarana’) would secure a cutting-edge superiority over Ahura Mazda. For this reason, within the Roman Empire, the overwhelming prevalence of Mithra brought Saturn / Cronos back to active cult (whereas earlier they belonged to the ‘dei otiosi’ of the respective pantheons), as a terminal revenge and elimination of the worthless younger ‘generation’ of Jupiter / Zeus.
Due to the strictly divided segments of diurnal and nocturnal periods of time, the Mithraic Trinity helped the Mithraic Magi therefore create societies of the foremost militaristic discipline, and it is not by coincidence that the otherwise small Mithraic Kingdom of Pontus happened to be an important military power and a mighty opponent. Cautes-Mithra-Cautopates was a god suitable for pirates, like the Cilician pirates, who desecrated the worthless temples of the Ancient Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians, including the peak sanctuary at Mount Olympus in Thessaly. Trinitarian (‘triplasios’ in Alexandrine Koine) Mithra was fit for harshly fighting soldiers and combatants; that is why entire Roman legions were initiated to the Mithraic mysteries, methodically praying before sunrise, after sunset, and at noon.
Christian Trinity has no foundation on a single word uttered by Jesus. However, the least studied topic in this regard is what the Christian Trinity is not. Despite the numerous parallels that can be drawn between elements of several Ancient Egyptian religions and the basic dogmas of the Christian religion, it is very clear that a trinity scheme of the type ‘Amun-Mut-Khonsu’ did not find its position within the corpus produced by the Fathers of the Christian Church; there was never a scheme ‘God-Virgin Mary-Jesus’ among the founding dogmas of Christianity. We cannot however state that it would be so undesirable, especially if we take into consideration the absurd terms of extreme veneration of Virgin Mary by the heretic Catholic Church (‘Assumption’ instead of ‘Dormition; and in general, the so-called ‘four dogmas’ of Catholic Mariology). About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
We can therefore assume that, in spite of the slow rise of the trinitarian dogma within Christianity, the theoretical foundation of the Christian Trinity (as we know it) by St. Basil bishop of Caesarea, and basically through his book ‘On the Holy Spirit’, which was written in 374 CE, must have displeased several groups of monks who tried to deny that the Holy Spirit was God, thus becoming widely known in the Eastern Roman Empire as Pneumatomachi {‘fighters against the (divinity of the Holy) Spirit} and in the Western Roman Empire as ‘Macedonians’ {namely followers of Macedonius I bishop of Constantinople (from 342 to 360)}, the main source of inspiration.
If we now take into consideration the fact that the so-called Apostles’ Creed (a 6th or 7th c. CE forged document that was totally ignored by all Eastern Roman authorities) mentions Virgin Mary in its 3rd verse (after God the Father and Jesus, who are referred to in the first two verses, and after the Holy Spirit, which is stated in the first half of verse 3), we understand the nature of the intentions and the extent of the machination. The text reads as follows (Latin and English translation):
“Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae, et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, …” (“I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived from the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary,…”)
In other words, only the Cappadocian Fathers, notably St. Basil of Caesarea and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, prevented Christianity from becoming a mere replica of the Ancient Egyptian Theban trinity, by propelling the Holy Spirit to a level of inevitable and irreversible dogmatic formality. But if conspiring heretics were to take control of a major Christian center, in any deviate re-assessment of Christianity (as it happened in the Renaissance and Modern Times), the issue of the constituent elements of the Christian Trinity would certainly be tackled again. And this is what happened with the evil idol of the so-called Pietà that was created by Michelangelo at the end of the 15th c.
Stalin must have realized that the paradoxical character of the Christian Trinity was merely the provisory result of an enormous theological effort to avert a detrimental religious fall. But the evil forgers of the Marianist absurdity were always waiting in the wings. Understanding the functionality of all the different forms of religious, social (: different classes), governmental (: triumvirate), political (: separation of powers) and geographical-topographical (: directions of orientation) trinitarianism must have been a major issue for Stalin to explore during his two years in Ottoman Anatolia.
XXII. Major themes of Stalin’s spiritual quest in Anatolia – 3. Solar nature of Mithraism / Immaculate birth from the rock
The early priesthoods attempted to systematically and overwhelmingly identify the ‘Hand of God’ everywhere and that is why they soon came up with hymns exalting the Omnipresence of the Divine. The sun would apparently not escape from their efforts; for this reason, it was soon portrayed as an evidence of the Love of God, as a symbol of the Justice of God, and as a proof of the everlasting Omnipotence of God.
With respect to the sun, its life-giving force, and its position in the Heaven, different world conceptualizations and world views led to diverse narratives and descriptions; in Egypt, Ra was initially and almost always adored as Ra-Horakhty (Ra as ‘Horus of the Two Horizons’), which definitely identified him as the Lord of Heaven. In Sumer and Akkad (and later in Assyria and Babylonia), Shamash (also known as UTU in Sumerian) could not possibly be propelled to that level of divine aspect, because the earliest monotheistic currents revolved around Anu (AN in Sumerian), the sole Lord of the Kingdom of the Sky (Ether); as a matter of fact, nothing and nobody could possibly be equated with the undisputedly Only God after the completion of the Creation (7th Day).
Why Shamash, similarly to Ishtar, was mythologized as ‘offspring of Sin’, i.e. the Mesopotamian symbol of the moon, would take long to explain at this point, but it was certainly a later invention and interpolation. However, it is essential to clarify here that ‘divine procreation’ was then perceived rather as ’emanation’ among the Sumerian and Akkadian priesthoods. The subordination of a divine aspect (or ‘god’ for the polytheists) to another divine aspect (or ‘god’) was a later phenomenon in Mesopotamia; it reflected only the earliest form of religious juxtapositions and/or wars, thus underscoring the spiritual identity of every royal order and state.
Mithraism is the earliest religion in which the sun itself appears as the sole and undisputed ruler of the divine world; no parallel can therefore be established between the Ancient Egyptian Aton (: the sun disc taken merely as a symbol of the Only God) of the 2nd millennium BCE and the Iranian Mithra of the 1st millennium BCE. Mithraism was always the very antipodes of what Atonism had been. Another odd trait accompanied this insolent solar ‘god’ from the beginning: Mithra was never a creator-‘god’. He was always irrelevant to the Creation; although he was later said to be the Creator, there has never been a single narrative in this regard. This was normal, because in fact the evil Magi extracted the solar symbolism of Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, made it an independent divinity, and thus fabricated their ‘god’. In other words, the Universe had already been created before Mithra appeared. As the Satanic Magi did not want to subordinate Mithra (also known as Mehr) to the God of the Achaemenid Iranian imperial religion, they had to urgently and slyly invent something about Mithra’s mystical emergence into being. This need led them to the inevitable trickery of the ‘Immaculate Conception’; so, Mithra came out of a rock (or of a tree, eventually the Tree of Life).
In Central Asia and Iran where the Shamanic, Tengrist and Zoroastrian monotheistic traditions were very strong as early as the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE, the representation was initially prohibited (Achaemenid times), subsequently tolerated (Arsacid period), and finally limited (during the Sassanid dynasty) to forms like that of the Taq-e Bostan reliefs. Quite contrarily, in spiritually impotent, culturally poor, and morally degenerated environments like that of the Roman Empire, the profane representation of the ‘little child’ as a ‘god’ being born (similarly to the verses of the Christian Nativity Kontakion: “since for our sake the eternal God was born as a little child!”) is attested in the numerous Mithraic Nativity reliefs, like that of Dieburg-Heddernheim which is found today in the Kreismuseum Dieburg (V 1247). Modern scholarship failed to comprehend that Mithraism (which conclusively pre-modeled Roman Christianity) spread and prospered in Rome and Europe, only because it was systematically, skillfully and forcefully expelled from Iran.
A heliocentric mystery religion with a ‘god’ coming from nowhere is apparently the correct tool in the hands of an evil priesthood attempting to effectively concoct the promulgation of Satan as the ‘master of this world’. The Mithraic Magi did not have the intellectual plasticity of the Late Antiquity Gnostics to merely define Mithra as the Demiurge; but this is what Mithra was in reality. After all, Porphyry (De Antro Nympharum / Περί του εν Οδυσσεία των νυμφών άντρου / On the Cave of the Nymphs, 11) says it explicitly: “For Mithra, as well as the Bull, is the Demiurgus and lord of generation”. Mithra was a substitute for Satan-Demiurge! Only Satan (and for all Gnostics, the ‘Demiurge’) came to existence in an already created world. However, by adding the Immaculate Conception theme to the solar version of Mithraism, the evil Magi believed that they achieved the stage of perpetual recapitulation of their master’s setting and rising. This assumption will be proven wrong at the End.
After all, who can possibly be a ‘god’ that is being born, except a ‘god’ that is not?
Then, periodicity guarantees the permanence of sacerdotal rule in a state that expands through acculturation of neighboring populations exactly like the sun warms the land progressively. That is why this version of Mithraism could not be imposed but in a spiritually and imperially impotent state surrounded by barbarians and other uncivilized nations – a sacerdotal state, I mean. Finally, this is what only Justinian I understood: the prevalence of Mithraic Rome (if not fully averted) would gradually turn the Oriental State (Eastern Roman Empire) into a pseudo-empire, i.e. an evil Papo-Caesarist abomination at the instance of Rome.
Then, the fall of the Western Roman Empire would be followed by the collapse of the Oriental State, and the ‘patriarch’ of New Rome Constantinople would diffuse a Fake Christianity to the barbarians who would interminably fight among themselves only ad maiorem ‘dei’ gloriam. For this reason, Justinian carried out his vast legislative work, forcefully imposing on Rome the institution of Constantinopolitan popes, i.e. heads of the Roman Church selected and approved by the Emperor of the Eastern Roman State. Thus, Justinian became ultimately known as the most ostentatious embodiment of Caesaro-papist statesmanship of the Christian and Islamic times.
Mithras’ Nativity in the cave is not attested explicitly in the historical sources, but there is an implicit description in Porphyry’s On the Cave of the Nymphs; the two-entrance cavern that Porphyry described as formed on the axis North-South was the location of Mithraic initiation. Using as pretext Homer’s mention of the Cave of the Nymphs in the 13th book of the Odyssey, Porphyry expanded on the use of caverns by Mithraic esoteric orders for the initiation of their members. It is noteworthy that the candidates descended into the cavern from the northern gate and, after the initiation, ascended from the southern gate; they entered as ‘men’ and they left as ‘gods’. This becomes very clear in the 12th paragraph:
“Since, however, our terrene habitation is more northern, it is proper that souls which are born in it should be familiar with the north wind; but those that exchange this life for a better, with the south wind. This also is the cause why the north wind is, at its commencement, great; but the south wind, at its termination”.
The Mithraic cave was believed to be a miniature of the entire universe (viewed by all ancient nations as a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’ – of which the plane that intersected the center of the sphere was the surface of the Earth); since the Mithraic initiates were ‘born’ there, it is quite plausible for us to assume that there was also located the rock from which Mithra emerged in his immaculate birth. More:
This undeniably chthonian birth comes in extremely striking contrast with the celestial epiphany which is attested in the case of Jesus and John the Baptist; actually, Jesus and his disciples did not spend time in caverns. However, the driving force behind Roman Christianism attempted to associate Jesus’ birth with a cave, and so they did with his entombment. If the New Testament and the Patristic Literature keep Jesus clear of anything chthonian, the unnecessary and unsought Catholic orders of monks did their ingenious best to continue their Mithraic initiations in caves. And here you have the unique absurdity of the filthy Anglican pseudo-Christianity to continually maintain Jesus close to caves:
Stalin must have early understood that there were indeed many different versions of Mithraism, and that heliocentric culture and solar imperial identity in some of their incredibly diverse forms can help increase the strength of a society considerably. The young Georgian refugee, being at the same time an explorer and an initiate, seems to have duly assessed and meticulously investigated several key issues pertaining to spirituality and governance. His conclusions may have effectively armored him well ahead of the epic battle for which he probably felt that he had to prepare himself.
XXIII. How Stalin’s Mithraic meditations in Anatolia formed his decision-making
1. Pontus’ King Mithridates VI’s wars with Rome
Adept of Mithra, the great Anatolian king, who claimed imperial descent from Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great, Alexander the Great, and Seleucus I Nicator, was the standard bearer of a very different version of Mithraism that was totally unrelated to the typical Mithraic religion of the Roman Empire. Betrayed by the Anatolian Magi, Mithridates VI (135-63 BCE; ruled after 120 BCE) was an exceptional king, who demonstrated that, in combatting the wicked, it is always possible to turn the evil to good. Antiochus I of Commagene (86-38 BCE; ruled after 70 BCE) seems to have followed the same path. But few decades later, the Roman Emperors, acting differently, failed to prevent Rome from becoming home to an uncontrolled sacerdotal college, which by utilizing the fools and by eliminating the opponents effectively grabbed the power at the right time.
The completely and permanently different trajectories of the imperial/governmental authority and the sacerdotal dominance must have early become clear to Stalin; his conclusions were at the origin of his rather anti-sacerdotal (than anti-Christian or anti-religious) stance. In fact, he did not want to eliminate Christian Orthodoxy, but to make it so marginal that the Anti-Christian and pseudo-Christian Roman Catholic Church would find it worthless to infiltrate.
2. Cilicia’s Mithraic Pirates in fight with Rome, the desecration of Greece, and Stalin
The well-known history that Plutarch narrated in his Parallel Lives (Life of Pompey, 78-106) about Mithridates VI’s close allies, i.e. the noble pirates of Cilicia (who combatted the Roman Republic), contains an important revelation. The following excerpt is quite enlightening:
“Nor was it merely their being thus formidable that excited indignation; they were even more odious for their ostentation than they were feared for their force. Their ships had gilded masts at their stems; the sails woven of purple, and the oars plated with silver, as if their delight were to glory in their iniquity. There was nothing but music and dancing, banqueting and revels, all along the shore. Officers in command were taken prisoners, and cities put under contribution, to the reproach and dishonor of the Roman supremacy. There were of these corsairs above one thousand sail, and they had taken no less than four hundred cities, committing sacrilege upon the temples of the gods, and enriching themselves with the spoils of many never violated before, such as were those of Claros, Didyrna, and Samothrace; and the temple of the Earth in Hermione, and that of Æsculapius in Epidaurus, those of Neptune at the Isthmus, at Tænarus, and at Calauria; those of Apollo at Actium and Leucas, and those of Juno, in Samos, at Argos, and at Lacinium. They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time, having received their previous institution from them. But besides these insolencies by sea, they were also injurious to the Romans by land; for they would often go inland up the roads, plundering and destroying their villages and country-houses”.
Supported by Mithridates VI and several other kings of Anatolia and of the Caucasus region, the Cilician pirates desecrated the main sacred places of Ancient Greece, a territory claimed and occupied by the Roman Republic. The contrasting attitudes of the Roman authorities and the Oriental kings are impressive; an imperial realm does not engage orderly forces and armies in a disorderly element, such as the sea. In this regard, there are few exceptions in the Antiquity and the Christian-Islamic times. Imperial armies fight only on land, which is the main element that helped humans develop their civilizations. There were never original cultures or civilizations grown in the sea, which is a location that humans can only cross and never live in. As a matter of fact, all the cultures that may have spread on islands originated from nearby lands.
Contrarily to the Oriental kings, to the spiritual order of their temples, and to the moral discipline maintained in their kingdoms, the disorderly Roman state used their orderly and official armed forces (their army and navy) and a leading Roman statesman and general (Pompey) to oppose the disorderly forces, i.e. the Cilician pirates. The tremendous difference must have been sensed by Stalin. The disorderly expansionist tendency of the Roman Republic, which unequivocally heralded the ulterior collapse of the Roman Empire, ended up with the calamitous formation of an unsustainable and absurd state around a sea (namely the Mediterranean Sea). This was a unique case in the World History. Even in its greatest extension, the kingdom of Pontus did not encompass all the lands around the Black Sea.
States are not established around seas or with regard to seas; with the brief exception of the Ottoman Empire, there was never a state that included all coastal lands of the Black Sea within its territory. All the same, one has to admit that the said region was rather marginal to the Ottoman Empire, and its annexation was never crucial for the existence of the Caliphate. No state controlled all lands around the Red Sea except the Ottoman Empire, but again this fact was not the reason of its existence. Only the Mongol Turanian Empire occupied all lands around the Caspian Sea, but again this occurred for a rather brief period of time and it was of lesser importance for both, its structure and aspirations. Last, never a kingdom put under control all the coastal lands around the North Sea, the Baltic Sea or the Arabian Sea.
These observations may have led the young refugee Iosif Dzhugashvili to the correct conclusion as regards both, the fate of the Roman Empire, and that of all modern efforts to revive it. So, to the very normal question “what went wrong with the Roman Empire?” he must have answered:
– the expansion of Rome was apparently not a noble imperial exploit, but a villainous ‘republican’ affair. Instead of expanding, a Republic must simply cease to exist in the first place.
Straightforwardly, Stalin would be considered a ‘Eurasianist’ today; it is easy to understand that his Mithraic contemplations and considerations during his time in Ottoman Anatolia made of him an entirely committed Eurasiatic continentalist. Stalin rejection of Trotskyism, and of the nonsensical theory of world revolution (the so-called ‘permanent revolution’), originates from the core of a Eurasiatic conviction. Stalin’s effort to extend Soviet Union’ influence in post-WWII Eastern Europe is the reasoning care of a Eurasiatic strategist.
Stalin’s Eurasiatic conviction can be noticed particularly in the Fourth Moscow Conference (9th-19th October 1944), and even more specifically in the so-called Percentages agreement. In that secret and informal agreement, Eastern Europe (from Poland to Greece) was divided into two spheres of influence between Churchill and Stalin. At the time, Greece was being abandoned by the Germans (they left Athens on 11th October 1944); the entire country was almost totally under the control of the Communist rebels, but Stalin did not care at all about that space (and the Russian sphere of influence was finally fixed at 10% there). Quite contrarily, the Soviet ruler evidently attributed greater importance to the territories of Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary. Stalin’s reluctance to include Greece in the Soviet block after WW II is sheer consequence of his Eurasianism, and this world view and approach date apparently back to the time he spent in Ottoman Anatolia.
3. Did Stalin travel to visit the world’s greatest Mithraic monument at Nemrut Dagh?
From Adapazari, Stalin could have easily taken the train (Ottoman railways) to Adana and thence continued by simple transportation means to Adiyaman (330 km) and Kahta (365 km), which were the correct basis for an expedition to Nemrut Dagh.
However, this is unlikely, because the tendency to visit archaeological sites was very limited at the time; in addition, it was the result of Western mentality and lifestyle. More importantly, although it is undeniably rewarding to meditate and contemplate in a specific location (and more particularly in a site with ancient monuments), this was not Stalin’s main vocation and target. All the same, articles about the site were easily found in the Ottoman press at those days, and he may have noticed some of them, also closely examining the pictures. At this point, it is essential to take into consideration the fact that Stalin was not a historian, a historian of religions, an archaeologist or a philologist, and he never wanted to become one.
As a mystic and practitioner of spiritual exercises, Stalin wanted to accurately identify the diverse spiritual origins of imperial governance; he needed to fully and deeply comprehend the specific analogies between the types of spiritual motivation, the forms of religious narratives, the styles of governance, and the patents of social organization; he desired to discover where his mystical prototypes, his spiritual paragons, his models of legendary heroism, and his moral standards originated from. Last but not least, he wished to identify earlier examples of rulers who fought effectively against the same Iniquity, Injustice, and Inhumanity that he wanted to combat. Mithraism offered a vast documentation to explore in this regard and what land could be more advantageous for this spiritual challenge and mental exploit than Anatolia?
The scope of Stalin’s explorations and investigations was of sentimental, mental, intellectual and spiritual of nature. It involved endless ruminations, cogitations, considerations, and comparisons of systems of thought, of systems of faith and of systems of governance. This was the only way for him to identify the continuity of sacerdotal intentions, practices, choices, propaganda patterns, and end targets, thus identifying correctly his enemies and retracing their ancestral line (at the mental, intellectual, and spiritual levels).
Before his travel to and sojourn in Ottoman Anatolia, Stalin had already collected enough knowledge, sufficient data, critical experience, and great exposure to the realities of his world. He therefore needed a period of time to work on this material, reassess everything, and make most of his education; in other words, he had to turn the accumulated documentation into an efficient system of interpretation that would help him not only face challenges but also anticipate plots and threats. He had to identify the enemies of the vast empire that had every chance to effectively become the real Ark of Mankind at the height of the most critical upheaval in World History: Russia. As there were several centers of power that targeted Russia at the time, he had to also prioritize among his foes.
4. Stalin’s Mithraic meditations and anti-sacerdotal stance
Stalin had early understood that Christianity was nothing more than a theatrical banner under which the worst enemies and the most opposite forces gathered in order to dissimulate their enmity and conceal the conflicting spiritual motives of their theological treatises; that’s why he left the Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary. Mithraism and its variants from Central Asia to Iran to Rome offered him the keys to clearly see what had happened long before Russia and Kievan Rus were incepted as realms and how it continued down to his days. Only by retracing the origins of these opposite forces could Stalin accurately realize what was at stake, identify the real players, and conclude as to how he would act. He had already sensed that evil forces intended to split and pulverize the major Eurasiatic Empire; he wanted to effectively oppose them and ultimately destroy their dreams. That’s why he settled for some time in Anatolia, somehow making the time stand still – at least for him.
Then, in addition to what I already pointed out in chapter XX about Stalin’s views on Nicholas II, Imiaslavie, and the Anti-Christian Roman Church, I have to state that his own career and decisions bear witness to the fact that he considered Vatican (and the Jesuits who control the Curia) as the no 1 enemy of Russia (and the Soviet Union) not in terms of ideological rivalry but eschatological agenda. Stalin did not view the Catholic effort of infiltration in Russia (and, after 1917, the villainous, Satanic plan providing for the Consecration of Russia ‘to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ according to the blasphemous Jesuit terminology related with the so-called ‘Fatima Marian apparitions’) in terms of dogmatic or doctrinal juxtaposition (Orthodox – Catholic). It was clear to him that this was a dangerous attempt to further extend the Satanic Papo-Caesarist concept worldwide, therefore canceling Russia’s possibility to act as the real Ark of Mankind. It was purely eschatological.
Stalin’s strong anti-sacerdotal stand was justified by the treacherous and idiotic acts of several fools like the Russian Orthodox bishops of Ulyanovsk (then Simbirsk) and Omsk, who sent an absurd open letter to Benedict XV (papal tenure: September 1914 – January 1922) to denounce the persecution of Orthodox Christianity in the Soviet state. This was an outrageous attempt. In their despair, instead of undertaking a courageous and thorough self-criticism, these bishops -acting in extreme panic- seemed to have disregarded the following facts:
a- the pope was never the head of Christianity, particularly after the schisms (867 and 1054);
b- the head of Orthodox Christianity was the patriarch of Constantinople;
c. Vatican openly and provenly hated the Russian Empire in the first place, and this was indicated on many occasions, and more recently at the time in the cases of the Imiaslavie heretic dogma and the Fatima delusions;
d. in any case, Vatican could not exercise any influence on the Freemasons and the Zionists, who controlled most of the early Soviet partisans and statesmen; and
e. their act was a real attempt of high treason, as they appealed for help to Russia’s worst enemy (the ‘holy see’ was the moving force behind the anti-Russian stance of Austria-Hungary and Imperial Germany and the formation of the pre-WW I alliances).
The absurd letter was due to despair, fear, and total absence of insight; the Orthodox bishops in reality invited a declared enemy to ‘save’ the territory that the enemy intended to destroy. Stalin must have reasonably been deeply exacerbated and extremely enraged; the act was tantamount to betrayal of one’s own land for the sake of an institution promoting a faith at the very antipodes of one’s own faith; sheer madness.
It was therefore only normal for Georgy Chicherin, the Soviet Foreign Minister, to turn down the disreputable suggestions of Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who wanted to make a bargain and provide food procurement in exchange of a compromise involving a moderate Soviet stance toward religion (notably with respect to the ordination of priests and the religious education). The total failure of the secret mission of Michel d’Herbigny (1880-1957) to Soviet Union (1926-1932) was the result of Stalin’s adamant position as regards the Roman Catholic Church.
Many people have read and retained Winston Churchill’s mention of Stalin’s conversation (on the 24th May 1935) with Pierre Laval (only weeks before the latter become the French premier for a second time); according to the narrative, in response to the French statesman’s demand for some concessions or even gestures toward the pope (then Pius XI), Stalin sarcastically responded by asking the famous question: “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?”. Footage and pictures from the visit:
It is essential at this point to explain that this sarcasm has been widely and severely misinterpreted. It does not show contempt for Vatican; on the contrary! Simply, the response-question reveals the techniques of a typical political dialogue in which the truth is never said – let alone shown. By minimizing Vatican’s importance, the Soviet ruler appeared as a naïve guy unable to accurately estimate the formidable power that every pope has had. These words served greatly as smokescreen fully concealing Stalin’s intentions, knowledge and understanding. This is the way typical politicians engage in discussions: the epitome of hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, the best way for outsiders to duly assess what politicians mean when speaking in public is to always accept as true the exactly opposite of what they say.
And this is what actually happened; after pursuing a policy of untrustworthy, hypocritical and penetrative ‘dialogue’ with the USSR between 1958 and 1978, the Vatican -although entirely deprived of army divisions- declared unequivocal war in 1978 on, and marked an irrevocable victory in 1991 over, Soviet Union. This fact was not the result of Marxist-Leninist ideological failure or the consequence of Soviet economic inefficiency; it was merely the direct and disastrous outcome of the Soviet leaders’ inability to deeply analyze Stalin’s choices and decisions and to continually and unquestionably implement them further on.
5. The Mithraic version of the Assyrian-Babylonian Gilgamesh: Verethragna, and his association with Heracles in Nemrut Dagh
Any heroic and legendary symbol or prototype of overwhelming fighter and fellow-combatant for Justice and Truth would certainly fascinate Stalin; I already expanded on the topic in the units XV and XVI. An outstanding divinity of the earliest stage of Iranian-Turanian religion was Verethragna; the heroic life and the legendary exploits of the early nomadic fighters demanded a valiant example and the divine approval of a life dedicated to audacious deeds, bravery and intrepid character. The markedly indomitable lands of Siberia and Central Asia would certainly not allow any weak, shy and cowardly men to survive; frail persons and invertebrate societies indulging in pusillanimity, timidity, risk aversion, and luxury simply disappear in any harsh or adverse natural environment.
It was therefore only normal that this gallant attitude had to be retained within the context of Zoroastrianism; that is why Verethragna was praised as the divine aspect of Victory. In the Yasht 14, which is also known as Bahram Yasht (as the name was transformed over time in Middle Persian), there are several expressions of worship, eulogies and exaltations of Bahram (Verethragna). As an aspect of Ahura Mazda, Bahram was triumphant over demons, evil men, and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman; i.e. the Zoroastrian ‘Satan’), thus demanding praise (from his adepts) of his glory and of his superiority. For this reason, his name became that of six Sassanid emperors, and more importantly of Bahram V (400-438; reigned after 420), who was notably known as Bahram Gur (the ‘onager’) and was later taken by the most illustrious Iranian epic poets of Islamic times as the perfect embodiment of the Messiah and Savior at the End of Times, thus being identified with the Avestan Saoshyant.
Although Verethragna’s association with Fereydun (by modern Western scholarship) is wrong, the heroic character of both legendary figures must have attracted Stalin’s imagination and sentimentalism. Whereas in Mesopotamia and Syria, Babylonian and Aramaean priesthoods made an equation between the controversial historical-mythical figure of Gilgamesh and Verethragna, in Anatolia, the kings of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Commagene established parallels between the Iranian divinity and both, a rather ulterior form of Heracles and an Oriental aspect of Ares, coining the name Artagnes (Hellenization of Verethragna). This shows that, in the different versions of Anatolian Mithraism, the heroic element and dimension were retained, in striking contrast to the Roman Mithraism where Verathragna/Artagnes vanished, eventually absorbed by Mithra himself. Apparently, for the Mithraic Magi, the end target did not include any heroic character. This means simply that they intended to bring forth a non-heroic society of fully subservient slaves.
The presence of Verathragna/Heracles in Nemrut Dagh must have been noticed by Stalin as an indication of the different stages and metamorphoses that the Mithraic polytheistic priesthood underwent in its flight to the West. In fact, the eschatological aspect, which was still indispensable to the Magi in Central Asia, Iran, Caucasus, and Anatolia (so that they are not be rejected by the local populations), was ultimately replaced by the ominous sacrifice (the tauroctony theme) in Syria, Greece, Rome and Western Europe. In this manner, independent from the very tight control of the Iranian emperors, the Mithraic Magi -once settled in Rome- made it very clear that the final ‘salvation’ that they intended to offer to the Mankind was the Hell on Earth (namely the extinction of the human race).
Then, the Crucifixion from firm belief of the early Christians turned out to be the inalienable patent of the formula that the crypto-Mithraic Jesuits will use at the End of Time to effectively carry out their abomination; if Jesus was crucified to ‘redeem our sins’ before 2000 years, the Antichrist will soon demand from his believers to collectively ‘commit suicide and thus achieve redemption’. It sounds absurd, but it has already been staged managed; the Waco massacre in Texas (carried out under the false Christ David Koresh) did not take place for nothing. When the 51-day siege by the FBI ended, with 86 casualties (19th April 1993), it was Easter Monday morning (after the Orthodox calendar). Next time a similar event happens, the magnitude of the scale is going to be incommensurate.
And this concludes the case of Stalin and the unjust accusations that many expressed against him and his systematic elimination of opponents. Heroism and militarism saved the Mankind for millennia, preserving in life the outright majority of the humans. Every law, every theory and every discussion against violence constitute the most viciously inhuman monstrosity; they herald the extinction of the Mankind. It is not during the wars and the conflicts, the civil wars and the purges that the quasi-totality of the Mankind will go extinct; it is during no war that the wickedest plan will be implemented. And all the ongoing controversies about the necessary depopulation are merely the preamble of a hitherto unseen calamity that the real rulers of the Anti-Christian, fake Rome have systematically programmed long ago. Negative narratives can be effectively transformed into beneficial lessons and virtuous teachings can forcibly be transmuted into malevolent plans. Then, only the prey makes the real difference; whereas Mithra killed a bull, Verethragna/Heracles (Artagnes) hunted and killed a boar. And this was Stalin’s best known occupation in Ottoman Anatolia.
6. Mithraic Anatolian Imperial Spirituality vs. Nordic Mythology: Stalin vs. Hitler
Neither Stalin nor Hitler had great consideration for or good opinion of the Jesuits and the Anti-Christian Roman Catholic Church; however, Stalin had far greater margin of maneuver against Vatican. This is so first because Stalin lived in a country where the Roman Church’s impact had always been minimal ever since Emperor Theodosius I made of Christianity the only legal and official religion (380 CE) of the Roman Empire. In addition, Stalin accepted an ideology that totally rejected all the religions as the “opium of the people”, thus totally emancipating himself from any possible papal affiliation and/or connection. Quite contrarily, Hitler lived in a country that had been totally controlled by Rome for almost a millennium before undergoing a devastating religious schism (Luther and Lutheranism), which left ostensible traces until today. Adopting Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’ theories, as well as Lenin’s interpretations and attempts of practical implementation, would be tantamount to political career terminator for Hitler in Germany.
Contrarily to Hitler, Stalin did not rise to power by fascinating the masses, founding a political party, and defending his theories and world views. Although the two rulers are comparable when it comes to governance, they differ enormously with respect to their beginnings. As regards his ascent to power, Hitler is certainly more comparable to Lenin; the former was more impulsive, whereas the latter -markedly more systematic and coherent- appeared to be at the same time a rationalist thinker and sentimental orator. Stalin was less vociferous than both; a group of subordinates was always the typical environment for both, Lenin and Hitler, whereas Stalin rather dwelled in loneliness.
Stalin and Hitler had their own visions, ideals, beliefs, Weltanschauungen (world conceptualizations), and -above all- mythical and legendary systems of reference. The latter could not fully and methodically present in public his views and faith; this would be tantamount to outspoken rejection of Christianity, and he would face enormous opposition. The former could not utter a single word of his esoteric beliefs, because this would demonstrate that he was not a Marxist-Leninist.
Hitler’s system of reference was evoked quite often, and then smoothly publicized among the masses, although there were always around the Führer several top Nazi statesmen who were practicing Catholics and Protestants. However, this system of reference was never clearly presented; and many are fully convinced that Hitler’s ideals, visions, beliefs and system of reference were never accurately outlined in his own mind. I find this approach very close to the reality. Apparently, he was not a prophet, he was not a proper mystic, and he was not an eloquent visionary. Being fully impartial, one has to admit that, although evidently Messianic, Hitler did not know where to lead his nation even if wars did not take place; this automatically makes of him a false Messiah or rather a model for a posterior False Messiah. His dysfunctional approach to humanity resulted in rejection of a vilified ‘other’ than in construction of (or advance toward) a truly new, ‘ideal’ society. Lenin was far more radical, resolute and effective in terms of social change. Then, one is led to conclude that Hitler only used the legends he frequently echoed without truly believing them.
Hitler momentarily fascinated the popular imagination during his speeches, but the end destination was a very nebulous, and therefore ill-defined spiritual-material environment that comprised the Brothers Grimm (die Gebrüder Grimm), Wagner’s operas, Germanic mythology and folklore, elements of Norse eschatology, various Celtic and Teutonic cults, several aspects of occultism mixed with Pan-Germanic romanticism, Guido von List’s Wotanism, all the calamitous traits of Nietzsche’s nihilism, and an idealized Hyperborean utopia. This was ominously detrimental for two reasons: Hitler did not possess the intellectual stamina to possibly master these vast and disparate resources in order to fuse selected elements into a coherent new vision, and -even worse- the ensuing confusion could not lead either the Führer or das Volk (the people) anywhere. It is impossible to match identitarian governance (race superiority and contempt for few selected and targeted races) with obfuscate ideals. That’s why the Roman Catholic Church did not view Hitler as a real religious threat.
Stalin’s system of reference was totally unknown to all; this situation freed his hands, because his real intentions were not known to others. In fact, historical materialism and scientific materialism functioned perfectly well as a true smokescreen for Stalin. Many refer to the anti-religious campaign undertaken in the USSR during the period 1928-1941 in order to ‘demonstrate’ that Stalin was truly an atheist. This approach is quite misplaced; in fact, without understanding it, all those, who accuse Stalin of atheism, are Darwinists and materialists. This is so, because these people take things in absolute forms and do not examine systematically what was the ‘religion’ (or every ‘religion’) that Stalin tried to uproot. In fact, starting with the Renaissance in Western Europe, through worldwide colonial expansion, and due to the systematic diffusion of all aspects of Modernism, almost all the traditional religions disappeared or were corrupted in Modern Times. Deprived of any spirituality, stripped of their popular reception, left without their earlier vivid and vast cultural context, and compromised with philosophies, theories, sciences, political ideologies, republican states, political discourse, and the ensuing overwhelming immorality, modern times’ ‘religions’ are empty, meaningless systems. By eliminating these spiritually and culturally dead systems, one only helps rekindle spirituality, morality, intuition and, last but not least, true communication with one’s soul and thence with the spiritual world.
There is however a critical differentiation between Hitler and Stalin that we have to take into account when comparing their spiritual, religious, cultural and intellectual backgrounds with their state/government/party activities: Hitler was acting as a Messiah (and he may even have thought that he was a Messianic figure); Stalin was not! This played a key role in the outcome of their confrontation. When one of two opponents mistakes himself for someone else and the other has an important degree of self-knowledge, a tremendous advantage is being formed in favor of the latter. Many people will ask how this relates to Stalin’s Mithraic contemplations in Ottoman Anatolia. This is simple.
Focusing on eschatological issues during his Mithraic meditations, Stalin must have realized a simple reality hitherto disregarded by most people worldwide; there cannot be a Messiah in a non-Messianic time. The eventual ordeals and upheavals of any society, nation or even continent are not enough to turn those days into a Messianic era properly speaking. Disasters took place during WW I and greater destructions were carried out during WW II, but the 1930s and the 1940s were not the period a Messiah could possibly appear. In striking contrast with Hitler at the cultural, educational and theoretical levels, Stalin had an Oriental background to which he added a certain knowledge of the Western world viewed through Marx’s, Engels’ and Lenin’s lenses. But, Hitler was the natural product of the Western world.
Stalin could understand what Hitler could not: the Christianization of the Roman Empire was not a universally important development. It was significant only for a small part of the surface of the Earth, namely a) all the lands located west of Eastern Europe and Russia, Caucasus, Euphrates, and the Red Sea, and b) all the regions north of Sahara. However, this area did not determine World History; the most critical developments that took place on Earth did not happen there.
Having a sufficient understanding of the History of Asia and duly taking into consideration other continents (Africa, America), Stalin could successfully reckon the very limited impact that 4th c. CE developments in Rome had on the rest of the Earth. What made them ‘important’ was the ulterior Western European expansion. But the Messianic Times would come only when this expansion would reach the farthermost confines of the Earth. But this was not the case in the 1910s or the 1930s. So, Hitler was not a Messiah, but an expendable fool.
Thanks to Stalin’s Mithraic contemplations and meditations in Ottoman Anatolia, there was a considerable difference between the Soviet ruler and Hitler in terms of spiritual and intuitive strength. This has to do with their respective systems of reference; Hitler was fond of Norse spirituality, faith, mysticism, folklore, heroic narratives, legends and mythology, whereas Stalin was attracted to Georgian epics, Iranian Islamic legends, Sassanid imperial heroism, Shamanic-Tengrist spirituality, Anatolian Mithraic mysticism, ant-Roman piratic bravery, and Eastern Roman Caesaropapism. The German Führer was an enthusiast of the Nordic superman, whereas the Georgian Soviet Comrade Secretary General was a devotee the Iranian-Caucasian superman. However, at the end, the former relied on a very materialistic approach, namely Nietzsche’s Übermensch, whereas the latter trusted primarily Ferdowsi’s Fereydun and Rustaveli’s kingdom of Phridon, fully delving into the spiritual realm.
Norse spirituality: not an imperial system
In fact, there are two major points of essential differentiation in this regard; first, Norse spirituality, mysticism, epics, heroic characters, mythology, cult and popular religion were not parts of an imperial culture and tradition. Their narratives, the plots, the exploits, and the values reflect a non-imperial system of governance that suits rather nomadic populations of the North in full mutation. This spiritual, moral, legendary and cultural system does not fit an empire; in other words, Hitler believed or evoked a system that could never become an imperial religion. It was pointless and absurd for him to intend to popularize an absolutely nomadic system of values among settled populations of an industrially advanced society. Simply, it could not work that way. On the contrary, if Hitler identified Mithraism as ancestral religion of the Germans (this was actually true, taking into consideration the diffusion of the Mithraic cults throughout all parts of Germany), he would be more successful in his attempts.
This situation must have been very obvious in the eyes of Stalin; as a matter of fact, it must have also been quite reassuring for him. Noticing the fundamental mistakes perpetrated by an adversary is always re-comforting. Under no circumstances must have Stalin worried about Hitler possibly winning the war; this situation can be very well examined at the very beginning of Operation Barbarossa (i.e. Nazi Germany’s attack against Soviet Union on 22nd June 1941). Many Soviet statesmen, partisans and military officers denounced Stalin’s supposed indifference or gullibility or carelessness, but they were absolutely wrong. The Soviet ruler merely stuck to his deal (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact; 23rd August 1939), therefore fully implementing the famous maxim ‘pacta sunt servanda’, honoring his signature, and highlighting his Mithraic moral commitment. In his earliest Iranian form, the Zoroastrian Mithra is also a divinity supervising, protecting and blessing covenants, pacts and oaths. In striking contrast to Hitler, Stalin did not even try to unveil his spirituality, faith, intuition and conviction in public; the reason for this is simple: it is up to a Prophet or a Messiah to do so, not up to mystic.
Anatolian Mithraism, Norse Mythology, and their different solar ideologies
The two rulers’ systems of reference were markedly different as regards their solar aspect and dimension. Stalin’s Mithraic imperial heroism constituted a far wealthier, stronger and brighter source of meditation than Hitler’s Norse heroism. In fact, Norse mythology is a system of spirituality, faith and legend with weak solar traits. Whereas one can eventually establish some parallels between Ahura Mazda and Odin, the main god of the Norse faith and mythology, all other concepts of divinity are greatly different. A very particular element of the Norse religion is the prominent position of Thor (son of Odin), who symbolizes the thunder. This has no parallel in Zoroastrianism and in Mithraism. It is quite interesting that, although in the Ancient Assyrian-Babylonian religion, which exercised remarkable impact on Zoroastrianism and the Achaemenid Iranian court, the divine aspect of the thunder was revered as Adad, in either the Zoroastrian faith or in the Mithraic spirituality, this theme is totally absent.
In general, within the context of a religion, the sheer prevalence of the Thunder is tantamount to the subordination of the Sun. This is a rather polytheistic tendency. In the Ancient Assyrian-Babylonian religion, Adad (also kniown as Hadad and as Ishkur) was early mythologized by the Babylonian priests of the first half of the second millennium BCE as ‘son of Sin’ (i.e. the divine aspect of the Moon) and therefore ‘brother of Shamash and Ishtar’ (namely the divine aspects of the Sun and Venus respectively). But the rise of monotheistic tendencies in the Neo-Assyrian times (1363-609 BCE) left Adad in the backstage and brought Ishtar and Shamash to the forefront.
Within the context of Norse and Germanic mythologies, in total contrast to all Mithraic cults, Sol (or Sunna/Sohne) is a female divinity of second or third rank. Mythologized as daughter of Mundilfari, Sol is the sister of Mani (i.e. the Moon), who was considered as a male divinity. Even worse, in Norse eschatology, during the catastrophic events named Ragnarök (the Norse version of the End Times), the Sun (Sol) is expected to be killed by a wolf, although this will happen after she gives birth to her daughter, another Sun that will replace her. This tragic narrative was not a forgotten fairy tale for the early 20th c. Germans; it was the nucleus of Richard Wagner’s celebrated opera Götterdämmerung. Making of these topics the core of a popular ideal and culture is tantamount to ethnocide; to establish the correct parallel, I would say that the propagation of this sober and apocalyptic theme among the educated urban populations of Germany was tantamount to adopting a different Christian Liturgy of the Word (in the Christian churches) in which the reading of the Gospel would be replaced by that of the Book of Revelation.
Wherever the solar divinity is female, the solar imperial ideology is weak. Among the Hittites of Anatolia, one of the most formidable nations of the Ancient Orient, the solar divinity (Arinna) was mythologized as female. The Hittite Empire did not have solar aspects in its imperial doctrine. There can certainly be empires with no solar aspect in their imperial world view and doctrine; but a strong solar dimension in the imperial doctrine contributes to the state’s cultural radiation and land expansion.
At the end, I have to add that, contrarily to Mithraism, the Norse cult and mythology has also a strong maritime dimension; as the god of the sea and the wealth, Njord was mythologized as the father of Freyja and Freyr, two important divinities. But if Njord was necessary to the small coastal communities of some Scandinavian sailors and fishermen, he was certainly impermissible and disastrous for any great empire of Eurasiatic aspirations. The religions of great empires never include gods of the sea; even in the case of the Roman Empire that was, as I already said, a truly bizarre state formation and an exception in World History, Neptune never occupied a position of central importance. As a matter of fact, Mithraic priests and adepts always reviled the sea. When Tiridates I of Armenia traveled to Rome to be crowned by Nero and to initiate him in the mysteries of Mithra, as he was a high priest, he traveled by land, because the Mithraic sacerdotal hierarchs never exposed themselves to the salt waters. Further readings: https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2578/stern.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Stalin’s Mithraic contemplations and meditations in Ottoman Anatolia fully enabled him to acquire a wide angle view of the identity of Russia as Third Rome and to realize what was/is at stake in this regard. This sounds odd to many who view the Soviet ruler as an atheist and a materialist, but behind this convenient façade was hidden a spiritual fortress that few people would be shrewd enough to discern. Many will reject my previous statement and contend that the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church and the total absence of religious cults and of spiritual references in the Soviet Union fully prove that Stalin did not want Third Rome to exist. This last assertion gets a totally different meaning, if one duly completes it.
Yes, Stalin did not want Third Rome to exist in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The plain statement has however a completely different meaning.
Meditating on the striking differences between Anatolian Mithraism and Roman Mithraism was quite revelatory for Stalin. It was also crucial for his personal and deep understanding of Holy Russia (Святая Русь / Sviataya Rus), of the country’s historical role, and of the difficult, dangerous relations that the country would always have with Rome.
The Anatolian-Caucasian Mithraic kingdoms, notably Pontus, Commagene, Armenia and Iberia, similarly with the Empire of Parthia (Arsacid Iran; 250 BCE – 224 CE), were not states that reflected the ideals and the targets of the Mithraic Magi in any way. Although the local priesthoods accepted a preponderant role for Mithra, they systematically attempted and achieved to shift the focus of interest toward monotheistic Zoroastrian concepts and imperial continental ideals of purely Caesaropapist nature. Thus, the Mithraic Magi flight continued further to the west, and they found the ground that they needed in Rome.
Following the abandonment of Mithraism and the promotion of Christianity, the rivalry between Republican Rome and Royal Anatolia was transformed into an opposition between Papo-Caesarist Rome, capital of the Western Roman Empire, and Caesaropapist New Rome-Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The foundation of New Rome by Constantine the Great occurred at the very moment the Roman Mithraic priesthood abandoned Mithraism and adopted Christianity. It was apparently an uncontrolled development that displeased enormously the new pseudo-Christian Roman establishment; in reality, when the Mithraic sacerdotal college, which had opposed the Achaemenid emperors Cambyses and Darius I the Great, achieved its target to put Rome under control, another Rome arose in force: a Second Rome or the New Rome.
Stalin must have understood that a tremendous issue of authenticity and identity was thus formed; when an entity emerges bearing the name of another, the first point that everyone wants to know is which of the two is the true, the original one. The quest for the original Rome dragged the two capitals’ establishments to wars and conflicts. It was a subtle confrontation at all levels: imperial, spiritual, religious, theological, liturgical, cultural, artistic, intellectual, administrative, socio-economic, and military. The pre-Christian rivalry within the context of Mithraism pre-fashioned the rivalry between Rome and New Rome to great extent.
In fact, 600 years after Mithridates VI, Justinian I -due to his exceptional spiritual force, Reconquista, legislation, decrees, administration, and imperial practices- took revenge on
a) Pompey the Great who had finally won over the Mithraic pirates,
b) the part of the Roman establishment that assassinated Caesar, and
c) the seditious, pseudo-Christian sacerdotal Roman establishment, i.e. the spiritual-intellectual descendants of the Iranian Mithraic Magi.
This priesthood was the responsible for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, because the papal regime did not want any imperial authority to challenge the religious sovereignty of the pope (which is the essence of Papo-Caesarism). As a matter of fact, the imposition of popes approved by the Eastern Roman Emperor (from 537 to 752; namely the Caesaropapist period of Rome) prevented New Rome – Constantinople from collapsing and enabled the Oriental State to endure no less than 700 years after the termination of the practice introduced by Justinian I. During the said period, New Rome also proved to be indomitable by the pope of Rome, because the Anti-Christian Latin kingdom of Constantinople proved to be short-lived: 1204-1261. About:
Stalin could better assess Russian History in the light of the aforementioned; he knew that it was the papal establishment that, after the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II (1453), took good care to dispatch Sophia Palaiologina (born Zoe; 1449-1503), niece of the last Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos, to Moscow (via Lübeck, Tallinn, Pskov and Novgorod) in 1472 (with great custody and following a great number of deliberations, plots, ceremonies and agreements) to her husband, Ivan III (1440-1505; ruler after1462) duke of Moscow, as his second wife. Ivan Fryazin (Иван Фрязин) was the Muscovite ruler’s proxy in the marriage in absentia, which took place on the 1st June 1472 in Rome (at the Old St. Peter’s Basilica). This fact makes of Constantine XI Palaiologos’ niece the mother of Vasili III (1479-1533; ruler after 1505) duke of Moscow and the grandmother of Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584; ruler after 1533 and ‘czar’ after 1547), who significantly expanded the small territory of the Muscovite state, turning it to a kingdom, which claimed continuity from the Eastern Roman Empire (the title ‘czar’ being the Russian translation of ‘Caesar’). About:
Stalin cared for History only up to the point of assessing the identity of the sacerdotal colleges that pull strengths, manipulate petty rulers, produce historical events, use lands, take advantage of adepts, confuse enemies, divide peoples, destroy kingdoms, and employ every trickery to change the world according to their plans, while hiding behind religions, theological systems, spiritual practices, and mysterious cults.
If the Mithraic priesthood, which first prevailed in Rome and subsequently adopted the early Christian belief only to gradually distort it (4th to 15th century) and then straightforwardly challenge it (by means of the Renaissance and the Classicism), reviled so deeply New Rome and the ostensibly Caesaropapist Eastern Roman Empire, then why did they attempt to revive Constantinople in a way, by making of Moscow the Third Rome?
Following a convincing response to this question, one can certainly understand better the labyrinthine tactics that the Roman Catholic establishment implements wherever a conflict takes place or does not; for sacerdotal colleges that have been perennially renewed through member initiation, the targets are irrevocable, the parts of the schedule can last centuries, and duplicity has always been the method to fool the others. Rome did not help Third Rome to emerge -after the fall of New Rome- for good but for bad purpose. It appeared good, of course, in the beginning; but this was deceitful.
Those who intend to control the world and for this purpose they sent Spaniards to decimate Mexicans and Peruvians cannot possibly have good intentions for anyone; they do not create partners, but they fabricate tools and puppets. Stalin’s typically realistic approach must have most probably driven him to the conclusion that Third Rome (Moscow or later Russia) was only a good tool against the Mongols and the Muslims for the papal perfidy. After they would use Third Rome against Islam, they would invent ways to penetrate Russia, infiltrate the Russian Orthodox Church, and corrupt the Russian people. They had already done it against the Roman Empire; they would not hesitate to repeat their method, eventually devising new tricks and delusions. And they ultimately perpetrated the same tactics against Russia.
The above thoughts must have been the result of Stalin’s Mithraic Anatolian contemplations; apparently he concluded that the Russian Orthodox Church of the last decades of the czarist establishment was good for nothing. It could be easily penetrated and it was an ostensible target of the Roman Catholic Church. So, Stalin’s task should be to guarantee conditions of incomparable impermeability and to seal Russia off against any attempt or attack.
So, it was clear that the true, final, ultimate Third Rome had not yet come. Stalin’s work should be to ensure that, when the time would be ripe, the Third Rome would rise to save the world from the Anti-Christian Roman perfidy of the unconditionally Mithraic sacerdotal college. Others would certainly ask one more question:
– Why on Earth would Rome target Russia so systematically?
Stalin would not need to spend time to find out the response; he knew very well that, by infiltrating among Russians, by consecrating Russia to ‘the Immaculate Heart of Virgin Mary’, and by corrupting the local populations, the Mithraic priests would merely effectuate a triumphant return to the land from where their millennia-long adventure started: Central Asia and Siberia.
Stalin would definitely stand on the way; after all, every persecution that the Catholic Church underwent in Nazi Germany was tacitly accepted by Vatican in the (secret) hope that Hitler would invade the entire Soviet Union. The work of the Mithraic sacerdotal college would then be much easier.
XXV. Mithraism, Christianity, Stalin and the Antichrist
Stalin’s Mithraic contemplations and meditations in Ottoman Anatolia fully empowered him to discern the true identity of the worst enemies of Christianity, Russia, and the Mankind: the sacerdotal college that fused Iranian Mithraism, Egyptian Memphitism, and Manichaeism into one faith that they presented under a Roman Christian mask. Finally, they launched the Renaissance intellectual, socio-educational, cultural and theoretical system of tyrannically imposed deception and falsehood, while also re-organizing their institution to appear as ‘Societas Jesu’ (Jesuits) over the past five centuries. Thanks to his inquisitive mind and method, Stalin understood the entirely Anti-Christian character and nature of the Roman Catholic Church and the deep-seated hatred that the Jesuits harbored against Orthodox Christianity, as well as against other cultures and civilizations. Due to his early conclusions, the Soviet ruler was able to effectively oppose Hitler, vanquish Nazi Germany, and deliver a terrible blow to Vatican and the Catholic Church’s interests and presence in Eastern Europe.
However, Stalin knew that WW II was only a small episode in a long enduring, historic rivalry; he would not see the final outcome in person. In the period 1939-1945, opposite sacerdotal colleges siding on both sides of the front only readjusted their forces, preparing for a new conflict. Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists would soon start another combat duly utilizing their resources against one another. Stalin was not fooled with stories like Hitler’s purported death; neither did he undermine the notorious Operation Paperclip (1945-1959), i.e. the US intelligence program, which involved the transportation of more than 1500 leading German scientists, specialists and experts to the US for government employment. In fact, this operation did not consist in mere utilization of German Nazi scholars by the US establishment; it was rather an outstanding boost of the hidden pro-Nazi (or, if you prefer, the crypto-Nazi) part of the deep American state.
Last but not least, Stalin was aware of the fact that, after the defenestration of Rudolf von Sebottendorf from Thule Gesellschaft (that he had founded), a Satanic English pseudo-Freemasonic lodge put Hitler under total control, also using other stooges around him and thus fully short-circuiting him. In fact, the only really Nazi state was the UK; it simply appeared anti-Nazi, while being crypto-Nazi and testing its stooges and puppets, namely all those who openly appeared as Nazis without ever realizing whose tools they truly were. The abdication of Edward VIII (1894-1972; reign: 20th January-11th December 1936) was due to the fact that he had been publicly exposed as openly pro-Hitler, thus fully revealing UK’s totally Nazi nature and maladroitly conditioning his country’s margin of maneuver. But, by being the ultimately Nazi country (due to the evil deeds of the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasonic lodge), England devolved in reality to papal vassal state being adequately utilized by Rome.
Despite their Anglican identity and past, their strong anti-papal rhetoric, and their purported affiliation to Freemasonic lodges, the English were deceived due to the slow and subtle infiltration of the apostate Freemasonic lodge which subordinated today’s fake Freemasons to the pope and the Jesuits. That’s why England supported and guided Hitler in his first steps (after Rudolf von Sebottendorf’s defenestration from Thule Gesellschaft), contained him through use of many spies planted around him, and finally turned him against the USSR – which was an act straightforwardly against Germany’s natural, historical, objective, and inalienable interests. This fact does not mean however that all the anti-Nazi forces were resolutely destroyed and ultimately eliminated within Germany; there were powerful organizations, like Ahnenerbe, which carried out critical and everlasting deeds under a Nazi mask; thus, these secret societies deceived Hitler, his administration, and his masters (England’s fake Freemasons and Vatican’s Jesuits).
When it comes to the warring parts of WW II, one must therefore conclude that the true opponents were the USSR and the UK. That’s why so many deliberations took place notably involving the four conferences held in Moscow; it is noteworthy that, in the Fourth Moscow Conference (1944), which lasted more than 10 days (!!! ??? !!!: 9-19 October 1944) and in which President F. D. Roosevelt was represented by the US Ambassador Averell Harriman, the latter was not present (as he was not invited) in the deliberations between Stalin and Churchill about the notorious Percentages Agreement. This means that the post-WW II situation in Europe was decided upon exclusively by UK and USSR. About:
With the above, I have completed my brief presentation about the far reaching consequences of Stalin’s Anatolian Mithraic contemplations and meditations, their momentous importance, and their paramount contribution to his successful defense of USSR (Russia). Only one last question is now left to be answered:
– To what extent can Stalin’s conclusions from his 2-year long Anatolian sojourn be beneficial to us today?
It is essential for many Russians and other people worldwide to spend some time, exploring the use that they can make of Stalin’s perception of the realities of this world. In fact, nothing ended with the termination of hostilities in 1945. There is only an absolute reality that all the fooled and deceived people worldwide must now open their eyes and accept, before it is too late for them.
Germany is still in the state of war with more than fifty nations; as a matter of fact, not a single peace contract has been signed since 1945. Germany cannot therefore be blamed for any governmental and international decision taken by the entirely unrepresentative governments imposed on the German nation by the true Nazis, who kept hiding themselves behind the worthless jargon of ‘politics’, ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘civil rights’, etc. The duplicitous and biased jargon is fully revealed, when it comes to the word ‘nation’.
Whereas, for the crypto-Nazi governments of post-1945 UK and France, ‘Estonia’, ‘Latvia’, ‘Lithuania’, ‘Ukraine’, ‘Moldova’, etc. are nations that deserve to have their own state and be separated from the USSR (or Russia), quite contrarily, Occitania, Brittany, Euskadi (Bask land), Catalonia, Elsaß-Lothringen, and Corsica in France and Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales in Britain ‘must’ remain occupied territories, endlessly targeted with spiritual genocide by the respective capitals, Paris and London, that are fully controlled by the crypto-Nazi apostate Freemasonic lodge.
Similar duplicity, bias, false jargon, and historical forgery occur when it comes to ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘civil rights’, etc. The same applies to international legalism: after the criminal colonial powers England and France imposed their evil world order due to their military and technological superiority over 19th c. Asiatic and African nations, states and empires, they aptly invented the worthless pseudo-notion of ‘International Law’ – only to defend their lawless, absurd, and inhuman deeds. The paranoid deniers of violence are the cruelest tyrants who carried out the most violent, the most genocidal, and the most Satanic plans for no less than 500 years (1453-1945).
After successfully infiltrating the 18th–19th c. US establishment, the colonial powers turned the US from a consciously anti-colonial state to a subservient tool. They have therefore excessively utilized this state for their own benefit, while also blaming and defaming it; every anti-Americanism started either in Paris or in London. However, one has to be shrewd enough to understand that behind every ‘Vietnam’, there is a state called ‘France’; and similarly, behind every ‘Afghanistan’, there is a realm named ‘England’.
Deeply engulfed in their delusions, the fake Freemasonic lodges and the anti-Jewish Zionist congregations fail to understand how intelligently they have been utilized and instrumentalized by the Jesuits; in reality, although their plans appear to be quite opposite to those of the Roman Satanists, in reality they only contribute to the advance needed for the hidden plans of pseudo-Christian Rome to come to surface. The petty eschatological plans of these societies will apparently fail and their foretold failure is exactly the cause of the friction that we notice today worldwide.
Stalin must have apparently anticipated what the final game would be like; he soon realized that the Mithraic priesthood of the Magi did not jump onto the bandwagon of Christianity for nothing. On the other hand, Manichaeism would be the true eastern (Asiatic) counterpart of an early ascended Roman (i.e. false) Christianity. With their version of fake Christianity being unhindered throughout the Roman Empire, with Manichaeism prevailing in Iran and Asia, and with a Renaissance-style science emanating from the Sassanid University at Gundeshapur (or Jundishapur), the mankind would soon enter in an eschatological orbit that would bring the end around the year 1000 CE.
But then, the plan started to go wrong; first, the high priest Kartir was very watchful and he promptly blocked the diffusion of Manichaeism in Iran. Second, St. Basil, bishop of Caesarea, -with his ingenious theological consolidation and with the Holy Spirit solemnly declared as the third person of the Trinity- irrevocably prevented the rise of Marianism within Christianity. Third, Emperor Justinian felt the danger more clearly than anyone else and he masterfully managed to fully impose Eastern Roman order and Constantinopolitan popes in Rome for more than 200 years. Fourth, while preaching Islam, prophet Muhammad made state of the situation that prevailed among Christians; there were faithful believers and evil infidels among them.
The Magi were therefore forced to postpone their eschatological plans and the propagation of the delusional science that would usher the world into the End Times. These historical facts may not have been clearly studied or assessed by Stalin, but the prevented-postponed delusion and the Jesuits’ eschatological trickery were apparently clear to his eyes. When there is an absolute contrast between a divine missionary, who calls for the Kingdom of Heaven, and a sacerdotal college that systematically exploits the divine missionary’s revelations and preaching for their material benefit, we have a frontal clash between two diametrically opposed moral standards, world concepts, and spiritual paths; the termination of this conflict is actually called ‘End Times’.
Fighting against the Truth and the spiritual heroism of so many luminaries in order to maintain the unjust and evil order that suits their interests, the Mithraic Jesuits of the Anti-Christian Rome will ultimately be forced to come up with a fake savior, who would confirm every single point of their iniquity and viciousness and whom they would present as the true ‘savior’, ‘Messiah’ and ‘Jesus Christ’. To fully service him, they would also need to create a Third Rome as a fake challenger to the fake Messiah; this would be the solemnly announced (in Fatima; 1917) consecration of Russia by the Anti-Christian Church of Rome. In other words, the Jesuits would do to Russia what the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasons did to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
In the spiritual and the material universes, everything is the reflection of its opposite and all the beings consist in the double refraction of their spiritual prototypes; by solemnly targeting the land of Russia, the Jesuits reveal its exceptional importance and the outstanding role that it will play in the period of upheaval that is commonly called ‘End Times’. But by prompting the fake, the Jesuits will only precipitate the apparition of the real Savior; then, their firm anti-Russian predisposition unveils the location where the main opponent of their fake savior will be manifested in. Stalin’s Mithraic contemplations and meditations in Ottoman Anatolia did not enable him only to effectively oppose Hitler and his secret mentors; they also made him sensible enough to potentially foresee that from the same land and from a position analogous to his, another person, who was not then in life, would oppose and vanquish the Jesuit Antichrist.
In the mystical cave that our Earth -under the Firmament- is, Russia represents the Northern Gate. The forthcoming upheaval period (or ‘End Times’) is tantamount to initiation for the survivors. And as the Phoenician-Aramaean mystic Porphyry said before 1700 years, the initiates enter from the Northern Gate as ‘men’ only to undergo the initiation rituals and exit from the Southern Gate as ‘gods’. Then, the very few survivors, who will discover their presently lost divinity during the unparalleled adversities and difficulties of the ‘initiation’, will emerge in the New Day to live on a New Earth, under a New Sky, and without any sea. Jesuit Rome or, if you prefer, Babylon the Great will have disappeared.
I. Ancient, Christian, and Muslim historiographers
II. Oversights and errors attested in the existing bibliography
A. ‘Battle techniques’
B. ‘Two great empires exhausted and weakened’
———- EXCURSE I: HISTORICAL FOCUS —————-
Borders, fronts, rebellions, divisions and fights
1- Post-conquest Iran
2- Eastern Roman Empire
3- Upper Egypt and the Sudan (: historical Ethiopia)
4- Internal conflicts transported from Hejaz to Syria and Mesopotamia
——————————————————————————-
C. ‘History of states’ and not of peoples and cultures
D. Poor conceptualization of the early Islamic conquests by modern scholars
—— EXCURSE II: ETHNO-LINGUISTIC & RELIGIOUS FOCUS ———
Ethno-linguistic groups
Religious groups
i- the Christian Aramaeans of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Monophysites)
ii- the Christian Aramaeans of the Great Church of the East (Nestorians)
iii- the Gnostic Aramaeans
iv- the Manichaean Aramaeans
v- the Copts (Monophysitic Christian Egyptians)
vi- the (Aramaic-speaking) Jews, followers of Rabbinical Judaism
vii- the Persians and other Iranians followers of various Iranian religions
viii- the Eastern Roman Orthodox Christians, who sided with the Patriarchate of Constantinople
———————————————————————————
E. The demographic structure of the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Western Iranian provinces: the Aramaeans
F. The central provinces of the Islamic Caliphates: the lands of the Aramaeans.
G. Lack of historical criticism in Islamic Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies
III. The astounding scarcity of contemporaneous sources
IV. Critical incidents during the Battle of Yarmouk
V. The true dimensions of the Battle of Yarmouk and of its outcome
An early 7th c. drawing on a 5th c. biblical manuscript: the unusual and unnecessary representation of Job and his family is correctly viewed by modern scholars as a cryptographic representation of Heraclius and his family, notably his second wife Martina, his sister Epiphania, and his daughter Eudoxia. There is a clear reason for this allegory; by associating Heraclius with Job, the calligrapher and painter interpolated the concept of the Righteous Suffering and projected it onto Heraclius. The apparently Monotheletist artist wanted to praise the Monotheletist emperor for his patience and tolerance toward the Orthodox extremists among the Constantinopolitan clergy, who incessantly insulted the basileus. He therefore identified him with the Biblical person that embodies the concept of the Righteous Suffering, which is of entirely Assyrian-Babylonian origin as the illustrious epic Ludlul bel nemeqi – https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=cop-facbooks
The battle that led to the withdrawal of the Eastern Romans (‘Rum’ – therefore not ‘Greeks’) from Syria, Palestine, and North Mesopotamia has been the object of numerous studies, essays, chapters of books, and treatises. Modern Orientalist historiographers distorted and/or concealed the historical realities that determined the fact. They impacted their writings with unnecessary astonishment, unsolicited admiration, bizarre bewilderment, and at times childishly subjective descriptions. It is as if they are either blind or predetermined to disorient readers from the historical truth. It is most unfortunate that this situation prevails, despite numerous military experts delving into historical texts, many philologists scrutinizing posterior sources, and several historians publishing the corpus of the textual evidence as regards the event.
The confusion of the average reader and learner is completed with the modern, definitely unscholarly, Islamist pamphleteering as per which ‘the faith in the only true God’ gave the victory to the less-experienced, numerically inferior, and surely ill-equipped and poorly armed (if compared with the Eastern Romans) Muslim armies. I will not expand on this nonsense, because it would only prove that all victors and conquerors were true believers and all the defeated armies belonged to disbelievers – which is absurd.
I. Ancient, Christian, and Muslim historiographers
At this point, I have to highlight that, when it comes to the attitude toward History and historiography, there is a deep chasm between our modern world (after 1500) and past generations that lived in the Antiquity or during the Christian and Islamic times. The modern theories that History can ‘teach’ and that, by studying History, one can avoid past mistakes did not exist before the modern world; these theories are wrong, insane, inhuman and disastrous.
‘History’ does not ‘teach’, and not one Muslim, Christian, Manichaean, Gnostic, Zoroastrian, Babylonian or Egyptian ever thought or expected that History could possibly ‘teach’ him anything. In their perception of the world, there was clarity whereas modern minds are terribly confused about a critical issue: recording facts (historiography) is not History. History is what happened. No one can reconstitute it in its entirety, except by living in the past and being present in the events.
Historiography, i.e. simple recording of facts, did indeed happen for more than five millennia, but not for the purpose of ‘teaching’ or being ‘taught’. This reality determined all ancient historical records, be they Ancient Egyptian Annals, Babylonian Chronicles, Assyrian Annals, Greek and Roman history writing, Christian and Muslim Chronography or other. And for the purpose of objectivity, in most of the cases, the authors eliminated their personal views and considerations; and this is quite normal, as we all understand that a fact is always a fact per se, irrespective of the author’s (or narrator’s or historian’s) personal favor and/or understanding.
For the above reasons, serious, decent and valuable ancient authors did not include in their narratives what was evident to all: the historical context. Contextualization would be tantamount to self-devaluation for an historian like Tabari or Theophanes or the anonymous, 7th c. CE, Aramaean author of the Syriac Chronicle of Kirkuk, which is mainly known as ‘History of Karka de Beth Selok’. About:
(Throughout the present article links to the Wikipedia are included only for further research and access to historical sources and bibliography – not for the contents of the entries that are often impertinent and biased and the ensuing conclusions misplaced)
Ka’ba-ye Zardosht (Zoroaster’s Kaaba): one of the holiest shrines of the Sassanid Empire of Iran at Naqsh-e Rustam, ancient Achaemenid necropolis; it is to be noted that there were several pre-Islamic times’ holy buildings in rectangular shape. They were located in Iran and in Yemen. The Kaaba of Najran was the Christian cathedral in Yemenite Najran (currently under Saudi occupation).Saint Sophia: the Eastern Roman Empire’s greatest cathedral was not a holy shrine for the Monophysitic and Nestorian Aramaeans and the Copts (Egyptians), because they viewed the Patriarchate of Constantinople as heretic. This played an enormous role and impacted the historical developments back in the 630s.
II. Oversights and errors attested in the existing bibliography
Contrarily to Ancient, Christian and Muslim authors and people, who did not expect ‘History’ (but their holy books) to teach them the correct path in life and who did not repeat past mistakes by delving into moral depths (and not into useless historical manuals), we need extensive contextualization to accurately perceive and correctly understand epochs that totally differed from ours. This is what is terribly missing from the studies of almost all the scholars who were interested in the Battle of Yarmouk.
Yarmouk battlefield in Jordan today
A. ‘Battle techniques’
Many scholars focused on the battle techniques of Khalid ibn al-Walid (592-642 CE). But however successful these techniques may have been, military dexterity does not explain why the bulk of the indigenous populations of the eastern provinces (North Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica) of the Eastern Roman Empire did not rebel against the early Muslim rule. The battle of Yarmouk may have been won by the Muslims, but 10 or 20 years later a violent local rebellion could have eventually terminated the foreign rule. But this did not happen.
Typical samples of worthless bibliography and lectures:
One of the wrong diagrams that one can find in the Internet nowadays; suffice it that you read Tabari and you will understand the mistakes.This type of diagrams can never explain historical processes; it is therefore wrong, confusing and disorienting.
B. ‘Two great empires exhausted and weakened’
Several authors explained the early Islamic victories by referring to the exhaustion of the then known world’s two greatest empires, namely the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran. This is correct and true, but still it does not help us understand why the outright majority of populations of the western provinces of Iran and the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire did not rebel against the foreign invaders in the first 2-3 decades of Islamic rule. However, this fantasy is reproduced even in serious UNESCO documentation on the Silk Road: https://fr.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/default/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_III%20silk%20road_the%20arab%20conquest.pdf
The Sassanid Empire of Iran and the Eastern Roman Empire at the time prophet Muhammad was bornMain movements of Eastern Roman and Sassanid Iranian armies
———- EXCURSE I: HISTORICAL FOCUS —————-
Borders, fronts, rebellions, divisions and fights
In this regard, it is noteworthy to point out a quadruple phenomenon that took place in the first decades of Islamic rule in the Caliphate’s central provinces:
1- Post-conquest Iran
The first rebellions against the new rule started early in Iran, but they occurred in remote provinces (Gilan, Mazandaran, Azerbaijan) that were inhabited by nations other than those living in the former western provinces of Iran. In any case, both great empires, the Eastern Romans and the Iranians, were multi-ethnic imperial structures.
2- Eastern Roman Empire
The first line of Eastern Roman defense against the Islamic Caliphate was created alongside the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains, whereas the upper flow of Euphrates became the border between the two empires. This is the location where the formidable Akritai appeared to fight and stop every advance of the Omayyad or Abbasid armies to the West, apparently coordinating with the Islamic opposition to the pseudo-Islamic rule of the caliphs.
3- Upper Egypt and the Sudan (: historical Ethiopia)
Upper Egypt totally escaped the Islamic rule, as Nobatia was incepted as Christian Coptic kingdom with capital at Faras (almost on the present Egyptian-Sudanese borderline). The Islamic rule in Masr (Egypt) did not exceed beyond the region between Al Minya and Assiut (ca. 350 km south of Cairo), and while Seville, Cordova, Sicily, Crete, Samarqand and the Delta of Indus belonged to the Islamic Caliphate, Coptic monasticism flourished in Thebes of Egypt (today’s Luxor; from Al Uqsur, ‘the military camps’) where all ancient Egyptian temples and antiquities, notably Deir al Bahri and Deir al Madina, had become monastic cells. Two other Christian Sudanese kingdoms rose further in the South: Makuria and Alodia, limiting the Islamic presence in Eastern Africa to the Red Sea coastland.
4- Internal conflicts transported from Hejaz to Syria and Mesopotamia
The only conflicts that took place in the early Islamic Caliphate’s central provinces (i.e. the lands that belong today to Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, SE Turkey, Iraq, SW Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and the northern parts of Saudi Arabia) were those related to the ‘new’ faith, prophet Muhammad’s preaching, and the interpretation of this faith’s prescriptions as regards the governance of the state. This means, in other words, that the Arabs of Hejaz, brought with them to Syria-Mesopotamia the deep divisions that characterized their society (acceptance, rejection and/or distortion of prophet Muhammad’s religious revelation) even before prophet Muhammad’s death (632 CE). These divisions were ferocious and the bloodshed tarnished irrevocably the History of Islam, although it really paled if compared with the bloodshed caused after the official imposition of Constantinopolitan-Roman Christianity as the sole religion throughout the Roman Empire. And the early converts from the newly occupied lands that earlier belonged to the Eastern Romans and to the Sassanid Iranians vividly participated in these divisions, debates, polarizations, conflicts and civil wars.
This quadruple phenomenon was never studied per se until now, and to duly investigate it one needs to delve in the ethnic and religious/theological conflicts that took place in the two great empires (the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran) for about 300-400 years before the Battle of Yarmouk. This clearly demonstrates that not one specialist of the Early Islamic History can be taken seriously without the knowledge of at least two among the following languages and religious/literary traditions: Coptic, Syriac Aramaic, Middle Persian, Medieval ‘Greek’ (‘Roman’: the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire), Manichaean, and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (: the language of Rabbinical Judaism).
——————————————————
C. ‘History of states’ and not of peoples and cultures
Numerous authors write on the topic, while focusing on State History (Eastern Roman, Sassanid Iranian, Omayyad and Abbasid Islamic); this is one way ticket to misperception, misunderstanding, and distortion. States are not representative of subject nations and peoples, but of ruling elites and their doctrines; in their effort to secure their interests, states destroy all historical, literary, religious or theological documentation that would challenge them. States are to some extent the reason for the scarcity of documentation that characterizes the 7th and the 8th centuries CE (or, to put it otherwise, the first 100-150 years AH/anno Hegirae).
D. Poor conceptualization of the early Islamic conquests by modern scholars
Most researchers failed to contextualize the early Islamic conquests, because they were unable to properly conceptualize the historical developments in the first place. Battles are undertaken by social groups or eventually states, but socio-cultural processes and historical developments are generated by peoples and nations. So, the proper manner to approach the topic is to view it as an affair of various nations and ethno-linguistic and religious groups that lived in the wider region between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, from the Taurus Mountains to the Indus River Delta, and in-between the Nile and Syr-Darya (Iaxartes River) in Central Asia.
——– EXCURSE II: ETHNO-LINGUISTIC & RELIGIOUS FOCUS ————
In this regard, it is essential to conclude from the aforementioned that the only pertinent manner to tackle the topic is via interdisciplinary studies. Until now, no effort was displayed in this direction; and yet, there can be many combinations of interdisciplinary studies applying to this case.
Ethno-linguistic groups
During the 6th–7th c. CE, the main nations which lived in the lands that, after the Islamic conquests, became the central provinces of the Islamic Caliphate were:
i- the Aramaeans,
ii- the Copts,
iii- the Persians and other Iranians, who manned the imperial administration at Tesiphun (Ctesiphon) and controlled the Iranian military outposts,
iv- the (Aramaic-speaking) Jews, and
v- the Eastern Romans, who were organized in small communities living in the major cities of the eastern provinces of the empire, notably around the Chalcedonian patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.
This means that at those days the outright majority of the populations living in lands belonging to today’s SE Turkey, Syria, Iraq, SW Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and the North of Saudi Arabia were Aramaeans.
And the outright majority of the populations living in the Nile Valley were Copts.
Urhoy-Edessa of Orhoene-Urfa (SE Turkey): a major Aramaean cityNasibina-Nisibis-Nusaybin (SE Turkey): a major Aramaean city Hatra (NW Iraq): a major Aramaean city Dura Europos on Euphrates (Eastern Syria): a major Aramaean cityTadmur-Palmyra (Central Syria): a major Aramaean city Bosra (Southern Syria): a major Aramaean city Rekem (Petra, Jordan): a major Aramaean city of the Nabataean dynastyHegra, the necropolis of the Aramaean Nabataean kingdom, at 350 km distance north of Yathrib (Madina)Charax Spasinu (South Iraq): a major Aramaean city
Religious groups
When it comes to ethno-religious and linguistic groups existing at those days (6th–7th c. CE) in the aforementioned region, we enumerate the following:
i- the Christian Aramaeans of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Monophysites) Although entirely anti-Constantinopolitan, the Christian Aramaeans were divided into Miaphysitic (Monophysitic) anti-Chalcedonian Christians and Nestorian anti-Ephesine Christians (see below no ii).
Christian Aramaeans of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Monophysites) formed the outright majority of the populations living in the Eastern Roman provinces of Syria, North Mesopotamia, and Palestine.
The term Monophysitic (Monophysitism/Monophysites) being quite pejorative, it is currently replaced by Miaphysitic (Miaphysitism/Miaphysites). The most common appellation of the church is Jacobite, after St. Jacob Baradaeus (also known as Jacob bar Addai).
Deir Zafaran (also known as Mor Hananyo) Monastery, near Mardin (SE Turkey): a high place of Syriac Jacobite (Miaphysitic/Monophysitic) Christianity
It is also necessary to underscore that the noun/adjective ‘Syriac’ is totally unrelated to the land of Syria (in such case the adjective is ‘Syrian’), but denotes a late phase of Aramaic that survived down to our days, being one of the main liturgical languages in the History of Christianity. Syriac alphabet derived from Aramaic alphabet (in the 1st c. CE) and, similarly, Arabic alphabet derived (in the 4th c. CE) from Nabataean Aramaic alphabet; Aramaic and Hebrew were the two original languages in which the Old Testament was written.
Syriac Aramaic in Serto writingSyriac Aramaic in Estrangelo writing
Monophysitic Aramaeans were essential for the formation and the diffusion of historical Islam. Their overwhelming rejection of the Constantinopolitan theology and of the anti-Aramaean policies of the Eastern Roman Empire totally alienated the Aramaeans from the authorities that ruled them. For Monophysitic Aramaeans, the Eastern Roman Empire was ruled by heretics. And as the illustrious Aramaean theologian, historian and erudite scholar Tatian (112-185 CE) demonstrated in his magnificent opus Oratio ad Graecos (Address to the Greeks), the enormous cultural gap between Aramaeans and Greeks played a considerable role in the destabilization of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (and subsequently of the Eastern Roman Empire), because the Constantinopolitan authorities cooperated basically with the Greek-speaking minority.
The determinant role played by the Monophysitic Aramaeans in the formation and the diffusion of historical Islam is highlighted by the case of Sergius Bahira, the Syriac Jacobite (Monophysitic) monk, who encountered prophet Muhammad in young age, when he accompanied his uncle Abi Taleb ibn Abd el Muttalib to Syria and other provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire.
ii- the Christian Aramaeans of the Great Church of the East (Nestorians)
These Aramaeans followed Nestorius in his doctrine that was a radical form of what is called Diophysitism (belief in two natures/hypostases of Jesus); they are called Nestorians, although the term is not regarded as correct (being tantamount to calling the Muslims ‘Muhammedans’). Nestorians rejected the Council of Ephesus (431 CE), pretty much like the Monophysites/Miaphysites rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE).
h ttps://news.assyrianchurch.org/category/education/english-articles/
Dair Mar Eliya (Monastery of St. Elijah) in North Iraq: Nestorian monastery of the 6th c.Nestorian Gospel in SyriacThe Anikova plate: representation of the Siege of Jericho; masterpiece of Sogdian Nestorian Art from Semirechie (southeastern Kazakhstan and northeastern Kyrgyszstan). Probable date: 8th-9th c.Ecclesiastical provinces of the Nestorian Church in the 10th c.Nestorian communities in the 10th-11th c.
Christian Aramaeans of the Great Church of the East (Nestorians) formed the outright majority of the Sassanid Iranian provinces of Central and South Mesopotamia, South Transtigritane, and Arabia, namely Huzistan, Meshan, Asurestan, Nodshiragan (Adiabene), and Arabestan.
Nestorian Aramaeans were essential in the formation and diffusion of historical Islam. Their staggering rejection of both, Constantinopolitan Christianity and Sassanid Mazdeism (the official Iranian imperial religious dogma that consisted only in a later form of the Achaemenid Zoroastrianism), was highly determinant for the early success of the caliphs. At this early point, I only state the well-known (but not deeply understood) fact that, for ca. 180 years before the arrival of the Islamic armies in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, the Nestorians called Virgin Mary ‘Mother of Christ’ and not ‘Mother of god’, in striking opposition to the Constantinopolitan theologians, monks and courtiers. In this manner, Nestorian Aramaeans proved to be the real precursors of prophet Muhammad and his teachings. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the 7th c. CE, the Nestorians were closer to the early Quranic text, which may have reached them through hearsay (before the early Islamic armies), than to the Nicene Creed.
Constantinopolitan theology and the anti-Aramaean religious and economic policies of the empire totally alienated the Aramaeans from the ruling authorities. Even worse, in Iran, the Nestorian Aramaeans were persecuted in definitely crueler manner than the Monophysitic Aramaeans were in the Eastern Roman Empire. And the ceaseless Eastern Roman – Sassanid Iranian wars devastated -more than any other territories- the lands inhabited by the Aramaeans.
Their surviving remnants are nowadays the Mandaeans. There are about 100000 Mandaean Aramaeans worldwide, but due to the ongoing persecution and oppression, most of them live currently in the Diaspora, and not in their historical land, i.e. Central and South Mesopotamia (Iraq) and South Transtigritane (SW Iran).
Gnostic Aramaeans were essential in the formation and diffusion of historical Islam. Their participation in Muslim spiritual life is at the origin of the formation of groups like the legendary Ikhwan Safa, whose rituals have been later reproduced by numerous Islamic mystics, spiritualists, occultists and scholars from the Qarmatians and the Isma’ilis to all types of Batiniyya (‘esoterism’) wise elders and great spiritual scientists, like Muhammad al Fazari, Al Ghazali, Abu ‘l Qassim ibn al Saffar, Maslam al Majriti, and Muhyieldin ibn Arabi.
Rasa’il Ikhwan al-Safa, (‘Epistles of the Brethren of Purity’), Book I – on the mathematical sciences; Western Iran, ca. 14th c.
Even the communication manners and literary style of the Ikhwan Safa’s treatises and manuals appear to be Gnostic in their essence. What is nowadays erroneously called ‘Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity’, which is in fact the compendium of their wisdom, consists of letters or ‘messages’ (رسائل), being thus a reminiscence of the typically Gnostic manner of sharing knowledge, wisdom and spiritual practices.
The religion composed, proclaimed and propagated by Mani was displayed in 242 CE in front of the formidable Sassanid shah Shapur I to whom the prophet of Manichaeism dedicated one of his books, titled Shabuhragan. Shapur I did not adhere to the new religion, but he realized its imperial importance for the Sassanid state and supported the young prophet (born in 216 CE) in his mission. It is not wrong to consider Manichaeism technically as a type of Gnosticism, but it was indeed a Gnostic system apart from the rest.
Aramaeans, Persians, Iranians, Sogdians, Turanians, Mongolians, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Romans, Armenians and many other nations wholeheartedly accepted Manichaeism, which was the first religion in the world to have adepts from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The last Manicheans performed their rites in China’s eastern coastland before 150-100 years. Following the rise of Mazdeism (a later form of Iranian Zoroastrianism) and the prevalence of Kartir among the Sassanid courtiers, Manichaeism was persecuted and Mani was tortured to death, but the diffusion of Manichaeism was not impacted; quite on the contrary! Mani’s faith spread and many Manichaean communities existed at the times of the Islamic conquest in both, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran. Aramaean Manichaean communities in Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine greatly impacted Islam in many dimensions.
Almost 400 years before prophet Muhammad postured to be the last of the prophets, the prophet of Manichaeism claimed to be the ‘seal of the prophets’. Manichaean hierarchy seems to have been diffused among many Muslim esoteric spiritual orders. Some of the greatest historians and chronographers of Islamic times, like Tabari, al Biruni, and al Nadim, expanded on Mani and the Manicheans. The five prayers that a Muslim must perform daily seem to have been a compromise between the four daily prayers of the Manichaean ‘hearers’ (laymen) and the seven daily prayers of the elects (ecclesiastical hierarchy). Prophet Muhammad’s discussions with earlier prophets, during the Isra and Mi’raj nocturnal voyage to the Celestial Jerusalem, seem to exactly reflect similar considerations. Furthermore, the ablutions before the prayer appear to be a repetition of Manichaean practices. In addition, the Ebionite and Elcesaite impact on Manicheans seems therefore to have been passed on to the Muslims.
Was Mani crucified? The question remains unanswered, as several Islamic sources reported a dire end following a terrible persecution unleashed by the Sassanid imperial priesthood against the prophet of Manichaeism.The diffusion of Manichaeism eclipsed that of any other religion before the Modern Times; but Manichaeism was state religion only once: among the Uyghur nation of Central Asia.
The religion of Mani may have by now gone extinct, but its impact on Islam was tremendous. Many scholars tried to retrace fundamental concepts of Islam to the beliefs of several Jewish or Christian groups and notably the Nazarenes, but it would make more sense to closely examine how some of Mani’s innovative concepts found their way into prophet Muhammad’s cardinal tenets and world conceptualization.
Although Christianity accepted the Ancient Hebrew prophets as such, Islam is characterized by a definitely different approach, as it makes of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isma’il, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David and Solomon prophets as well (also extending the status of prophet to John the Baptist and Jesus). Furthermore, it is noticeable that Islam’s position on prophethood is flexible enough to encompass other historical figures or outstanding persons not directly known to the small Meccan community of the times of Muhammad ibn Abdullah. However, this fresh approach to World History, which is a novelty for Christianity and Judaism, was absolutely Manichaean or origin. Mani first introduced the concept by accepting Zoroaster, Buddha and Jesus as earlier prophets and by thus giving to his religious system a universal-imperial dimension that was badly needed for a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious empire.
Manichaean Aramaeans were systematically persecuted in both, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran; it was therefore quite normal for them to support the replacement of the double yoke with an Arab state and administration that they would be able to fully staff and operate (along with other Aramaeans who were followers of other religions, notably Christianity), taking into consideration the fact that the uneducated, uncultured and primitive Arabs of Hejaz, who had never formed any kind of proper state, would be definitely and absolutely unable to face such a challenge.
In the early Islamic times, there have been many notable Manichaean scholars, who prospered in the Islamic Caliphate; as Abbasid Baghdad became a center for either Manicheans or Manichaean converts to Islam, many Manicheans of other origin flocked there to contribute to the illustrious Beit al Hikmah (بيت الحكمة/House of the Wisdom) university, library, archival organization, academic center of translations, research center, botanical garden, and observatory. Abu Hilal al-Dayhuri, a Berber from Maghreb, was one of them. On the other hand, elements of the criticism that Abu Isa al Warraq addressed to Islam and to prophet Muhammad seem to be Manichaean of nature.
However, one must admit that, despite similarities, loans and impact, Islam and Manichaeism soon became rival systems and most of the Islamic erudite scholars portrayed Mani in a rather negative manner. This approach made of Muslims the major opponents of the Manicheans, after the Christians and the Jews; but this situation is attested in rather later periods (9th–10th c.). However, this is not quite strange, if we take into consideration the fact that the Old Testament god Yahweh was portrayed as the Demiurge (i.e. the Satan) by Mani.
v- the Copts (Monophysitic Christian Egyptians)
As close allies of the Monophysitic Aramaeans (see above unit i-), they were ferocious enemies of the oppressive Constantinopolitan administrative hierarchy and Patriarchate. Similarly with the Monophysitic Aramaeans, who belonged to the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and rejected the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (which sided with Constantinople), the Monophysitic Copts followed the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and rejected the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Coptic manuscript with illuminationsCoptic manuscriptCoptic Gospel with illumination representing the four Evangelists.Coptic manuscript with illuminations
Similarly with what happened in North Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine where the followers of the Constantinopolitan doctrine-related patriarchates (in Antioch and Jerusalem) were not numerous, as they constituted the Greek-speaking minority of those regions, in Egypt, the followers of the Constantinopolitan doctrine-related patriarchate (in Alexandria) were few, and they constituted the Greek-speaking minority of Egypt.
This leads to a detrimental conclusion as regards the Eastern Roman Empire and its chances to maintain control across its eastern provinces, namely North Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica; both, the Constantinopolitan authorities and their local stooges were loathed and reviled by the outright majority of the local populations that would certainly do all that it took to get rid of the heretical rulers at Constantinople. All they needed was an opportunity, and prophet Muhammad’s preaching in Hejaz was apparently more important for them (as a tool) than to Arabs (as a faith).
vi- the (Aramaic-speaking) Jews, followers of Rabbinical Judaism
After the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) and the failure of the Bar Kokhba (136 CE) rebellion, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Zealots did not have a chance to survive as religious-spiritual-intellectual systems among the Judaic Jews. Ever since, Judaism has revolved around the Pharisees, who thus formed what is now known as ‘Rabbinical Judaism’. As Ancient Hebrew was already a dead language, all Jews were already speaking Aramaic. Expelled from Aelia Capitolina (former Jerusalem), Jews could stay in Palestine or preferably settle in Arsacid (and after 224 CE, Sassanid) Iranian Mesopotamia.
They then (and over several centuries) elaborated a new religious book that marks a clear line of separation between their ancestors’ religion (Ancient Hebrew religion based exclusively on the Old Testament) and their new religion; this book is the Talmud, which is the product of the criminal priests who never repented for having killed the ancient prophets of Israel. Today, most scholars hide the critical fact that Judaism (i.e. Rabbinical Judaism or Talmudic Judaism) is totally different from and diametrically opposed to the Ancient Hebrew religion. As priestly literature and theological exegesis, the two different Talmud collections, namely the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalemite Talmud, were written in Aramaic.
Manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud with text from the tractate KiddushinManuscript of the Babylonian Talmud with text from the tractate Rosh ha-shannah
Contrarily to the Judaic Jews, who were marked by the composition and the diffusion of the Talmud among them, the Aramaean Jews in their totality turned to Early Christianity; this concerns the Samaritans of the time of Jesus and many other Aramaean Jewish communities that prospered in Syria and Mesopotamia, notably in Dura Europos where the Synagogue fully reveals the impetus and the magnificence of Aramaean Art. By the time of prophet Muhammad there was no Aramaean Jew.
Although late 6th c. and early 7th c. CE Jews wholeheartedly supported the Sassanid Iranians in their wars against the Eastern Roman Empire (in striking contrast with the early Muslims of the period 610-628/629, who clearly regretted the early Iranian advance and conquests, and later rejoiced with the final Eastern Roman victories) and in spite of many unfortunate incidents that occurred between the early Muslims and the Hejaz Jews (during prophet Muhammad’s lifetime), the early (634-651 CE) Islamic conquests were enthusiastically accepted by the Jews of the wider region, who found their ally and protector in the ominous figure of Omar ibn al Khattab, as he allowed them to enter Jerusalem, no less than 568 years after they were kicked out of there by the Romans. Jews actively supported the early Islamic Caliphates, notably the Umayyad state of Damascus, the Abbasid Empire of Baghdad, and the Umayyad caliphs of Córdoba (Andalus).
vii- the Persians and other Iranians followers of various Iranian religions
Being only one of the Sassanid Empire’s nations, the Persians lived in the province of Fars, which in Ancient Greek was translated as Persia; there cannot be confusion between ‘Persian’ and ‘Iranian’. Persians were/are only one of the Iranian nations.
The Persians controlled the administrative machine of the Iranian Empire during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE) and during the Sassanid times (224-651 CE), whereas the Parthians, another Iranian nation of Turanian origin, controlled the administrative machine of the empire during the Arsacid times (250 BCE-224 CE).
The Iranian Empire had always many imperial capitals, notably Pasargadae, Persepolis, Susa, Babylon, Ecbatana, Nisa (Mithradatkirt/Parthaunisa), Qumis (Hecatompylos), Ray (Ragae), Tesifun (Ctesiphon), and Istakhr; on the other hand, Praaspa (Adur Gushnasp/Takht-e Suleyman), at an elevation of 3000 m, in the northern part of Zagros Mountains, was permanently the Zoroastrian religious capital of the empire.
In the Mesopotamian provinces of the Sassanid Empire of Iran, there were few and rather small Persian communities; in these western provinces of Iran were also settled people originating from other Iranian nations that were indigenous in the central, eastern and northern provinces of the empire. They were dispatched to the imperial administration at Ctesiphon and they served in the army. But they were a minority among the indigenous Aramaeans of Central and Southern Mesopotamia, Transtigritane, and the Persian Gulf’s southern coastlands.
This reality has not been either assessed or revealed by any type of specialists who studied and wrote about the topic of the early Islamic conquests. Yet, it is uniquely determinant and utterly explanatory. It changes drastically our scholarly approach to the topic (see below unit E).
Another critical dimension that impacted greatly the fate of the Sassanid Empire of Iran was its religious multi-division. If we leave the Nestorian Aramaeans, the Gnostic Aramaeans, the Manichaean Aramaeans, other Manichaean Iranians (notably the Sogdians), and the Aramaic-speaking Jews aside, the Persians and the other Iranian nations of the Sassanid Empire were spiritually and religiously divided. Among them, there were adepts of the following religious systems:
1- Mazdeism: the imperial religion and Zoroastrian doctrine established by Kartir;
2- Mithraism: the popular religion that made of Mithra a god of polytheistic features;
3- Zurvanism: Mithra broke away from Zoroastrianism and Zurvan from Mithraism;
4- Mazdakism: the subversive socio-religious system of rebellious mobedh (priest);
5- Gayomardism: an offspring of Mazdeism and Mithraism, with monotheistic traits;
If one adds to the numerous aforementioned religions, several religious systems prevailing among nations of the Iranian periphery and border regions, notably Buddhism, Turanian Tengrism, and other Central Asiatic and Indus River valley religions, one gets a complete picture of the internal divisions that existed in the Sassanid Empire of Iran and finally lef to its destruction.
Sassanid Iranian relief with representation of the high priest, mystic and reformer of Zoroastrianism Kartir, a primary initiate who can be viewed as the founder of Mazdeism, i.e. the late form of Zoroastrianism that was instituted as official dogma in Sassanid Iran. Possibly Turanian (Turkic) of origin, Kartir (or Kerdyr) can be held as main responsible for the execution of Mani and the persecution of Manicheans in Iran until the end of the Sassanid times. Long before the Arabs of Hejaz heard of the Mi’raj story (prophet Muhammad’s nocturnal, transcendental travel to the Temple Mount and thence to the Celestial Jerusalem), the Iranians learned about Kartir’s celestial journey in the Heaven. There is also another (parallel?) Middle Persian story about the celestial journey of the sublime initiate Arda Viraf in the Heaven; however, the Middle Persian manuscripts of Arda Wīraz namag seem to date back to the 9th c., although the entire narrative echoes Sassanid traditions. About: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/kartir / https://www.academia.edu/37850211/The_nature_of_spiritual_journeys_in_Zoroastrianism_based_on_Kartir_and_Arda_Viraf_tripsThe Mithraic temple of Anahita at Bishapur near KazerunThe heroic elements of the Sassanid times’ Mazdeism were preserved in the Iranian epics of Islamic times, thus leading to a very different form of Islam than what Muhammad preached in Mecca; Esfandiyar faces Simurgh. Without Iranian epics composed 300 years after the death of prophet Muhammad, one cannot possibly identify correctly the cultural-spiritual-intellectual-artistic-educational environment of Iranian, Turanian, Central Asiatic, Caucasus and Indian Muslim societies. In fact, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh became the second Quran for Ottoman sultans, Mughal emperors, Iranian shahs and Eurasiatic Muslims.Gayomard (Keyumars) fighting evil spirits; a reminiscence of Gayomardism of the Sassanid times was preserved in the Iranian epics of Islamic times.The execution of Mazdak, the preacher of the world’s first religion which evangelized a communist social structure without property, as represented in Islamic times’ miniatures of manuscriptsRepresentation of Zurvan, the all-consuming ‘god’ of time
viii- the Eastern Roman Orthodox Christians, who sided with the Patriarchate of Constantinople
As I already said, the few Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian communities, settled in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and several other cities in North Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica, supported the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Constantinopolitan imperial administration, but they were largely outnumbered by the local Aramaean (in Asia) and Coptic (in Africa) populations (which rejected the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its local stooges). That is why the few Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Orthodox Christian communities were greatly loathed: they ultimately functioned as tools of the imperial oppression and persecution of all those who disagreed with the Constantinopolitan theologians.
These populations and their ecclesiastical authorities, namely the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its dependencies in the East, i.e. the three minor institutions at Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria that were unrepresentative (as they were accepted as ‘patriarchates’ only by the tiny local minority of the Greek-speaking populations of the respective cities), wanted to monopolize the term ‘Orthodox’, but this was merely their propaganda, against those whom they called ‘Monophysites’. It would be however wrong to imagine that there was concord within the sphere of influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople; there was discord and division instead.
Caesarea of Cappadocia (Kayseri): the city walls erected by Justinian in the middle of 6th c. The early Islamic conquests were stopped in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains beyond Cappadocia. The bulk of the Eastern Roman population was centered between Caesarea and Smyrna (Izmir) whereas Cappadocia was the holy land of Eastern Roman Christianity.The rupestrian Cappadocian Art: one of Christianity’s most stupendous contributions to ArtTypical sample of rupestrian Cappadocian ArtThe highland of Cappadocia where many hundreds of cells and churches have been built and hewn in the rock.Caesarea: The basis of the Eastern Roman defense against the Islamic Caliphate for more than 400 years
The new theological-Christological dispute revolved around the ‘energy’ and the ‘will’ (thelesis) of Jesus, in the sense of whether they were one or two (human and divine) and, if two, what the relationship of the two energies or two wills was. As a matter of fact, it was the resurgence of the old dispute (about the ‘nature’ (physis) of Jesus), which had given birth to what we now call Miaphysitism/Monophysitism.
This new division concerned mainly vast populations living in the central provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, namely Anatolia (Turkey), Constantinople, the Balkan Peninsula, southern and eastern Italy, Sicily, and Carthage. The division had already reached the top of the imperial structure, as Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople were accused of Monoenergism and Monothelitism. And the fact that Heraclius got married with his niece Martina (as second wife) unleashed an abysmal hatred against him from the part of the uncompromising ‘Orthodox’ theologians, monks and priests, as they viewed the marriage as incestuous.
This, briefly presented, was the situation in which the two great empires, the Eastern Romans and the Sassanid Iranians, found themselves in the eve of the battles that ended with the loss of the eastern provinces of the former and the final dissolution of the latter. As I said in the last paragraph of the EXCURSE I: HISTORICAL FOCUS, there has to be an academic focus on interdisciplinary studies and research, which will certainly unveil many points and elements of common faith shared by Muslims and followers of other religions (notably Manicheans) or Christian denominations (notably Miaphysitic/Monophysitic and Nestorian). This will greatly impact our understanding of the Eastern Roman and the Iranian defeats, because it may reveal that these early battles (and the Battle of Yarmouk was only one) had been already won before they were fought; furthermore, it will also explain why the situation, which arose as a consequence of these battles, proved to be irreversible for many long centuries.
————————————————————-
E. The demographic structure of the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Western Iranian provinces: the Aramaeans
No scholar examined in detail the demographic structure of the populations that inhabited the central territories of the early Caliphate outside Hejaz and Yemen. This has much to do with the above EXCURSE II: ETHNO-LINGUISTIC & RELIGIOUS FOCUS. A detailed demographic study covering the period 224-750 CE would reveal that the bulk of the Aramaean populations living in the Western Iranian provinces and in the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire were
1- ethnically different from the nations that ruled both empires (the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans and the Persians);
2- religiously opposed to the official imperial religions of both empires;
3- systematically persecuted and marginalized by both imperial administrations and armies;
4- detrimentally devastated by the incessant wars fought between the two empires, because the ordinary battlefield was precisely located in their own lands, namely the Western Iranian provinces and the eastern provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire (and consequently the bulk of the populations of the ruling nations, namely the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans and the Persians, was not significantly affected by these wars); and
5- linguistically very close to the Arabs of Hejaz, because in fact Arabic was a southern Syriac dialect and the Arabic writing derived from Syriac Aramaic.
Ctesiphon: the remaining part of the then world’s most magnificent palace. Taq-i Kisra (or Al Mada’in) was the Sassanid palace in Mesopotamia and the archway is the largest single-span vault of unreinforced brickwork in the world. One of the best samples of pre-Islamic Aramaean-Iranian Art.In fact, Ctesiphon (Tesifun) in today’s central Iraq was an enormous agglomeration involving four cities; one of them, Seleucia, known as Mahoze in Aramaic, was the worldwide center of Nestorian Christianity.The Great Mosque of Damascus is a masterpiece of Aramaean Art.
F. The central provinces of the Islamic Caliphates: the lands of the Aramaeans.
No scholar noticed that, in addition to the aforementioned points, for about five (5) centuries (661-1258), the central regions of the Islamic Caliphates (Umayyad or Abbasid) were exactly the lands of the Aramaeans. The first Islamic capital was at Madinah, but this was soon terminated, as the Umayyad dynasty was based in the Aramaean city par excellence: Damascus. The determinant impact of the Aramaean universities, academies, monasteries and scriptoria (notably those of Urhoy/Edessa, Nisibis/Nusaybin, Tur Abdin, Mahoze/Ctesiphon, and Kerkha/Kirkuk) on the formation of the Islamic educational, academic, intellectual and scientific life changed totally the backward, uncivil and primitive environment in which prophet Muhammad’s preaching was undertaken.
The Sassanid Empire of Iran in its greatest extent at 621 CEHeraclius’ campaigns’ 611-628
This historical process and development made of the early Arab fighters, the so-called Sahaba, a marginal element that played almost no role in the History of Islamic Civilization. In other words, the Islamic Civilization in its early stage was clearly an Aramaean – Iranian civilization with significant Coptic, Yemenite and Jewish contributions; at a later stage, Berber, Turanian, African and Indus River Valley contributions to the Islamic civilizations have also been attested. However, there was never an ‘Arab civilization’ or -as per the French Orientalist forgers- “une civilisation arabo-musulmane”.
This automatically cancels the theoretical importance of the early Islamic conquests that are absurdly amplified and incommensurately over-magnified by both Western scholars and Islamic terrorists; in fact, the real winners were the inhabitants of the central regions of the Islamic Caliphates, i.e. the Aramaeans, who saw others fighting for their cause (to get rid of the double, Eastern Roman and Sassanid Iranian, yoke), for the transfer of the imperial capital into their land, and for the establishment of an imperial elite manned basically by them. In addition to the Aramaeans, the Persians and other Iranians and Turanians managed also to make their way into the new imperial administration. But prophet Muhammad had never spoken about an … ‘Islamic’ empire….
G. Lack of historical criticism in Islamic Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies
Taking all the aforementioned determinant parameters into account, reading the historical sources from the viewpoint of historical criticism, and viewing the historical facts in the light of the hitherto unevaluated critical factors, modern scholars can come up with a totally different interpretation/interrelation of sources and a dramatically contrasting reconstitution of the historical past, which would be diametrically opposed to the nonsense of military experts, who focus exclusively on battle techniques, and to the absurd and paranoid, pseudo-religious belief, as per which ‘god’ was involved in the events that took place in the 630s and 640s and shook the world between the Mediterranean, the Indus River valley, and Central Asia. Historical criticism of all sources relating to these events is indispensable and inevitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
Hadhrat Ali’s tomb in Najaf; Ali ibn abi Taleb (599-661) was designated as the first caliph, but after meeting fierce opposition, he was accepted as the fourth caliph. The early divisions of the small Muslim community after the death of Prophet Muhammad are an extra reason for historians to apply today extensive historical criticism and to reject the absolutely reconstructed and erroneous version of History.The tomb of the 3rd imam Hussein ibn Ali (626-680) at Kerbala. The sons of Ali had to become caliphs in his stead. But the grandson of prophet Muhammad (Hussein) was slaughtered by the son of prophet Muhammad’s worst enemy (Mu’awiya ibn Abī Sufyan / Muawiyah son of Abu Sufyan). If this situation does not impose extensive historical criticism, this means that today’s fake academics receive orders from the powers that be as regards what to study, what not to explore, and how to investigate the topics of their research. Yet, what happened in Kerbala (680 CE) illuminates very well what occurred after the Hudaybiyah treaty when Abu Sufyan rushed to Palestine to meet Emperor Heraclius and deceive him.
III. The astounding scarcity of contemporaneous sources
The first serious difficulty that every modern historian faces, when dealing with the early Islamic conquests, is the extreme scarcity of contemporaneous historical sources. A recent and highly commendable scholarly publication, titled ‘Seeing Islam as Others saw it: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam’ (by prof. Robert G. Hoyland), enumerates ca. 140 different authors, manuscripts, texts or inscriptions (categorized as a. sources; b. apocalypses and visions; c. martyrologies; d. chronicles and histories; and e. apologies and disputations) that involve various narratives in Syriac Aramaic, Coptic, Greek, Armenian, Middle Persian, Christian Arabic, Jewish Aramaic, Latin and Chinese primary sources, which date back to the period between 620 and 780 CE.
As it can be easily understood, most of the above mentioned texts were not written with the specific purpose to detail the battles and the events that took place in the area under study in the 630s and the 640s; consequently, their mention of facts and their references to episodes were rather brief, because the main scope of the narrative was other. The Eastern Roman chronicler and monk Theophanes the Confessor (758-817) presented the longest description of the events by an Eastern Roman author. His text is to be found in Medieval Greek and Latin translation: J. P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, cviii (vol.108, col.55-1009). But when Theophanes wrote his venerated Χρονογραφία (Chronographia), at least 150 years had passed after the Battle of Yarmouk was fought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophanes_the_Confessor
Still this is fine if compared with the Muslim Arabic sources; the scarcity of 7th c. CE Islamic sources is spectacular. The Islamic sources of that period are much scarcer than the non-Islamic sources. Even worse, as the Arabs of Hejaz were not civilized and kept no historical records of their otherwise primitive and therefore dreary societies, a long formative period had to first pass, until -under clear Aramaean, Persian, Coptic and Jewish guidance- some rudiments of historiography be formed.
Most of the first, important historians of Islamic times were of non-Arab origin:
1- Muhammad ibn Ishaq (704-767) was the grandson of an Aramaean young boy held captive in a Christian monastery in Shetata (Ayn al Tamr) in Mesopotamia;
2- Al Waqidi (747-823) was the son of a Persian lady of noble ancestry whose family introduced letters, arts and music to uncivil and primitive Hejaz;
3- Tabari (or rather Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari/ محمد بن جرير الطبري; 839-923) was an Iranian born in the southern coastlands of the Caspian Sea (Tabaristan), a location to which he owes the name by which he became widely known. Tabari’s Chronography was not different from the Eastern Roman historiographical tradition, as he started his narrative from the Creation. Tabari accumulated an enormous, unprecedented documentation, and he mentioned explicitly his sources for each and every part of his colossal text (a recent, unilingual English translation needed 40 volumes of ca. 300 pages each to be published), making it unattractive to the non-specialists. But Tabari wrote no less than 230 years after the Battle of Yarmouk was fought.
The situation is even worse, when it comes to Islamic religious, theological, biographical, and hagiographical literature. The earlier manuscripts that survived down to our days date back to the 8th, 9th and 10th c., while few existing exceptions are in truly fragmentary condition and cannot be taken as ‘proofs’ properly speaking.
The scarcity of the contemporaneous sources makes the interdisciplinary research imperative for the case of the early Islamic conquests and for the study of the first decades of caliphs’ rule. The contrast or the agreement between two different sources and the often divergent perspectives offered can help drastically stimulate the research orientation and push scholars toward hitherto unidentified areas, which may then grant a far better understanding of the historical facts than present-day clichés do.
The Teaching of Jacob (Διδασκαλία Ἰακώβου/Didaskalia Iakobou; Doctrina Jacobi) is an example in this regard; preserved partially in Medieval Greek manuscripts and integrally in Latin, Arabic, Ge’ez and Slavonic translations, the text consists in a debate among Jews as regards their eventual conversion to Christianity. It seems to be dated back to 634 CE, and it provides some of the earlier references to the Islamic conquests. In fact, it contradicts all Islamic sources, because it describes prophet Muhammad (without naming him) as waging wars in Palestine. However, the brief excerpt that concerns these facts makes state of an alliance between Palestinian Jews and the Arab armies. On the other hand, those among the Palestinian Jews, who had converted to Christianity (or rather were forced to), saw in the person of the ‘warrior prophet’ the Antichrist and even expected the imminent return of the Christ, also regretting that it took them long to identify Jesus with the Biblical Messiah.
The Syriac ‘Chronicle of 640’, written by Thomas the Presbyter, consists in a particular Christian Chronography down to the year 640 CE; the scribe, who copied the manuscript ca. 85 years later (724 CE), added an extra text containing the list of the Umayyad caliphs, who had reigned until that year. The Chronicle contains critical references to the early Islamic attacks and conquests, also stating that an enormous bloodshed followed the battle “between the Romans and the Tayyaye of Muhmd (the Arabs of Muhammad)”, which took place on 4th February 634 CE in Palestine, east of Gaza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Presbyter
Two years later (636 CE), the Syriac ‘Chronicle of 640′ mentions explicitly the Sassanid Iranian debacle (without however naming the Battle of Qadissiyyah) and the subsequent arrival of the Islamic armies in NE Mesopotamia and notably Mardin (today in SE Turkey), which was the religious capital of the Tur Abdin Aramaean Miaphysitic/Monophysitic monasticism; these events also caused great bloodshed there. However, by dating these events in 636 CE {year 947, indiction 9, of the Seleucid Era (starting 312-311 BCE)}, the author makes it impossible for us to date the Battle of Yarmouk in 636, which is nowadays the tendency of several scholars who rather follow Theophanes’ text. On the contrary, Tabari makes it very clear that the Battle of Yarmouk occurred days after the death of Abu Bakr in August 634 CE.
Another brief and fragmentary inscription written on a blank page of a 6th c. Syriac copy of the Gospel of Mark makes state of the failure of the Eastern Roman army to properly defend the eastern regions of the empire; the same expression is used in Syriac (Tayyaye of Muhmd), but the dating is arbitrary. The inscription may well have been written in the 630s, but we cannot specify when exactly. Modern scholars have the tendency to deliberately mistrust the historical authors in order to fabricate the version of historiography that pleases them, and that is why several specialists assumed that the inscription’s author mistook Gabitha for Yarmouk; the inscription mentions a battle between the Eastern Romans and the Muslims in Gabitha (Jabiyah, in Syria) and the modern scholars translate it as ‘Yarmouk’ (in Jordan). It would be however more interesting to focus on similarities and dissimilarities between Syriac and Arabic, because practically speaking the same noun (Gabitha, Jabiyah) ended up having two totally different meanings. If one applies Syriac reading to the Quranic text before vocalization, the surprises may be phenomenal.
IV. Critical incidents during the Battle of Yarmouk
Tabari starts his narration of the events of the year 13 AH (634-635) with the Battle of Yarmouk; it expands on the illness and the subsequent death of Abu Bakr later. This cancels automatically the falsely reconstructed entry of the Wikipedia that dates the event back to 636 CE. Tabari’s two previous units are:
– Those who say Abu Bakr led the pilgrimage
– Those who say Umar led the pilgrimage
It is quite interesting that, in the introductory text for the events of the year 13 AH (before the description of the Battle of Yarmouk), Tabari states clearly that Abu Bakr, after his return from Mecca to Madina (when the hajj was completed), prepared the armies to be sent to Syria. Tabari narrates the developments, based on many different chains of earlier sources. There were many recruits of Yemen, because the Yemenites had recently accepted Islam (630 CE). So, even in these early battles, we cannot speak of ‘Arab armies’, but of Arab and Yemenite armies; the Yemenites are a Semitic nation, but as different from the Arabs as the Jews are from the Aramaeans, and pre-Islamic Yemenite languages and writings were very different from Arabic.
At this point, one has to point out that, before and after the death of prophet Muhammad (632), the early Islamic state in Hejaz, Yemen, Oman and the desert was in a tumultuous situation and incessant rebellions were exploding every now and then here and there, which means that the Islamic army units were in continuous readiness. However, despite this fact, the preparations for the dispatch of the army to the southern confines of Palestine and Syria, as narrated by Tabari, seem to have been rudimentary. In other words, I want to state that, for an event of so cataclysmic importance, the preparations were minimal.
This can only mean one thing: there were ongoing communications and coordination with Aramaeans based in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia as regards a) attrition activities that they would possibly undertake against the Eastern Roman armies, b) defection of Aramaean soldiers from the Eastern Roman armies, and c) public opinion preparation for the forthcoming arrival of the Islamic armies and for the acceptance of the early Islamic faith (which was not what people think today that Islam is). And these developments (in Syria, and not in Hejaz) are exactly what made the difference, irrespective of the battle outcome. Otherwise, an early Islamic victory and invasion could be met with local population resistance and then the dispatch of another imperial army from Constantinople or Cappadocia would demolish once forever the initial state structure that the Arab and Yemenite armies may have imposed for a year or two in Damascus, Emessa (Homs), Caesarea Maritima, and Jerusalem.
Four separate armies were dispatched from Madina at the same time and each of them took a different road, but when they reached the region of Yarmouk River, they decided to unite, because the Eastern Romans outnumbered them. The same tactic was followed by the Eastern Romans. In some early skirmishes a Muslim force under Khālid ibn Saʿīd was defeated. Tabari states that the two armies encamped at a relatively close distance from one another without fighting for several months.
At that point, Tabari gives the date of Abu Bakr’s death, namely in the middle of the month Jumadah al Akhirah of the Islamic calendar (16 August 634), and specifies that the event took place “ten days before the victory (in the battle of Yarmouk River)”. It is noteworthy that prophet Muhammad’s worst enemy and late convert to Islam Abu Sufyan bin Harb accompanied the army and was appointed as the ‘preacher’ (qass). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%C4%81%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%A3
During the description of the battle, Tabari mentions the arrival of the messenger from Madinah, namely the rider who announced the death of Abu Bakr only to Khalid bin Walid, the army leader, keeping it secret from all the fighters for obvious reasons. Tabari narrates also discussions that took place in intervals between Khalid bin Walid and George (Jurjah bin Budhiyah; also mentioned as Jarajis), one of the commanders of the Eastern Roman armies, who finally accepted Islam, performed a brief Islamic prayer (only two prostrations; rak’atayn), and then fought with the Muslims against the Eastern Roman army.
At another point, Tabari mentions an incident between Al-Ashtar (Malik bin al Harith al Nakha’iy, also known as Malik Al-Ashtar; a Yemenite origin Muslim) and ‘a man of the Romans’, who suggested a single combat with any Muslim fighter – a challenge that Al-Ashtar accepted. After the two combatants exchanged many blows, Al-Ashtar said to the ‘Roman’ opponent: “Take that, because I am a youngster from the Iyad tribe”! The ‘Roman’ fighter responded: “May God increase the number of people like you among my people; because, by God, if you were not of my people, I would have supported the Romans (meaning the Eastern Romans), but now I will not help them”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_al-Ashtar
The hills around the Yarmouk riverYarmouk RiverMaps and diagrams about historical developments are useless, as they only offer information of one dimension; one grasps the reality as regards the Battle of Yarmouk only when understanding that the outright majority of the local Aramaean populations passionately desired and wished for an Eastern Roman defeat, expecting the Muslim warriors as liberators. This occurred not because these populations believed in the faith preached by prophet Muhammad, but due to their need to use the Muslim armies in order to get rid from the tyrannical Eastern Roman rule. This truth has been systematically obscured by Western historians who came up with cheap propaganda and empty rhetoric, in order to repeat the divisive clichés that are necessary to the criminal colonial regimes of the West.
Incidents like the aforementioned totally change the image that modern scholars have created as distortion of the historical reality. The Islamic army did not actually need to be numerous; the battlefront would not be the most critical location as regards the battle outcome. Even more so, because if the first battle had been lost, the second would have been victorious in any case!
V. The true dimensions of the Battle of Yarmouk and of its outcome
The linguistic affinity between Aramaeans and Arabs was such that we can easily infer that most of the Islamic fighters could easily communicate in the language of a sizeable part of the Eastern Roman army (the Aramaean soldiers recruited from the lands of today’s SE Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine). There is no doubt about the knowledge and use of Syriac Aramaic among Arabs, due to their long professional involvement across the frankincense and spice trade routes. Even more importantly, the well-documented diffusion of Christianity among the Arabs bears automatically witness to their great skills of Syriac Aramaic in terms of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, written composition, and usage. How close to prophet Muhammad may this situation have been? Extremely close!
The cousin of his first wife, a learned man named Warraqah (: lit. ‘paper’) ibn Nawfal was a Christian convert. The religiosity of those days was such that we can safely claim that Khadijah’s cousin was reading every day excerpts from the Peshitta (the Syriac Bible). To all those, who discuss issues pertaining to prophet Muhammad’s education, knowledge and familiarity with Christological disputes, although it is certain that Khadijah’s husband -in young age- traveled repeatedly to territories of the Eastern Roman Empire (where he may have had month-long discussions with monks, theologians and learned merchants), the easiest response would be:
– Already in Mecca, there were Peshitta copies of the Bible, in the small houses of prophet Muhammad’s relatives!
Peshitta manuscripts with miniaturesAramaean Art of the Book
Also many Aramaeans involved in the trade between Yemen and the Mediterranean could communicate in the provincial Hejaz dialect that we now call ‘Quranic Arabic’. Language issues are mentioned in the Quran, and not without reason. In fact, Arabic sounded like a rough and uncouth dialect to the Aramaeans of Damascus or Antioch, two great cities each of which had larger population than the totality of the (Hejaz and desert) Arabs. On the other hand, the lexicographical poverty of pre-Islamic Arabic, if compared to the treasure of Syriac Aramaic (which also contained loans from other languages), was viewed by the Hejaz Arabs as ‘linguistic purity’; this situation led them to the aberration that their dialect was more ‘ancient’ or more ‘original’, whereas in fact it was more ‘isolated’ and more arid than Syriac Aramaic. And this situation is reproduced nowadays when people, who are well versed in the Quranic text (which stays close to the pre-Islamic Arabic’s ‘purity’, although it is far more elaborate), try to read Ibn Sina’s Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat; they fail to grasp anything.
The religious-cultural similarity between the Arabs, who had just accepted prophet Muhammad’s preaching, and the Christian Aramaeans (either Nestorian or Miaphysitic/Monophysitic) was even more stupendous. Of course, when it comes to religion, tiny differentiations are known to have been reasons of terrible strives and wars, but in this case, there was a tremendously different issue. The Arabs had already rejected their idolatry and polytheistic concepts in order to adopt a faith that had a great number of common points with both, Nestorian and Miaphysitic / Monophysitic Christianity. In other words, they had made the first step in the direction of Miaphysitic/Monophysitic and Nestorian Christianity, and this was how the Christian Aramaeans viewed them; of course, to some Aramaean monks, the Arabs were perceived as heretic, but still this is far ‘better’ than just ‘heathens’.
The truly negative view of Islam was particular only to Constantinople and to Rome; but this detrimental judgment of Islam had basically imperial and material motives; in other words, Muhammad ‘was’ for the imperial ruling class the Antichrist, because his religious system was effective in seriously and irreversibly damaging their imperial posture, material benefits, and ecumenical appeal. Suddenly, the major challenges of 300 years of Christian imperial rule (namely Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius) that the Constantinopolitan theologians had managed to overcome appeared to be extremely weak and minor compared with the latest: Muhammad.
The difference was simple; the earlier challenges (namely Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius) emanated from within the Roman Empire, and the Constantinopolitan elite proved to be able to squelch them, oppressing and persecuting leaders and followers of the ‘heresies’. But Muhammad emanated from outside the Roman Empire. He early managed to secure an independent basis for his faith, and thence he attacked the Eastern Roman provinces that were inhabited by populations, which overwhelmingly rejected the Constantinopolitan doctrine; it was only normal for these populations to massively opt for the standard bearers of the new faith.
In fact, they perceived the arrival of the Muslim armies as liberation from the Roman – Constantinopolitan tyranny. The Anti-Muhammadan rhetoric of the Medieval Latin sources is merely an evil propaganda of the losers; the reality is simple: either they accepted Islam or remained Monophysitic, Nestorian, Gnostic or Manichaean, the Aramaeans, who constituted the quasi-totality of the local populations in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and the southern coastland of the Persian Gulf, did not rebel against the rule of the Caliphate. And the Arab rulers accepted the importance of the lands of the Aramaeans, and that’s why they abandoned their marginal towns and sketchy villages in Hejaz and set up their capitals in the lands of the Aramaeans.
After all, this new doctrine appeared at the time as merely a new Christological dispute and heresy, and its followers were few and originated from lands that had never been historically important and which remained historically unimportant. But the loss for the theological elites of Constantinople and Rome was abysmal; in fact, pretty much like Constantinople was the New Rome, Damascus and Baghdad were meant to be the Final Rome. That is why Arius, Eutyches and Nestorius were never called ‘the Antichrist’, but prophet Muhammad was!
The Umayyad Mosque at Damascus: a masterpiece of Aramaean ArtGrand Mosque of Damascus: the spectacular mosaics in the arcade around the iwan reveal the splendor of the Aramaean Art.
At this point, I terminate the present, first article of the series; in a forthcoming article, I will reveal other critical points explicitly mentioned in the historical sources that modern Western scholars sulphurously disregard, conceal or misinterpret only to advance their historical forgery and intellectual fallacy; in this they are imitated and followed by the disreputable, ignorant and vicious, pseudo-Muslim sheikhs, imams, professors, muftis, qadis and preachers, who have been fabricated and put in place by the English and French colonials in full disruption of the Islamic historical continuity. Yet, these -widely unknown- points help us first achieve a deep and comprehensive understanding of the facts that took place in the 620s-630s and then get the real picture of the entire historical process without the smokescreen of today’s misplaced version of historiography.
In fact, what most people believe today as History of Islamic Conquests and Early Islamic History is entirely false. It is a fairy tale that turns a) most of the Westerners into absurd Muhammad-haters and Islam-deniers and b) most of the Muslims into useful-idiots and naïve believers of a pseudo-Islamic theological doctrine that has nothing in common with the religion preached by prophet Muhammad and ever since advocated by hadhrat Ali and his descendants. It is not a matter of Westerners accepting Islam and Muslims accepting Christianity as faith, but as historical process. Islam was not preached by prophet Muhammad in order to be imposed worldwide. That’s why both groups need to first interpret Emperor Heraclius’ evident reluctance to fight against the Islamic armies. This was the only man in the world who, before meeting with prophet Muhammad’s personal envoy Dahyah al Kalbi, encountered his worst enemy.
megalommatiscomments 