Pre-publication of chapter XXVIII 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 XXVII to XXXII form Part Eleven (How and why the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals failed) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XXVII has already been pre-published.
Until now, 17 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the present book; this chapter is therefore the 18th (out of 33) to be uploaded. At the end of the text, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in green color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
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.
———————–
Keyumars: the central figure of Islamic mysticism, as he encompasses the souls of all prophets and kings. The miniature presents a vision of the “The Court of Keyumars” and it was painted by the illustrious Safavid court artist Sultan Muhammad around 1522. Who is Keyumars? Mentioned as Gayo Maretan in the Avesta and as Gayomard in Parsi (: late Zoroastrian) texts of Islamic times, he was superbly mythologized by Ferdowsi in his Shahnameh as the First Man, the First King, and the Founder of the Pishdadian dynasty of Righteous Rulers. Keyumars epitomizes life within a mortal world, thus setting in motion the concept of eternal presence and heralding the ultimate victory of the Messiah as the New (or Last) Keyumars.
Currently, the most common encyclopedic definitions of the two terms present these two distinct activities as overlapping or describe spirituality as a part of religion; this is however wrong, if it is considered as valid for all the religions of the world. Many historical religions started as a form of systematization of spirituality and of spiritual rules and they ended up as totally materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic systems of theology. The representatives of these systems have nothing to do with spirituality; they hate the spiritual universe about which they talk too much but only to confuse and besot the rest, and in the Name of God, they commit the world’s cruelest crimes in order to defend their otherwise nonexistent right to survive.
Irrespective of posterior alterations, deteriorations and degenerations, the original fact has always been spirituality; contrarily to religion, spirituality does not need a society to be activated, performed, and experienced. Spirituality is the cornerstone and the epitome of humanity. The human being was created as a unity of soul and body, and if one of the parts of the human identity is disconnected from the other, the being is not human anymore. In the human being, the soul represents the being’s connection to the spiritual world and the body consists in the being’s bond with the material world. What material vivacity is for the body is spiritual life for the soul.
Separation of the soul from the body is called death; disconnection of the soul from the body is also a form of death, and this was hinted at by numerous leading spiritual masters, like for instance Jesus (e.g. “let the dead bury their own dead”; Matthew 8:22). Since God is the Supreme Spiritual Being and the Creator of the spiritual and the material universes, the soul of the man connects, or does not connect, to God. And this is exactly what spirituality is about: spiritual life.
In other words, whereas human society is useless, worthless and unnecessary for the human being to exist and to live, spirituality encompasses all actions, practices, exercises, efforts and techniques pertaining to the interaction between a human being’s soul and body (: heart and mind) and to the activation of a human being’s connection with the spiritual universe – and with the countless spiritual beings and hierarchies that are set in motion and operate therein. Because spirituality, namely spiritual life, is of the foremost importance in the human being’s passage from the material world, many spiritual masters, mystics and spiritually active men departed from their society or lived a secluded life; this was due to the fact that human society can be either unnecessary or even harmful to a person’s spirituality. This common phenomenon is attested in numerous civilizations, and in some of them, it takes the form of asceticism or monasticism.
The early religions in Mesopotamia (Sumer, Elam, Akkad, Assyria, and Babylon), Anatolia (Hatti, Hurrians, Hittites, and Luwians), Egypt, Cush (Sudan), Canaan, and Iran were systems that offered their apprentice priests the possibility to
a) learn and practice all levels of soul-body (spiritual/material) interaction in a human being,
b) comprehend the nature, the norms, and the dimensions of the spiritual and material universes, the stages of their creation, and the phases of their final dissolution (every Cosmogony involves a Cosmology, a Soteriology, and an Eschatology), and
c) learn and perform all types of synergy with spiritual beings and hierarchies as per the needs and the targets set.
To be properly understood, the aforementioned has to be taken into consideration in the light of the following four critical points:
i. the ‘language’ used for the spiritual initiation, formation, education and activation of the apprentice priests by the hierophants and the high priests was the archetypal Oriental Myth, i.e. the inherently created and permanently manifested, within the human being, system of spiritual perception and comprehension, communication and interaction with all other intelligences, spiritual beings, humans, animals, plants and other beings of the material universe. In and by itself, the original Oriental Myth is the complete field of symbolic semiotics that encompasses all forms of Being and Becoming, their opposites, and the correlation between Being and Non-being. In other words, it is part of the Creation, and not a human invention or perception.
ii. the spiritual exercises, practices, advance and completion of the apprentice priests took place irrespective of the spiritual/material duality of Moral Order, i.e. the Good and Evil; this does not mean that this duality is irrelevant. On the contrary, the spiritual duality was reflected on the material universe, and there were entire priesthoods that preached and practiced a counterfeit, evil spirituality at the very antipodes of the moral priesthoods, which followed the Moral Order, i.e. the Law of God.
iii. the aforementioned duality of Moral Order has a lot to do with the Fall of Man or rather the successive stages of the Fall, which are known as the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. within the Ancient Hebrew (Biblical) religious context, and accordingly in other, earlier or later, civilizations. These stages of gradual moral degradation caused a) the progressive disconnection of the soul from the body in most of the humans,
b) the subsequent dissociation of the human being from the spiritual universe,
c) the subordination of the immoral, counterfeit priesthoods to the fallen spiritual beings,
d) the deterioration of the conditions of material life on Earth,
e) the preservation of the spiritual potency among several sacerdotal circles during the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE, and
f) the abysmal confrontation between the moral and the immoral priesthoods as part of the clash between Good and Evil in both, the spiritual and the material, universes.
One of the repercussions of this confrontation was the compilation of counterfeit religions geared to engulf humans not only to spiritual disconnection, but also to spiritual impotence and black magic; the very concept of an ‘intermediate’ (being, priest, idol, thought or anything) between the human being and God is the epitome of black magic, as it helps transfer spiritual and material (intellectual) power from an impotent, unconscious and spiritually disconnected human being to another person that gets criminally powered at both, the spiritual and the material, levels, therefore resulting in impermissible and lawless exploitation.
Keyumars instructs his officers to combat Ahriman: this is how the preaching of all the prophets in encapsulated in one symbolic representation. Spirituality does not need volumes of otherwise useless treatises to set the norms and convey the truth about Life.
iv. at the very early days of the History of Mankind, spirituality constituted the epicenter of religion, and so it was in every teaching and practice of a great spiritual master. All true founders of religions were basically leading spiritual masters, who did not launch ‘religions’ properly speaking, but taught their disciples and preached at large the authentic spirituality (the interaction between the human being’s soul and body, and the human being’s connection with the spiritual universe) and the inherent (since the Creation) Moral Order that all humans must follow.
In fact, religion came later either in the simple form of systematization of spirituality and of spiritual rules within the context of human society where the Moral Order should prevail or in the perplex form of counterfeit religions with black magic rituals of many types, i.e. ‘cult’.
Now, if one wants to understand what spiritual potency means, one can find plenty of examples in every literature, tradition, culture and civilization. Within the context of Christianity, one can refer to the well–known excerpt from the Gospel of Matthew (17:20) in which Jesus says to his disciples the following:
“Because you have such little faith”, he told them. “I tell you, if you have faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Go from here to over there’, and it would do it, and nothing would be impossible for you”.
Among numerous other deeds, which are nowadays erroneously (and due to the aforementioned, successive falls of Mankind) considered as ‘miraculous’, spiritual potency of a human involves the following: levitation, walking on water, telekinesis, teleportation across distances, healing, total control of electromagnetic fields, bodily luminescence, control over all natural forces, movement across various points in time, transfiguration, power over fallen (or evil, demonic) spirits and hierarchies, resurrection of the dead, and heavenly travels, like those of
a) the Biblical Enoch (Islamic Idris),
b) the Biblical Elijah (Islamic Ilyas),
c) Jesus (Islamic Isa),
d) Mani, the prophet and founder of Manichaeism,
e) Kartir, the leading theologian and high priest of the Mazdaean religion during the early Sassanid times,
f) the legendary Arda Viraf of the Parsis (as described in the Arda Wiraz namag), and
g) Prophet Muhammad, i.e. the well-known Isra’ and Mi’raj (الإسراء والمعراج) nocturnal travel; about:
As the fall of human societies and the decline of the human condition intensified, spirituality was reduced tremendously and the spiritual potency of most of the priesthoods became nil, with the exception of those whose spiritual power was not theirs anymore, but that of the demons inhabiting the souls of the priests who were acting as mere servants of negative hierarchies.
The fall of Mankind is symbolized within the context of Islamic mysticism by Kay Kavus, the second king of the Kayanian dynasty; in this miniature, Kay Kavus (son of the sublime Kay Kawad (or Kay Qubad), father of the misfortunate Siyavash (or Siyavush), and grandfather of Kay Khusraw, the resolute, selfless soldier and end times’ vanquisher) is being captured by the divs, i.e. the evil spirits that work for Ahriman.
As spiritual power among humans decreased considerably and was limited among few circles of priests and mystics or in isolated cases of ascetics, the condition of human life was restricted to the material level, and then an enormous materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic literature surfaced only to verbally and nominally guide the believers to the ‘correct path’, which was of course not correct and not a path, but a catastrophic swamp and a wrong impasse. Then, the ‘faithful’ were truly left without ‘faith’, because this term originally denoted only the spiritual potency acquired by an individual (as it is clearly shown in the aforementioned example).
In fact, the spiritual connotation of the word ‘faith’ means performance of acts, which in today’s fallen world are considered ‘miraculous’, but in reality they are not. ‘Faith’ does not mean mere acceptance of a narrative; this is a devious, degenerated and corrupt meaning of this word. This materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic literature, which appeared in later periods, among decadent nations, reduced the original Oriental Myth to a meaningless narrative about past times; this contributed to the alteration of the earlier form of religion, rendering some narratives ‘incredible’ or ‘inexplicable’, due to the proliferation of the idiotic rationalism of the fallen humans. Then, the worthless believers accepted the ‘unbelievable’ stories blindly, further worsening their condition of grave faithlessness (without of course realizing the calamitous situation in which they found themselves).
This worthless verbosity of materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic character is called nowadays “theology”. This means simply that what the average Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoenician and Hebrew of the 10th c. BCE knew as ‘Flood’ had nothing in common with the de-mythicized and therefore meaningless idea that the average Babylonian, Egyptian, Aramaean, Jew, Greek and Roman of the 1st c. BCE believed about that critical event. The same concerns the followers of later religions today, but not the disciples and the believers of later mystics and spiritual masters who had managed to attain the lost spirituality.
The term “theology” does not therefore apply properly to the earlier sacred texts of the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE; whatever their contents may have been (mythical, apocalyptic, moral, literary, etc.), the earlier sacred texts of all religions were in fact ‘texts of spiritual awakeness’ – except for sacerdotal texts compiled by immoral, counterfeit and polytheistic priesthoods.
The preservation of socioeconomic power by the theological gangs and all those, who distorted the early systems of spirituality and defiled the spiritual teachings of later mystics and spiritual masters, was their main concern. For these preposterous theologians, morality among believers did not constitute the true promise of an individual’s spiritual rehabilitation and ultimate salvation, but a means to implement their own anti-spiritual, anti-godly, material(istic) takeover of the society.
Theology therefore signifies the death of spirituality, the falsification of religion, and the degeneration of the sacred texts in the minds of the believers; for this purpose, the average believer’s mindset is aptly distorted, the earlier faith is disoriented, and the people are made unable to ever perceive and understand correctly all things spiritual. Consequently, theologically hijacked religions are tantamount to systems of mental, intellectual, educational, academic, cultural, artistic and socio-economic prison and tyranny. They apparently ended up in the putrefaction of the human being.
There is an exception to the aforementioned; it occurs when there is no established religion but conflicting theological systems, and then the various theologians act like profane philosophers trying to pull their followers to this or that theme and belief that they want to highlight and propagate. This confusing situation may trigger eventually fanaticism, but at times, the worst has been averted due to a shrewd theologian, who prevented others from presenting even worse concepts.
This is the situation that Jesus faced opposite the Pharisees and Muhammad encountered, when confronting either the Jews and the idolatrous Arabs of Hejaz or the Constantinopolitan Christian clergymen, who forced Emperor Heraclius not to accept the invitation to Islam that the prophet extended to him. In reality, spirituality was defamed as black magic within Christianity by those who turned Jesus’ teaching into a black magic shamelessly performed in his name.
All spiritual mystics had to either permanently hide themselves or to develop and diffuse various forms of lesser theological distortion, which were then labeled as ‘heresies’ by the theological gangsters. The situation turned worse when mystics and theologians developed and launched systems of Christian spirituality limited only to the initiated members of secret religious orders (which was another form of hiding). For the average people, this meant that only as a monk or the member of a secret religious order, they could perhaps reconstitute the bond between their soul and their body in themselves.
Kay Khosrow inspects his army before the eschatological battle with Afrasiab; from a manuscript of Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh painted in Shiraz in 1561-1562.
Exactly the same occurred within the context of Islam, which was preached as the utmost spirituality by Muhammad and preserved as such by Ali, Hasan, Husayn and their descendants, before several mystics and transcendental masters maintained the Islamic spiritual tradition in several mystical orders. In fact, many Islamic spiritual societies attempted to reconstruct the continuity of Mankind’s historical spirituality by duly interpreting ancient sacred texts and properly decoding mystical traditions kept in various forms of popular culture across the lands occupied by the Islamic Caliphate. This explains to great extent why many aspects and elements of earlier religions and systems of spirituality have emphatically survived within the Islamic world, notably Zervanism, Mazdakism, Mazdeism, Gayomardism, Gnosticisms, etc.
The characteristic difference that separates Christianity from Islam in terms of spirituality and the incomparably higher number of mystical orders that flourished within the Islamic world can be explained by the determinant fact that Islam as religious system is almost totally devoid of ‘cult’. This absence of the historically known and typically religious cult from Islam, as Prophet Muhammad entrusted his faith to his disciples and followers, impregnated an irrevocable mark that stood as major obstacle to all efforts of degrading this system of spirituality to a profanity.
Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, epic eschatology, Islamic mysticism, traditional painting, and popular spirituality: the departure of the mother and the grandmother of Kay Khosrow for Iran (by Hossein Qollar-Aqasi): the most adverse moment in Kay Khosrow’s transcendental life.
Of course, the earliest form of theological distortion of Islam was undertaken by immoral and evil theologians who were hired by the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphs in order to justify their criminal acts and anti-Islamic practices. In Chapter XXI (The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’), I offer many examples in this regard. However, in the process of theological systematization of Islam (known as madhhab), there appeared systems of theological jurisprudence, which looked quite normal in the beginning, but later turned Islam into a system of rationalistic verbalism, juristic nominalism, and materialistic dogmatism. In their verbosity, the original spirituality was lost forever.
At a later stage, pathetic, ignorant and evil theologians considered every Muslim’s connection with the spiritual universe and God (which is Islam’s sole purpose) as their own personal interest and business, and they consequently reduced Prophet Muhammad’s preaching to a silly list of dos and don’ts (as if spirituality and religion are a schoolboy’s lesson). To best express their monstrous identity, they hijacked the madhhab (theological schools of jurisprudence) in order to instrumentalize them as tools of pseudo-religious oppression; first, they undertook vast campaigns against the Islamic sciences in order to plunge the believers into ignorance, and then, they fanaticized their idiotic, uneducated and illiterate followers at a time of conflict (notably the Crusades), turning them against various Islamic mystical orders or independent mystics.
These evil theologians, on whom today’s fake Islam is based, caused an incredible bloodshed throughout the Islamic world; however, it is essential to distinguish between
a) the early bloodshed that took place in the 7th and 8th c. due to orders of caliphs, who cared about how to secure their illegal grab of power from the early Islamic mystics and descendants of Prophet Muhammad (notably Ja’far al-Sadiq, sixth imam of all Muslims; 702-765), and
b) the later, longer and more atrocious bloodshed that covered the period between the 9th and the 15th c. and which was caused by evil theologians, who wanted to control the Muslims by plunging them into ignorance, barbarism, ignominy, and fallacious interpretation of the sacred texts on the basis of their own pseudo-Islamic theological system.
What these theologians, and more particularly the disreputable Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the cursed Ahmad ibn Taimiyyah, did was a literal Christianization of Islam; they viciously interpolated their juristic doctrines between the Man (in this case, the Muslim) and God (Allah). These theological doctrines consist in an impermissible intermediate that breaks the connection of man with the spiritual universe and God. And to do this, these Satanic theologians butchered numerous mystics whom they failed to understand in the first place. Great examples in this regard are Mansour Hallaj (858-922; lashed terribly and then decapitated) and Imadaddin Nasimi (1369-1417), who was accused as Hurufi, without however being so, and skinned alive.
Drawing therefore on earlier experience, the Safavid Order decided to take the correct measures so as to prevent the massacre of their members at the hands of ignorant pseudo-Muslims fanaticized by Satanic theologians (who may have been indiscriminately ‘qadis’, ‘sheikhs’ and ‘imams’) and shamelessly bribed or favored by Ottoman sultans. Having been launched by, and named after, Safi-ad-Din Ardabili (1252–1334) at the end of the 13th c., the Safavid Order was a band of mystics, an assembly of enlightened Muslims, and a confederation of the true faithful, who performed the royal art, carrying out acts of devotion and spiritual salvation, while engaging in diverse techniques of spirituality. They were the friends of Christians, Parsis, Yazidis, Jews, Ahl-e Haq, Tengrists, Hindus, and Buddhists.
After having operated for two centuries, at the times of the Order’s Grandmaster Shaykh Haydar (1459-1488), the Safavid Order launched another secret society, namely the Qizilbash (Kızılbaş /(قزلباش, i.e. the “red headed” (because of their red headgear); the Qizilbash functioned as the army of the Safavid Order and they duly prevented all pseudo-Muslim theologians and their cursed followers from asserting their evil power across lands that the Qizilbash controlled, thus fully defending the members of the (hereditary) Safavid Order.
Safi ad-din Ardabili surrounded by his disciples, as illustrated in a 16th-century Safavid manuscript of the Safvat as-safa
Soon after their early successes, at the end of the 15th c., the mystical order and their army branch, knowing very well that the degenerate Islamic theologians would destroy the entire Islamic world, decided to set up their own state, which would be an empire ruled by the Safavid Order and predestined to save the Islamic world from total decay, slavery and decomposition. This type of state would not be and actually was not a religious or theological state; quite contrarily, it was a secular empire ruled by the mystical order. Automatically, every pseudo-Muslim theologian and every pseudo-Islamic state, which was nominally ruled by a sultan, emir, khan or king, but essentially it was governed by the bogus-religious authorities and the evil theologians, was found at the very antipodes of Safavid Iran.
It is crucial at this point to state that when the theologians put the monarch under control in a pseudo-Muslim state, this consists in the repetition of a phenomenon known only too well within the Christian world: Papo-Caesarism. No Christian and no Muslim state can adopt the Papo-Caesarist model. Spirituality imposes imperial rule, and this means Caesaropapism. This was solemnly introduced by Justinian I throughout the Roman Empire; it is for this reason that immediately after the death of prophet Muhammad, the followers of Ali asserted that only the prophet’s cousin and son-in law could possibly be the ruler of the Caliphate. Despite Ali’s astounding spiritual qualifications, his rule would follow the Caesaropapist pattern.
As a matter of fact, there cannot be religious evaluation of spiritual matters; this reality, which was never accepted by religious authorities and theologians alike (because it would herald their deserved dissolution and ultimate disappearance), is viciously concealed behind the Western confusion between spirituality (spiritalitas or numen / maneviyat/ معنویت/ الروحانية/靈性/ духовность) and religion (religio/din/ دین/宗教/ религия). Suffice it to check the most common definitions of spirituality and religion that are available online; there one gets a clear idea of the materialistic distortion of both terms’ meaning.
Miniature created by Mo’en Mosavver: Shah Ismail I holds an audience and welcomes the Qizilbash after they defeated the Shirvanshah Farrukh Yasar; album leaf from a copy of Bijan’s Tarikh-i Jahangusha-yi Khaqan Sahibqiran (A History of Shah Ismail I), produced in Isfahan, end of the 1680s
Drawing of a typical Qizilbash soldier
Then, what is fallaciously termed as “Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam” describes in reality the mere rise of the Safavid Order in large parts of Western Asia and the effort to eliminate the monstrous, pseudo-Muslim theologians who want to rule on the basis of their false Sharia, and of their pernicious interpretations of the sacred texts. Not one Safavid Emperor called himself a “Shia” and not one Ottoman Sultan used this term for the Safavid rulers, with whom the Ottomans fought so many times, although they were all Turanians. About:
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter XXVII 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 XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI and XXXII form Part Eleven (How and why the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals failed) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.
Until now, 16 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; the present chapter is therefore the 17th (out of 33). At the end of the present pre-publication, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in gray color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
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.
———————–
Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Ali Qapu Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Western historiography enters a stage of exorbitant falsification when attempting to reconstitute the History of the Safavid dynasty of Iran (1501-1736). What stands at the forefront of the Western forgery and distortion of the History of Iran during the said period is the theory that the Safavid dynasty was ‘Shia’, and also that they ‘converted’ the Turanian population of 16th c. Iran to ‘Shia Islam’. Of course, such fictional conversion never took place, and the Safavid rulers would reject the fake division of Islam into two denominations, since they always proclaimed their Islamic authenticity and integrity, fully refuting the concept of a ‘divided Islam’.
However, this fake division is instrumental for the colonial distortion of History, because on this fallacy hinges the entire Western involvement in the Orient and the conflicts that the criminal and evil states of England, France and America generated across Afro-Eurasia. In order to fully and irreversibly embed the vicious divisive scheme of a supposedly bi-polar Islamic world revolving around two rival empires, namely the ‘Sunni’ Ottomans and the ‘Shia’ Safavids, the Western Orientalists, agents, explorers, diplomats, and statesmen invented the fallacy of the so-called “Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam”.
Of course, at the time (: early 16th c.), the Western colonial powers did not have the chance to impose their false version of History on the Ottomans and the Safavids; they even had not developed Oriental studies properly speaking in their already established pernicious universities. At the time, History was in the making. The only thing that the colonial empires could do, and which they viciously did, was to frame the divisive plot and to pull their diplomatic strings in order to trigger as many Ottoman – Safavid wars as they could. The distortive interpretation and the evil misrepresentation of these facts would come later – in due course of time.
And the malignant fallacy ‘happened’ truly when it ‘should’ have; when the collapsing Ottoman and Iranian empires were eroded through colonial infiltration and evil subversion, then the colonial gangsters and the 19th c. Orientalists started carrying out the projection of the already preconceived forgery onto the Western powers’ local stooges, who by means of shameful bribery and high treason (termed as ‘scholarships for studies in Western Europe’) started diffusing pathetic nonsense and bogus-academic lies in their respective countries only to fit the needs of their masters, namely the colonial powers. At the last stage, the monstrous and murderous forgery of France and England was presented as “History” worldwide only because their colonial empires subjugated almost the entire world and imposed the racist Anglo-French intellectual-academic contamination.
So, the historical forgery that the Western academic murderers have been teaching for over two centuries in their bogus-universities as “Oriental History” is merely the coverage of their inhuman deeds, which plunged Afro-Eurasia into ceaseless local and regional wars, countless rebellions, and two world wars. But the original concept behind the inhuman diplomacy of England and France was already there at the beginning of the 16th c., when they started fallaciously calling Iran, namely a totally Turanian country, “Persia”; this was preposterous. Soon afterwards, they started also naming the Ottoman Empire “Turkey”, which is another expression of their evilness and forgery, because the Ottoman Empire was in reality the most anti-Turkic state in World History.
No less than eight (8) times the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran came to war during the period of 235 years of Safavid rule over Iran. Actually, the wars started in 1514 and ended 1736 with the fall of the Safavids; of course, the historical fact of 8 wars does not mean in this case only 8 years consumed in wars! Most of these wars lasted many years. And actually, the Ottoman-Iranian wars did not end with the demise of the Safavid dynasty. Wars were resumed at the times of the Turanian Afsharid dynasty of Iran (1736-1796) and also during the period of the Turanian Qajar dynasty of Iran (1789-1925). So, from 1514 until 1823, in only 309 years, the Ottoman Empire and the Iranian Empire made eleven (11) wars one upon the other. In total, during 309 years, the two empires were engaged in wars against one another for no less than 81 years. About:
If one takes also into consideration the fact that both empires made many other wars with numerous neighboring empires (such as the Mughal Empire, the lately risen Russian Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and several colonial kingdoms (Spain, Portugal, France, England, etc.), one concludes easily why the two empires gradually collapsed. Furthermore, taking into account first, the diplomatically instigated and deliberately machinated twelve (12) wars between the Ottomans and the Russian Empire, which took place during a period of 350 years (1568-1918) and lasted for no less than 57 years, and second, the five (5) wars between the Iranians and the Russians, which occurred over the span of 177 years (1651-1828) and kept going for 19 years, one can plainly assess the evilness of the divisive intrigues that the Western European colonial diplomats instigated across Afro-Eurasia, and the unprecedented bloodshed that they caused.
Gate of Felicity (Bâbüssaâde), Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Chehel Sotoun Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Imperial Hall with the throne of the sultan, Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Central Hall, Chehel Sotoun Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Open recess (iwan) of the Yerevan Kiosk, Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Chehel Sotoun Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Scene from the Surname-ı Vehbi, located in the Topkapı palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Battle of Chaldiran (1514); Grand painting at the Chehel SotounPalace (despite the fact that the battle ended with Ottoman victory), Safavid Isfahan
The Third Courtyard of the Topkapı Palace in the Ottoman Constantinople, as depicted in a miniature of the Hünername, 1584
Paintings in the main hall of the Chehel Sotoun Palace,Safavid Isfahan
All the wars, which were machinated and instigated by the colonial English and French diplomacies, needed a sophisticated coverage, e.g. some fake reasons, which would ‘explain’ or ‘justify’ to anyone why these wars happened (or ‘had’ to happen). To be convincingly fake, these reasons were based on a total distortion of the identity of both empires, the Ottoman and the Safavid; these distorted identities, which ‘explained’ the Ottoman – Safavid wars to the average public opinion in Europe at the time, became later the vertebral column of the fallacious Western Orientalism and its entirely fake branches, namely Turkology and Iranology.
To describe the extent and the depth of the Western Orientalist fallacy, suffice it that I herewith state the following: a major topic for Turkologists to study should become the Safavid Empire of Iran as a Turanian state, because it was ethnically a Turanian Empire whereby the outright majority of the population used to speak diverse Turkic languages as their native tongues.
Similarly, a major topic for Iranologists to study should become the Ottoman Empire, because an overwhelmingly Iranian culture permeated the state to such extent that, when Mehmet II entered Constantinople on 29th May 1453 and proceeded to the Palace of the Eastern Roman Emperors, the first words that he uttered were neither in Ottoman Turkish nor in Medieval Greek nor in Arabic, but in the classical, literary language of all Turanians, i.e. in Farsi.
The spider is curtain-bearer in the palace of Chosroes;
the owl sounds the relief in the castle of Afrasiyab.
These verses written c. 180 years before the conquest of Constantinople (1453) by the great Iranian poet Saadi (known as Saadi Shirazi, 1210-1291) reveal
– the absolutely identical nature of the Turanians and the Iranians,
– the common cultural background of all Iranian and Turanian nations,
– key elements of the Iranian-Turanian apocalyptic and soteriological eschatology,
– the last moments of the ailing Iranian rule (Chosroes: the last major Sassanid emperor Khusraw Parvez; 570-628), and
Mehmed II, by uttering these verses, clearly indicated that he viewed his victory in terms of Iranian-Turanian culture and eschatology, before all the other eventual or hypothetical parameters involved in the topic (Palaeologi-Ottoman imperial family rivalry; Christian-Muslim religious conflict; Eastern Roman-Turkic ethnic quarrel; economic interests).
In fact, there should have never existed Turkology and Iranology within the context of Western Orientalism, if this unit of academic disciplines were to serve the true purpose of exploration and search for the historical truth. The reason is simple: Turan and Iran have always been an indivisible historical – cultural entity.
However, the false portrait of the Ottoman and the Safavid empires, which had been systematically produced by the 16th c. colonial powers, involved two dimensions of distortion of the reality, namely religious and ethnic. Then, 19th and 20th c. French and English academics and explorers misinterpreted the 16th c. Ottoman – Safavid wars that their countries’ duplicitous diplomats had instigated as of both, religious and ethnic, reasons; and in both cases, these scholars lied, pretty much like today’s Orientalists lie when presenting, teaching and propagating the following forgery: “Sunni Turkish Ottomans vs. Shia Persian Safavids”.
In fact, at the beginning of the 16th c., with the exception of Eastern Iranians (namely the Tajik / Dari speaking populations), there was not one Persian ethnic alive; Iran had already been almost entirely Turanized at the ethnic-linguistic level. Farsi was a highly respected and widely used language of Literature, History, Spirituality, Art, Architecture and Culture that all the educated people felt obliged to learn in young age at the various madrasas of the cities, the towns and the villages of Iran. But in reality, Farsi was at the time a dead language like Latin in 16th c. Germany.
Only later and mainly during the 20th c., following the aggressive and extensive English involvement and the shameful colonial rule of Iran, which was carried out by local puppets, a ‘new’, systematized ‘modern education’ was imposed on all Iranians, the true, traditional Iranian History (based on Ferdowsi, Nezami Ganjavi and many other illustrious epic poets) was forcefully and calamitously replaced by the fake, materialistic, atheistic and evil Iranian ‘History’ of the Orientalists, and Farsi became obligatorily the meaningless ‘national’ language. These tasks have been completed by the pathetically ignorant, uneducated and charlatanesque soldiers, who were later called “Pahlavi dynasty shahs”.
The Universal Empire of Iran disappeared, and a fake, nationalistic, ‘Persian’ pseudo-kingdom was established only to implement the ensuing culturally anti-Iranian and ethnically anti-Turanian, nationalist tyranny. It was a villainous Freemasonic plot and eschatological conspiracy against Iran, involving many ulcerous English, French, American and other enemies of Imperial Iran, who postured as ‘friends’ of ‘Persia’ or ‘admirers’ of the ‘Persian civilization’. They only wanted to fool the Iranians and to insult Iran diachronically, after the absurd and abominable example given by ancient rascals like Herodotus and Aeschylus.
While the rocambolesque and even wacky Pahlavi pseudo-dynasty was in power, the criminal English colonials prepared their substitute, namely several pseudo-theologians, who composed pathetic theoretical systems, triggered absurd religious fanaticism, and engulfed the entire Iranian nation in colonial dilemmas and utmost confusion of political nature. Farsi, as the language of the systematized Western education, was indeed revivified particularly among the incessantly increasing urban populations, who started forgetting their native tongues, notably Azeri, Turkmen and other.
During the time of the Pahlavi bogus-Iranian ‘shahs’ (1925-1979), a ‘white’, nationalist terror was imposed on the misfortunate nation; the use of other languages was strictly prohibited. However, this linguistic revival is a fake, and it looks like an awakening of the mummy. The people, who speak Farsi as a native language in today’s Iran, are of Turanian ethnic origin in their outright majority; even worse, their culture is entirely Turanian–Iranian, and their most celebrated rulers and beloved emperors are all Turanians, like Shah Isma’il I, the founder of the Safavid dynasty.
This does not mean that there are not several genuine Iranian languages spoken today in Iran by native speakers; of course, there are many: they speak Baluch, Lori, Bakhtiari, Gorani, Faili, Kalhori, Gilani, Laki, Talysh, etc. But these ethno-linguistic groups represent rather small minorities in Iran. These populations are certainly of Iranian ethnic origin, but they share the common Iranian-Turanian culture with all the populations of Turanian ethnic origin in Iran and in many other countries.
The present situation in Iran looks strange and absurd to all the local victims of the diffusion of Western propaganda of educational-academic-intellectual character; in fact, the systematic propagation of the erroneous Western notion of ‘nation’ or ‘ethnic group’ triggered only troubles and conflicts. This noxious development relates to the inhuman intellectual perversion that is called ‘Enlightenment’ in the Western world. This consists in intellectual darkness and educational paranoia that caused numerous wars over the past 250 years.
For millennia, various ethnic groups -Iranian and Turanian- speaking different languages, shared always their common culture and tradition without feeling or caring about the unsubstantiated and otherwise nonexistent, fake borders and the evil division lines that the 18th c. Western European concept of ‘nation’ produced worldwide. This historical reality of Turanian-Iranian indivisibility was irrevocable within the universal Iranian Empire, which was the supreme blessing of God and the best present that the divine world had bestowed upon Mankind.
Whatever fallacy the Western Orientalists may eventually invent and include in their often nonsensical bibliography falls apart in the light of all historical sources and texts. If the modern Western academia and intellectuals cannot understand the true reality, this is due to their degenerate minds, the advanced rottenness of their decomposed educational and social structures, and the nauseating putrefaction of their moral core.
Then, the fabrication of the fake divide “Turks vs. Persians” helped the criminal colonial powers spread divisions among the Turanians of Western, Central, Southern and Northern Asia, and the Caucasus region. The parallel creation of the fake divide “Sunni Muslims vs. Shia Muslims” was instrumental in plunging the entire Islamic world in permanent strife. Then, the combined fallacy “Sunni Turkish Ottomans vs. Shia Persian Safavids” is an explosive mixture geared to prolong and perpetuate the catastrophic division of all the populations living between the Bosporus and the Indus River Delta.
However, if they destroy the evil deeds of the local puppets of the Anglo-Saxon colonial governments, these populations could triumphantly unite in a secular super-state of ca. 450 million people and thus become the new superpower and Western Asia’s real locomotive of nations. Alternatively, if the existing colonial divisions are allowed to further exist, they can trigger new fratricidal wars among the Turks, who are culturally Iranian, and the Iranians, who are ethnically Turks.
For all the aforementioned national divisions and historical distortions to be duly presented and propagated worldwide by the Western historical forgers in a complete manner, a key point had to be invented: the supposed Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’. This Orientalist fallacy hinges of the misrepresentation of the mystical Safavid Order, which founded an entire empire for themselves: the Turanian Empire of Safavid Iran.
However, the falsification of the identity and the deeds of the Safavid Order would never be successfully undertaken worldwide, if the entire Western world was not already totally confused about two totally different issues, which were systematically presented to the average people of all the Western countries as supposedly ‘one’ by their religious, academic and intellectual authorities alike: spirituality and religion.
Nevertheless, spirituality and religion are totally distinct activities of the spiritual and the material hypostases of the human being.
Sultanahmet Square in Ottoman Constantinople: the Eastern Roman hippodrome and Obelisk of Theodosius, which was transported from Luxor
Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Safavid Isfahan
Procession of the guilds in the hippodrome as per a miniature of the Surname-i Vehbi (1582)
Naqsh-e Jahan, the imperial square in Safavid Isfahan
—————- BLUE MOSQUE, OTTOMAN CONSTANTINOPLE —————-
Blue mosque (Sultan Ahmet Camii): built between 1609 and 1617
Blue mosque, part of the interior decoration
Blue mosque, the mihrab (center) and the minbar (right)
—————– SHAH MOSQUE, SAFAVID ISFAHAN —————————-
Shah Mosque (Masjid-e Shah): built between 1611 and 1629
The winter hypostyle
The dome
——————————————————–
FORTHCOMING
Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse : Des Intellectuels Jadidistes à Brejnev et à Poutine – Nécrologie
Элен Каррер д’Анкосс: от интеллектуалов-джадидистов до Брежнева и Путина — некролог
Contents
Introduction
I. D’Encausse is not Encausse!
II. L’Empire éclaté
III. Bobojon Ghafurov, the Tajik Soviet Orientalist, and his Hajj
IV. The Islamic Republic of Mecca & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
V. Broadened horizons: Orientalism and Sovietology
VI. ‘Le pouvoir confisqué’ & Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s writing style
VII. Suslov, Pravda, and ‘The State and Revolution’
VIII. My classmates at Sciences Po: today’s ignorant, worthless and miserable administrators and politicians
IX. Nicos Poulantzas’ suicide & the Western leftist intelligentsia’s funerals
X. Either Leonid Brezhnev or Ronald Reagan – or get lost!
XI. How the Jadid Intellectuals impacted the formation of the Hélène Carrère d’Encausse School of Sovietology
XII. Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, and Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
XIII. Soviet Union, Spirituality, Religion and Eschatology
XIV. John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Polish quagmire
XV. Viewpoint from the Mount Elbrus
XVI. The European convictions and the pragmatism of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
XVII. The limits of historiography: a History of leaders and governance or a History of peoples and culture?
Содержание
Введение
I. Д’Анкосс – это не Анкосс!
II. «Расколотая империя»
III. Бободжон Гафуров, таджикский советский востоковед, и его хадж
IV. Исламская Республика Мекка (Теракт в Мекке) и советское вторжение в Афганистан
V. Расширение кругозора: ориентализм и советология
VI. «Конфискованная власть» и стиль письма Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
VII. Суслов, «Правда» и «Государство и революция».
VIII. Мои одноклассники в Science Po: сегодняшние невежественные, никчемные и жалкие администраторы и политики
IX. Самоубийство Никоса Пуланцаса и похороны западной левой интеллигенции
X. Либо Леонид Брежнев, либо Рональд Рейган — или проваливай!
XI. Как интеллектуалы-джадиды повлияли на формирование школы советологии Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
XII. Шарль де Голль, Жорж Помпиду и Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
XIII. Советский Союз, Духовность, Религия и Эсхатология
XIV. Иоанн Павел II, Рональд Рейган и польская трясина
XV. Смотровая площадка с горы Эльбрус
XVI. Европейские убеждения и прагматизм Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
XVII. Пределы историографии: история вождей и правления или история народов и культуры?
Permanent Secretary of the French Academy, Helene Carrere d’Encausse and her husband Louis Carrere d’Encausse attend the Private View of “Icones de l’Art Moderne, la Collection Chtchoukine” at Fondation Louis Vuitton on February 20, 2017 in Paris, France.
Introduction
She died 94; I am 67, and I was her student before 42-43 years, back in 1980-1981 at the illustrious Institut d’études politiques de Paris (also known as Sciences Po or IEP). Back at those days, the Anglo-Saxon countries and ‘universities’ were filled with nonsensical Kremlinologists, who were mere Anti-Soviet propagandists rather than objective scholars and impartial researchers.
It is certainly to the credit of my late professor, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse (6 July 1929-5 August 2023), that she killed this term in France, across the member states of the Francophonie, and throughout the Francophone world. The extremely absurd term ‘Kremlinologie’ never existed in French, as it was duly replaced by the far more reasonable word ‘Soviétologie’ – to large extent thanks to the deceased academician.
In fact, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was the founder of the French School of Sovietology; she actually entered the academic arena in 1963 with her celebrated thesis “Réforme et révolution chez les musulmans de l’Empire russe, Bukhara 1867-1924” (Reform and revolution among the Muslims of the Russian Empire; Bukhara 1867-1924) {Préface de Maxime Rodinson (Thèse, Doctorat 3e cycle; Histoire Paris)}. But I am digressing! About:
Соболезнования в связи с кончиной Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
I did not move to Paris (in October 1978) for postgraduate studies in Sovietology and Political Science; there was a time when I did not know her grand name. If someone asked me in 1978 whether I knew “d’Encausse”, I would certainly reply positively only due to my own misunderstanding, because I would recall my earlier readings and my research about Gérard Anaclet Vincent Encausse (also known as Papus), the illustrious French Freemason, occultist, hypnotist, thaumaturgist and mystic (1865-1915). Of course, as you can imagine, ‘Encausse’ was not ‘d’Encausse’, but still there was a certain Franco-Russian connection in this case, because Papus was sought after by none else than Nikolai Vtoroy (Czar Nicholas II)!
Facing social unrest after a calamitous and very humiliating defeat by the Japanese (1905), the Russian Emperor invited the famous mystic to Tsarskoye Selo (now known as Pushkin, 25 km from St. Petersburg), the imperial residence. It is said that in a particular séance, Encausse-Papus evoked the spirit of Alexander III (father and predecessor of Nicholas II, who had died one year earlier), and the … ‘spirit’ gave counsel for more repression (this was understandable at least) to ‘avoid a revolution’.
The ‘spirit’ must have apparently come from another universe, because ‘it’ did not know that the revolution had already taken place and it had been duly squelched. However, one of the most intriguing rumors maintained that Encausse-Papus said to the distressed Nicholas II that the fearsome revolution would not break out as long as he himself was in life (note that he died in 1915). About:
As a matter of fact, I relocated to Paris in order to undertake postgraduate studies in Egyptology, Assyriology, Hittitology, Northwestern Semitic languages, History of Religions, Gnosis, Manichaeism, and Oriental Christianism; soon afterwards I added Iranology, thus covering a vast area from North Africa to Central Asia and from Anatolia to the Indus River Valley. I also studied Russian Literature, thus continuing my earlier intensive studies of Russian language at the Greek Soviet Friendship Association in Athens (греко советское общество дружбы; 1975-1978), during my undergraduate studies. The interest for Russia/USSR was permanent, as part of my family had lived there.
It was in early 1979, in a rainy Saturday afternoon, that I found a fascinating book while spending some time in a bookstore; the title was ‘L’Empire éclaté’ (the Shattered Empire). It was published in 1978 and the author’s name was Hélène Carrère d’Encausse. As you can guess from the previous paragraphs, it was easy for me to retain the name! Reading few lines from several pages that belonged to different chapters, I realized that the core purpose of the well-written book was the solemn announcement of the forthcoming fall of the USSR. About:
Saying something like that at the time was not a joke; it was an entrance ticket to the madhouse. In 4-5 minutes, I was able to find out the major reason that the author evoked to support her claim; the Muslim populations of Central Asia and Caucasus were creating a major demographic challenge for the Russians, who -after some decades- would end up as the minority within the borders of the Soviet Union. It was enthralling. I bought the book and in the next few months, in parallel with my heavy schedule, I managed to read it all. It was certainly a best-seller in France. But there was a reason for this. On 16th January 1979, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi left Iran, and on 1st February 1979, the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Tehran.
In her ‘L’Empire éclaté’, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse did not discuss issues pertaining to Islamization or radicalization; but the scarecrow of a USSR -with the Russians as minority and the Turkic Muslim nations of Central Asia as the majority- could after some decades end up with either a nationalist revival or an Islamic theological conservatism.
It was not a bluff; there were many indications for this, well beyond the events in Iran. I was then shaping my understanding on the basis of diverse data and pieces of collected information. As I was studying the past of many countries of North Africa and the so-called Middle East, I befriended many students originating from those nations; they were next to me as we attended together various courses (Egyptology, Assyriology, Aramaic & Phoenician, History of the Red Sea region, etc.) and, before the courses started or ended, they used to become my source of information for what happened in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, etc. I was constantly discussing with them in order to evaluate how the overall situation was from Morocco to Pakistan and from Turkey to Yemen. There was no Internet, no mobile telephony, and not even computers at those days, but people corresponded with others, and the news from Soviet Union did not look like the governmental or partisan propaganda of the last Brezhnev years.
III. Bobojon Ghafurov, the Tajik Soviet Orientalist, and his Hajj
The story of Bobojon Ghafurov was known to me already in 1979; Igor Diakonoff (Игорь Михайлович Дьяконов; 1915-1999), the famous Soviet Assyriologist, was friend of my French professor, the renowned Orientalist Jean Bottéro (1914-2007), and like that, I started corresponding with him; in parallel I also knew several other academics in USSR through my Communist connections. The Bobojon Ghafurov story was included in Diakonoff’s auto-biographical ‘Book of Memories’ (Книга воспоминаний) and it can be found in the Russian Wikipedia entry about him, but the news had already spread those days, because Ghafurov had just died.
The great Tajik Soviet statesman (Бободжан Гафурович Гафуров; 1908-1977) was also an outstanding Orientalist; he was the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan from 1946 to 1956, and from that date to the end of his life, he was the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. His doctorate thesis about the Ismailiyah (الإسماعيلية; the Isma’ili Order of Muslim mystics) was a most recommendable publication, and his contention about the Tajiks and Tajik History became easily a matter of grave polarization (Are the Tajiks ‘Persianized Turks’ or are the Uzbeks ‘Turkified Eastern Iranians’? / at the time, I did not side with either position, but now I accept the Ghafurov thesis, which is the second leg of the aforementioned dilemma). I have to add here that the Tajik Orientalist had become known to me through his academic partner and co-author, the Greek Soviet historian Dimitrios Tsibukidis (Димитриос Цибукидис; 1921-2006).
However, in 1974, Ghafurov found the correct political pretext (namely the initiation of some state contacts) to get a special permission to travel for Hajj to Mecca and Medina – at a time there were no diplomatic relations between USSR and Saudi Arabia; but apparently the real reason for this travel was a latent faith that had been meanwhile developed. No diplomatic improvement happened following this trip, but when the Tajik Orientalist returned, he made shocking revelations to all of his Orientalist colleagues; more specifically, he said that for him his career as statesman was meaningless, his academic employment was pointless, but the pilgrimage that he had just performed was highly considered among his friends and neighbors in the village. Afterwards, he lived the rest of his life at home. About:
These words constituted an indirect confession of Muslim faith; the rumor spread among academics, Orientalists and partisans throughout the vast country and also beyond the borders; it was actually the time when Roger Garaudy (1913-2012) had become a Muslim. With her ‘L’Empire éclaté’, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse had caught the pulse of the moment. This made of her one of the very few people worldwide who predicted the fall of Soviet Union more than 10 years before it occurred. Two critical events took also place in 1979, setting the new stage of Soviet-Muslim polarization.
IV. The Islamic Republic of Mecca & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
First, from 20th November to 4th December 1979, the short-lived Islamic Republic of Mecca shook the foundations of the obsolete Saudi monarchy, particularly if we take into consideration the fact that king Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (1906-1975) had been assassinated. This development ended up in terrible bloodshed, but it acquired a fascinating eschatological dimension in the minds and the hearts of hundreds of millions of Muslims; now, it is somewhat forgotten and deliberately minimized as the ‘Grand Mosque seizure’, but it then made many Muslims believe that the arrival of Mahdi and Prophet Jesus was a really imminent affair, i.e. for the people of this generation. Actually, all the discourses and speeches made by the Juhayman group were strongly eschatological of character. It goes without saying that they undertook this operation, apparently guided by the criminal rascals of the English secret services.
Few days later, the Soviet army entered Afghanistan (24 December 1979) thus directly involving Moscow in a confrontation with the local stooges of the CIA. Contrarily to what many believe today, the Soviet operation in Afghanistan was not a mistake; things went wrong only because the Marxist-Leninist authorities did not realize that the Western secret services were not the enemies and the opponents of the Islamists but their producers, protectores and promoters; even worse, the Soviet leadership did not have a correct plan as to what to do after invading the country, which is a difficult mountainous terrain inhabited by many different nations that have nothing in common. About:
However, thanks to the then existing SSRs of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, a large part of Afghanistan should have been divided and annexed by these three Central Asiatic SSRs. Another large part of Afghanistan should have been established as the Hazara SSR and then adequately helped to integrate with the USSR. The rest would form the secluded Pashtun territory and Pashtun populations from other parts of the fake state of Afghanistan should have been relocated there. After the resettlement of all the populations as per the aforementioned arrangements, the Soviet army would only need to militarily occupy the Pashtun territory which would not be larger than 150000 km2. But all the good Soviet Orientalists had failed to realize that there is no Afghan nation and that Afghanistan was (and still is) a fake country fabricated by the English colonial gangsters of the East India Company as a means of weakening the Iranian Safavid-Afshar-Qajar Empire.
V. Broadened horizons: Orientalism and Sovietology
For me, my studies and my understanding, the books of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse constituted an exquisite opportunity to establish bridges between Russia and the Ancient Orient, Russia and Central Asia, Iran and Central Asia, and Russia and Africa. It was then that I became fully conscious of a fact that I already knew somewhat superficially: that Russia was part of the ‘Orient’, and not of the ‘Occident’. This was actually the first territorial expansion of my research interests.
That is why after two years of postgraduate studies in the aforementioned disciplines of Orientalism, I decided to also enroll in the department for doctoral studies in Sovietology (Cycle Supérieur d’Etudes sur l’URSS et l’Europe Orientale) where, in addition to the seminar offered by the head of the department, I would also follow courses conducted by the Polish-French scholar Eugène Zaleski (a very remarkable specialist on Political Economy and Soviet economic planning), Patrice Gélard (who became later a senator), who scrutinized Soviet Constitutional Law, and many others. It was a well-organized department superbly put in order by Renée Sergent, an excellent administrative assistant who was of great help for all the students. About:
VI. ‘Le pouvoir confisqué’ & Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s writing style
It was then (1980) that a new book just published by France’s best Sovietologist confirmed that my aforementioned decision was correct and that I should truly add Sovietology to the other fields of my Orientalist specialization: ‘Le pouvoir confisqué’ (‘The confiscated power’). I read it while taking intensive summer courses of Russian Literature at the (run by the French Jesuits) Centre d’Etudes Russes Saint Georges à Meudon; my intention was to have very strong linguistic skills in Russian, adding the Christian Orthodox czarist jargon (that had been obliterated in USSR). Little did I know at the time! My professor had indeed preceded me there by a quarter century. This ‘detail’ I learned many years later. It was truly amusing to learn the alphabet that Lenin had abolished. About:
Before having the compulsory interview with the head of the department prior to the final decision (September 1980), I knew already much about the very personality of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse. The way she was elaborating her books was very different from the writing style of all my other professors in the disciplines of Orientalism. With this I do not mean the contents or the stylistics of the text, but her temperament and powers of attraction. She was writing to pugnaciously convince the reader and she was engaged in her struggle to make others accept her approach, analysis, and descriptions.
Only two among my Orientalist professors, the Assyriologist Jean Bottéro, and Maxime Rodinson (1915-2004), a very exceptional connoisseur of the Orient (mainly for the Late Antiquity, Islamic and Modern times), were writing with great passion and/or empathy for the topics that they analyzed and the historical persons that they portrayed. But Carrère d’Encausse, who had also been the student of M. Rodinson, did not express any feelings for the subject of her text; on the contrary, she displayed passion in her effort to convince.
Maxime Rodinson
In French, this is not called ‘amour’ (love), but ‘amour propre’ (self-esteem). She was struggling to convince her readers about her judgment, evaluation and conclusions; she was therefore using the French language and structuring her sentences for this purpose, making always grammatically strong statements. The titles of her two books that I had already gone through offer a very good example in this regard; the structure ‘noun + past participle’ is in French far stronger than any similar structure in any other language.
VII. Suslov, Pravda, and ‘The State and Revolution’
Her seminars were attended by European, Asiatic, African and American students; we were all urged to subscribe to Pravda (Правда) and follow the directives as to how to decipher and interpret those heavily impacted by ideological jargon articles that had to always get an ‘imprimatur’ (official license) by hierarchical bureaucrats, who formed the Soviet equivalent of the Western ‘bourgeoisie aisée’ under the ‘spiritual’ or ‘sacerdotal’ or ‘ceremonial’ auspices of Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov (Михаил Андреевич Суслов; 1902-1982). And, to my eyes, this was a very serious problem.
No 2 in the Soviet hierarchy after Leonid Brezhnev, the ‘theoretical Custodian’ of the October Revolution, Second Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1965-1982), Senior Secretary of Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1948-1982), and (to use a Western vulgarity) ‘Chief Ideologue’ of the Communist Party of USSR, had failed to detect something truly crucial that was so obvious to my eyes: from the impulsive language that Lenin had used in his venerated ‘The State and Revolution’ (Государство и революция) there was nothing left in the routinely written, bureaucratic, apathetic, crystallized jargon of the Pravda scribes.
Irrespective of his ideas, opinions and choices, Lenin wrote in a vivid, sentimental manner with strong contrasts impressively painted thanks to his well-selected words; there was indeed life in his sentences. But Pravda texts in the 1970s were fossilized combinations of grammar, syntax and lexicography. I have to also add at this point that my familiarity with the ancient scribes of Mesopotamia and Egypt and with their role in the formulation of imperial and Pharaonic Annals helped me greatly understand that the role of the Pravda scribes in reality endangered the existence of the revolutionary Soviet state. Turning a ‘revolution’ to mere ‘ceremony’ is tantamount to funerals.
Suslov was at the time portrayed as a ‘hardliner’, but although I was under 25, I was already able to understand that such silly statements and descriptions were typical Anglo-Saxon propaganda good only for the ash-heap of history. But due to the ostensible mummification of the October Revolution, Suslov risked justifying the Anti-Soviet propaganda of the Western world. The long awaited, quasi-Messianic society that Lenin defined as ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ had unfortunately died in the meantime due to a malignant tumor named ‘Nomenklatura’. It was very clear to me at the time that the USSR could not live thanks to enthralling, impulsive and enthusiastic movements and ‘revolutions’ generated elsewhere (Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, Yemen, Angola, etc.), simply because the heart (: Moscow) had already died.
Political science, economics, political economy, law, and international relations were apparently new scientific fields for me and I definitely had to make an extra effort; but the fact that I continued attending all my other courses in Orientalism offered me the unique opportunity to study in parallel international affairs in the times of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (mainly during 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE) and in Modern Times. The comparisons that I was able to then establish in the scholarly approach to either topics was of cardinal importance in my formative years and in the judgment of the modern societies that I was empowered to formulate in striking contrast with political scientists, geopolitical analysts, and politicians who think they know whereas they know nothing. About:
VIII. My classmates at Sciences Po: today’s ignorant, worthless and miserable administrators and politicians
To most of my classmates in Orientalism, political developments and politics were entirely unimportant issues; still, by having learned aspects of the historical past of mankind, they had gradually acquired a certain perspective and they were able to make pertinent judgments, seeing things from far. Quite contrarily, to my classmates in Sciences Po, political developments and politics were of vital importance; to judge based on the passion that they expressed for these topics, I would say that they truly lived in order to monitor and comment politics. This was totally futile and useless, because they knew too many details about a topic for which they did not have any perspective and which they could not see from far. In reality, they could not ‘learn’ (let alone ‘understand’) politics and the ongoing political developments, because they only were part of them, i.e. part of the problem.
However, I have to state that Hélène Carrère d’Encausse stood perfectly well at her level; she was never induced to enter into political discussions that most of my classmates were eager to initiate supposedly making a ‘question about the course’! It was then clear to my eyes that she was not only a shrewd observer and an excellent author, but also a well-disciplined professor and a regimented academic, who never confused the political analysis of a system with the political talk.
Even worse, my classmates, who -in their majority- were graduates in Political Science, Law and Economics, could not distinguish between the fake historical narrative that political instructors of every government, party, elite or regime write and the true, objective, unbiased and impartial History as evidenced by textual and epigraphic sources, archaeological findings, ethnographic data, and the cultural life of each and every genuine nation. Please, note that I don’t mention here anything about spirituality, cult, faith and religion, because had I uttered one of those words, my classmates would have asked me to return to my theological seminar. So, to all of them, ‘History’ was only the historical forgery that their respective governments had forced them to ‘learn’ in the primary and secondary schools; in other words, it was a recently invented sketch that had absolutely nothing with the historical process.
I still remember the reaction of an Algerian schoolmate who was shocked when I spoke to him about the Berbers, the majestic mausoleums of the Ancient Numidian kings, and the Ancient Berber writing system. Having ostensibly been indoctrinated in the colonial falsehood of Panarabism, intoxicated with French Enlightenment, inculcated with Marxism-Leninism, and duly brainwashed against the importance of the Berber Islamic civilization, he wondered how I knew all that! He then started being too apologetic against his national identity (‘there are only few Berbers now’), imperial heritage (‘only for vacations we go to Tipaza’, i.e. the location of the tomb of Juba I of Numidia), cultural integrity (‘we don’t care about old traditions’), and historical continuity (‘no one reads Ibn Khaldun nowadays’). It then became clear to me that, with such people in the administration, Algeria under either Houari Boumédiène (1932-1978) or Chadli Bendjedid (1929-2012) would always be expendable stuff in the hands of either French or Soviet diplomats.
This situation made me realize, already back at those days, the worthlessness of politics; if the people, who study in order to learn and then get involved in politics and in the administration of their countries, first have been indoctrinated due to a totally constructed pseudo-historical narrative (geared only to validate infamous if not criminal political purposes and interests), and second fail to see from far the world in which they are, then ‘politics’ is an interminably reproduced problem that engulfs us all in temporary misery, compact absurdity, spiritual prison, and intellectual swamp with no way out.
IX. Nicos Poulantzas’ suicide & the Western leftist intelligentsia’s funerals
So, in the very last months of 1980 and in the first months of 1981, thanks to my conversations with Sciences Po classmates, I was able to early draw a very correct conclusion about an event that had already taken place before 12-15 months, shaking the academic-intellectual-political establishment of France: the suicide of Nicos Poulantzas (October 1979). Of course, when this event occurred, I did not bother at all about it, and my conventional response to pathetically ideologized friends and acquaintances was always the same:
– You cannot study cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts, learn about Hammurapi and Ramses III, pass exams on Thutmose III’s campaigns in Syria and Neo-Assyrian imperial Annals, and possibly spend one second for worthless leftist intelligentsia.
But I must admit that at the time I could not fathom why this incident happened. All the same, 15 months later, due to my contacts with postgraduate classmates in Political Science, the reason for this suicide was revealed to me quite easily. Simply, it was a natural circumstance. Such were those days of the ideologically leftist lunatics, such was the extreme focalization on absurd ‘thinkers’ and ignorant ‘intellectuals’, and such were the incommensurately high expectations of all these fools, that I conclusively realized that the entirely failed realm of anti-USSR (anti-Soviet) and anti-US (anti-capitalist) European theoreticians was predestined to doom, pulling -in the process- Western Europe (as we called the capitalist part of the continent) to final extinction. In other words, I saw back in 1980-1981 the impasse that many attest in Europe nowadays; it was inevitable.
The paranoia of those days had impacted our distinguished professor too; if you search among Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s publications, books, lectures and public speeches, you will find many great essays and treatises about several czars and valuable presentations of the French-Russian relations; but if you check the dates, you will soon notice that they have all been published after 1991. It was a pity for us back in 1980, but it could not happen otherwise. She could certainly write at the time, as she finally did later, fascinating researches and comprehensive conclusions about Nicholas II, Alexander II, and Catherine II, but few people would read those books back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
Alexander II and his groundbreaking tenure are the key to understanding Russia before the Romanov, during the Soviet rule, and also today, but in 1980 most of the people and the students would feel that the brave imperial visionary was closer to Sargon of Akkad than to us! Such was the madness we lived in, and that’s why the people of my generation failed, the global situation deteriorated, and the entire world heads now to an unprecedented but well-deserved disaster. About:
X. Either Leonid Brezhnev or Ronald Reagan – or get lost!
Speaking and writing about Soviet Union at the time necessitated a bold character and guts; this is so, because there were only two positions that you could defend before triggering a ‘tollé’ (an outcry) against you! From one side, you had all the Communists and the PCF (parti communiste français), who routinely reproduced the endless volumes printed by the Academy of Sciences of USSR and supported blindly whatever Brezhnev and his associates would decide.
From the other side, you were constrained to face the dark nebula of anti-Soviet European leftists, socialists, social-democrats, Trotskyists, anarchists, nihilists and atheists, who were so pathetically ideologized, so foolishly unrealistic, and so absurdly outlandish that you could not help but wish them all the same abominable fate as that of the aforementioned miserable self-murderer. All those trivial and useless scoundrels detonated volumes of hatred and negativity, described as hypothetical problems facts that were not troublesome, and -overwhelmed by their enormous psychological complex of inferiority- reached to unprecedented levels of theoretical, ideological, pseudo-scientific, and bogus-intellectual delirium.
Cursed and pathetic figures, the likes of Max Weber, Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Theodor W. Adorno, Jean-Paul Sartre, Lucien Goldmann, Louis Althusser, Cornelius Castoriadis and many other nauseatingly defeatist faces, are the sole reason for all the problems standing in front of Europe, Africa and many other parts of the world today. But back in 1980 they constituted the ‘holy saints’ for mentally sick, psychologically abnormal, sentimentally dead, intellectually corrupt, and lazy students who had failed to understand first that not a shred of truth could possibly be found in the infernal texts of those petty ‘philosophers’ and second that they did not truly read, understand and appreciate all those texts, but they instantaneously accepted them beforehand only to obtain psychological support, socio-professional status, and economic privileges as ‘consecrated’ and ‘respected’ ‘followers of Adorno’, ‘admirers of Gramsci’, and ‘fans of Max Weber’. All this was disgustingly lowly but fake proletarian.
Opposite the aforementioned two standpoints, every liberal or conservative criticism of the USSR and of the European Left was automatically denounced as ‘betrayal of the labor class’, ‘petty bourgeoisie deviation’, ‘bloody imperialist exploitation’, ‘fascist reaction’ or even ‘feudal resurgence’. Last, the insults were culminating with the following words: ‘bigot’, ‘pietist’ or ‘Russian émigré’. So, it took strong courage and real guts for Hélène Carrère d’Encausse to launch a new, modest but realist, objective (as much as possible), and balanced approach and school of Sovietology. It would even be accurate to state that she created the discipline in France.
XI. How the Jadid Intellectuals impacted the formation of the Hélène Carrère d’Encausse School of Sovietology
Technically, Carrère d’Encausse’s approach must be categorized as belonging to the ‘totalitarian school’, namely all the Western academics who viewed the October Revolution as a historical accident and the Soviet state as a form of totalitarianism. She certainly does not make part of the ‘revisionist school’ that attempted to refute, cancel or condition the arguments made by the opposite school.
Although in her books, she may momentarily give the impression of being a political scientist and astute commentator, Carrère d’Encausse was a historian, and to this testifies her thesis. It was therefore normal for her to see things in perspective and to introduce new parameters to the academic discourse about the Soviet Union, notably the ethnic identity, the cultural integrity, the spirituality, and the religious affiliation.
Having learned Turkish to work on a vast documentation that her professor and mentor Maxime Rodinson guided her to find, having studied the texts of the great Uzbek Jadidist intellectual and scholar Abdurauf Fitrat (عبد الرؤوف فطرت; Абдурауф Фитрат; 1886-1938), and having understood what was at stake in Central Asia for either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse knew very well what and when to put on the table for discussion. Her approach was superior to that of many others, because it was at the same time systematic, realist, serious and comprehensive. About:
XII. Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, and Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
Of course, she had the advantage to have also lived at a time when major statesmen like Charles de Gaulle were constantly giving the tuning note (‘donner le la’) to all the rest, specialists or not. But she was also a perspicacious researcher, and therefore she carefully noted that the illustrious French general and statesman never called the USSR with any of the country’s various appellations; to him, Moscow was always ‘Russia’ – either imperial or soviet. And this is what came to surface with her ‘L’Empire éclaté’.
Carrère d’Encausse was proud to say in one of her recent interviews that the man who welcomed her at the Sciences Po (where she also studied) was none else than Georges Pompidou (1911-1974), the former President of France; but before being elected in the presidency of his country with 58% (1969), Pompidou was the French Prime Minister who faced and vanquished the notorious May 1968 rebellion. And yet, Pompidou had never been elected before his appointment as prime minister (1962), having only been a close associate of General de Gaulle, a professor of French Literature in Sorbonne University, and the PDG (CEO) of the Rothschild Bank (1956-1958).
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse – “À Sciences po, l’homme qui m’a interrogée était Georges Pompidou”
It was therefore only normal for my former professor to conclude that the soviet system had failed to find and implement updates, introduce constructive criticism, and initiate changes that would enable the vast country to cope with the various international socioeconomic developments; as long as the Soviet Union was not a sealed off territory and Moscow maintained commercial relations with other states, it would be imperative for the USSR to renovate accordingly.
XIII. Soviet Union, Spirituality, Religion and Eschatology
I mentioned spirituality earlier; this was entirely absent throughout Soviet Union, at least across the society and the government. The state was entirely composed by partisans who were ‘convinced’ that man was an entirely material entity, because ‘there was no spiritual universe’ and, as Lenin had said, thought ‘is’ the supreme function of the material world.
There were certainly psychics, astrologers, and many clairvoyants in the USSR, and many of them were consulted by the ruling elite of the Communist Party, but their abilities, skills, activities, energies and vibrations were believed to merely be the yet unstudied part of the material universe; it was thought that, once these fields would be duly explored and fully assessed, they would turn out to be new scientific disciplines.
Far from the fooled society and the faithless rulers, spiritual life was the deep, lifelong experience of several individuals, who happened to be indiscriminately Shaman, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or other; worshipping God does not really demand public space. Even more importantly, it does not demand seclusion and anachoretism or asceticism. Hélène Carrère d’Encausse knew this fact very well. As spirituality is a phenomenon that makes people focus on the spiritual universe and quite often disregard the material world, it was normal for every objective observer to expect that the October Revolution was too tiny an event to possibly eliminate spirituality.
Spirituality is personal, but religion is institutional; as such, religion was almost uprooted in the USSR, despite the fact that Stalin finally started to scale back the anti-religious campaign in 1941, as he needed the moral support of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War (WW II). Things improved after the meeting Stalin had with the three top clerics of Soviet Union on 5th September 1943. All the same, 35 years later, it would still be absurd to expect things to change in the vast country only due to a religious revival; the Church was closely controlled by the administration. About:
The Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War
Pope Benedict XVI is greeted by Gabriel de Broglie, Helene Carrere d’Encausse and Jean Leclant, members of French Institute, during a visit to the French Institute in Paris.
However, there were few peripheral nations from where a possible reversal, originating from a religious revival, could be initiated: Georgia, Armenia, and Poland. At this point, I have to state for the readers, who happen not to know the biographical details of the deceased academician, that she was of Georgian and Russian / German origin (from her mother side); her paternal grandfather was a Georgian statesman of the Russian Empire, whereas her father was Georges Zourabichvili (Георгий Зурабишвили/გიორგი ზურაბიშვილი; 1898-1944), a philosopher, economist, and taxi driver émigré, who was later considered to be collaborator with the German Occupation forces and then abducted and lost in September 1944. This means that Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, who was stateless (‘apatride’/’без гражданства’) for the first 21 years of her life, having been born Zourabichvili, knew the Caucasus region directly, pertinently, and authoritatively.
The Western involvement in this region had caused many wars between the Ottomans, the Russians, and the Iranians. But due to the denomination of the Armenians and the Georgians, any new Western interference would not bring spectacular results. Contrarily, Poland could attract a major intrusion, because Poles are Catholics. In this case, the country would serve as tool of a destabilization effort that would target the USSR, which had always been considered as a major opponent by the Roman Catholic Church, even more so because the atheist Soviet state stood on a territory that was never considered as duly Christianized by the Catholic popes, according to what the Third Secret of Fatima reveals (Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary).
This affair extended the otherwise simple ‘religious concern’ for Poland to an apocalyptic ‘eschatological apprehension’ for Russia. Of course, although we all had an idea about the Fatima (Portugal) apparitions back in 1917 (which had already become known to Nicholas II little time before his, and his family’s, bloody and appalling execution), none of us took them seriously as far as USSR/Russia was concerned. All the same, the serious developments, which took place in Vatican (in 1978) and in Poland (in 1979), were closely monitored and adequately highlighted to us by our head of department.
XIV. John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Polish quagmire
Following the brief passage (26 August-28 September 1978) of the assassinated Albino Luciani Pope John Paul I from the ‘Holy See’ (Sancta Sedes / Святой Престол), the controversial election of Karol Józef Wojtyła (1920-2005) as pope John Paul II, which was not accepted as canonical and legitimate by the Sedevacantists and Archbishop Giuseppe Siri, caused vivid discussions due to his origin and because of the fact that the circumstances were bizarre for the much disputed election of a Pole as the Roman Catholic pope. About:
It was certainly a clear indication of degradation, if not degeneration, of the Soviet elite; the ‘old guard of Kremlin’ (namely Brezhnev, Kosygin, Suslov, Ustinov, Gromyko, Chernenko and Andropov) seemed unable to grasp the gravity of the moment and react immediately, resolutely and irrevocably. The result was that, few months only after his ‘election’, John Paul II asked the permission to visit the place where he was born. In fact, the game was lost. The papal visit took place in June 1979, and at this point, I have to herewith republish several paragraphs from a recently published article, which was written by a former American Ambassador to Vatican, only to demonstrate how clearly an astute reader can read in-between the lines of the text the otherwise invisible but extant traces of the anti-Soviet conspiracy.
The title of the article reads: “Nine Days that Sparked the U.S.-Holy See Partnership and Changed the World” (By Callista L. Gingrich, U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See). I herewith include two excerpts:
« …
From June 2-10, 1979, the Polish pontiff traveled across the nation of his birth, delivering more than 50 speeches, and inspiring a revolution of conscience that would transform Poland and reshape the spiritual and political landscape of the 20th century. Millions of Poles, crushed under the weight of Soviet tyranny, turned out to see the Holy Father. On the first day of his pilgrimage, in Warsaw’s Victory Square, Pope John Paul II declared, “There can be no just Europe without the independence of Poland marked on its map!”»
«…
Ronald Reagan was elated. At the time, he hosted a popular radio show and dedicated numerous broadcasts to John Paul II’s historic pilgrimage. “It has been a long time since we’ve seen a leader of such courage and such uncompromising dedication to simple morality,” Reagan said.
A few months later in November of 1979, the former Governor of California announced his candidacy for President of the United States. Soon after taking office, the President requested a meeting with the Pope.
The two leaders met in Vatican City in 1982, and it was then that President Reagan asked Pope John Paul II when he thought Eastern Europe would be free from Soviet domination. When the Pope responded, “In our lifetime,” the President took his hand and asked the Pope that together they make it happen.»
The above lines show that the fall of Soviet Union is not merely a Mikhail Gorbachev affair, and that the intention to spread chaos, disorder, wars, moral depravity, and disastrous deterioration of the level of life -by means of fake promises and in the name of the nonsensical terms ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ and the rest of the Western world’s evil jargon- existed already in the minds of various groups of power in Western Europe and North America.
It is noteworthy that Wojtyla’s hypocritical and malignant visit to Poland antedates the early strikes undertaken by the Solidarity ‘movement’. So, every Soviet reaction against evil initiatives undertaken by the Anti-Christian West was indeed two steps behind the developments. Thinking retrospectively, an observer may eventually suggest today that Wojciech Jaruzelski’s appointment as Chairman of the Council of Ministers (11 February 1981) should have taken place already before the Gdansk Agreement was formalized (31 August 1980); however, this is quite naïve and very wrong. Jaruzelski’s nomination should have taken place immediately after the ridiculous election of the Polish Anti-pope, and in addition, it should have resolutely and permanently blocked any perspective of papal visit to Poland. About:
In other words, the only way for Soviet Union to survive was to up the ante, and this was then very clear to my eyes. I was not anymore a Communist at the time; in fact, I had accepted that ideology, with the strict exception of its atheistic / materialistic part, for one year (i.e. 1975-1976), and then rejected it. However, a person with moral standards cannot possibly be a sectarian; consequently, he does not need to be a Communist in order to abhorrently disapprove of the US evildoing against the USSR. There is absolutely no Manichaeistic (or dualistic) reality in the realm of politics, states and governments, and only an idiot would believe that the US gangsters are ‘Christian’ and ‘good’, and that the atheistic governments represent the ‘focus of evil’, as per the well-known but ludicrous expression of the grotesque former US president Ronald Reagan.
What was the main mistake in the Soviet policy-making and propaganda? They did not understand that they denounced the US and the Western world in terms that were comprehensible or valid only to them (to the Soviet elite) and not to others. Quite contrarily, they should have identified the reasons for which the US and the other colonial states of the Western world were unacceptable, abhorrent, and also repugnant to others (Africans, Asiatics, Latin Americans, etc.), and they should have decried them accordingly.
The Soviet elite was making a propaganda war against the West, utilizing theories and ideologies instead of strikingly focusing on the down-to-earth reality, which would have offered them the most convincing elements of their anti-Western propaganda. In other words, the West was not contemptible because the theory of Marxism-Leninism defined so, but because numerous, real facts supported this conclusion.
To offer an example in the case of Poland, the pathetic and worthless Yuri Andropov should have identified the final target of Solidarity and he should have therefore warned the Poles that, instead of driving them back to the Christian faith, the secret guides of that execrable movement would impose the ‘freedom’ of prostitution, incest, homosexuality, fornication, and drugs throughout their country; many documentary movies from the abominable Woodstock Music and Art Fair (1969) should have been widely popularized to plainly reveal the true, pseudo-Christian, and execrable face of the lawless and valueless Western world. Even worse, the so-called Christian clergy of the West should have been accused for not campaigning against the Woodstock contamination in their own country in the first place.
But, quite unfortunately, this is the permanent error of every kind of sectarianism: you must never evaluate the ‘other’ as per your measures, standards and criteria, but according to his principles, values and virtues; and Marxism-Leninism had already become a sort of sectarianism in the USSR.
Most of my classmates were anti-Soviet, hawkish idiots, who confused Political Science with politics, and interstate relations with hypocritical and silly propaganda.
It is certainly to the credit of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse that she never allowed the enthusiastic anti-Russianism of our German, American and Polish classmates to affect our judgment and evaluation of the overall situation; it was clear that she was consciously educating future ambassadors, statesmen and diplomats, who would have to take into consideration the weight of History, many other parameters, and the bilateral relations in depth in order to compose. This standpoint was also obvious in her books; she was even criticized for not being an outspoken negator of the USSR. The following book review of one of her earlier published books is an example:
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, L’Union Soviétique de Lénine à Staline, 1917-1953 [compte-rendu] sem-linkGeorges Mond
Immediately after the election of Ronald Reagan (4 November 1980), it was very clear to her that the détente was over, and this was what our professor immediately conveyed to us. The news shocked many of our classmates, who thought that this situation would last for long, whereas others were jubilant; but I was frozenly indifferent. From the heights of Sargonid Assyria or Nabonid Babylonia, which constituted my main field of specialization, my vivid concern, and my basic criteria, every Reagan and every Brezhnev looked to me as an insignificant mosquito. My good professor had actually reconfirmed my inclination repeatedly; if she forced herself to see things from distance, why shouldn’t I do the same?
‘Petite fille du Caucase’ (granddaughter of Caucasus), Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was always able to take the distance and observe from far. Physically, she was in Paris; but her academic and intellectual outpost was at the peak of Elbrus. She was able to discern crucial issues and unnoticed dimensions that no other specialists were able to timely identify – let alone incorporate in their conclusions. The viewpoint from the peak of Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus range of mountains must be very serene. The late academician was confident that, if they wanted, Georgians, Azeris, Armenians and other Caucasus nations could have -all- lived peacefully within one multi-ethnic state instead of mercilessly killing one another.
This was apparently a rightful conclusion, if one takes into consideration the Special Transcaucasian Committee (9 March 1917), the Transcaucasian Commissariat (11 November 1917), the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (22 April – 28 May 1918), and all the events that took place before the Ottoman and the German involvement in the region. About:
The title of a tour schedule organized by the Connaissance & Partage Association reads ‘Cocasse Caucase’; echoing the name of the mountain, this adjective means ‘funny’ in French. But Caucasus is not funny. It is serious, tense, intense, and grave; and so was the presence of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse: sober, terse and austere. She was able to take her colleagues and assistants to a higher level of understanding, widen the horizons of her readers, and enrich the knowledge of her students with valuable data that they would need considerable time and a certain dose of luck to eventually find. About: https://www.connaissanceetpartage.net/new-blog/2020/11/26/caucasse
She was much demanded in politics (member of the European Parliament for the period 1994-1999), science (elected to seat 14 of the Académie Française, one of the five sections of the celebrated Institut de France on 13th December 1990; voted for the position of Permanent Secretary on 21 October 1999), and public debates (with an extraordinary record of interviews and participation in TV programs), but she always found the time to come up with new, outstanding books, groundbreaking lectures, and pertinent comments about socio-political, linguistic, bilateral and international affairs.
Despite her undeniable Georgian origin (her cousin being Salome Zourabichvili, the incumbent President of Georgia), and notwithstanding her evident congruence with the Russian mindset and mentality, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was indeed a Parisian original. Although she became French only in 1950 at the age of 21, she dedicated herself to the vocation of bringing her own country and that of her ancestors together – and with spectacular success.
– Condolences by President Salome Zourabichvili on the Twitter –
«A la peine du départ de ma cousine germaine se mêle la fierté de son exemple. Historienne de renommée internationale, qui fut également mon professeur à Sciences Po. Femme d’avant garde qui aura, du haut de la Coupole, démontré à tant de jeunes filles que tout leur est possible».
A la peine du départ de ma cousine germaine se mêle la fierté de son exemple. Historienne de renommée internationale, qui fut également mon professeur à Sciences Po. Femme d’avant garde qui aura, du haut de la Coupole, démontré à tant de jeunes filles que tout leur est possible.
— Salome Zourabichvili (@Zourabichvili_S) August 6, 2023
«Issues d’une famille géorgienne ayant combatttu et fui le totalitarisme soviétique, nous avions en héritage une même reconnaissance envers la France et une même conviction européenne qui porta l’une au Parlement européen et l’autre à la Présidence de la Géorgie».
Issues d’une famille géorgienne ayant combatttu et fui le totalitarisme soviétique, nous avions en heéitage une meme reconnaissance envers la France et une même conviction européenne qui porta l’une au Parlement européen et l’autre à la Présidence de la Géorgie.
— Salome Zourabichvili (@Zourabichvili_S) August 6, 2023
———————————————————————
With Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, one was certain that he would learn the truth about the essential of a topic. She was committed to displaying raw material, to making all the data available to the students, and to evaluating the synthesis that we were able to make. Her lies -or to put it better her untruths- concerned basically the form of the narrative or the description of a situation. But it was easy for a shrewd student to discover that this was rather her break time consumed in literary description and not her ordinary, scrupulous work of academic analysis.
To underscore the apparent lack of reassessments, amendments and rearrangements in the Soviet Union that were badly needed for the country’s survival, she used to often speak about «les septuagénaires et les octogénaires», who ruled the world’s leading communist state. The underlying fact was correct indeed; in many aspects Soviet Union was almost ‘archaic’. But the statement itself was deceitful; in 1980, Brezhnev was 74 years old, Suslov 78, Gromyko 71, Chernenko 69, and Andropov 66. But why on earth should the age of the ruling elite of the USSR be truly a matter of concern, when Ronald Reagan was 69, François Mitterrand 64, James Callaghan 68, and Willy Brandt 67? Of course, our professor certainly recalled that Charles de Gaulle returned to power in France (in 1958) at the age of 68 and served as president until 1969 (when 79), Konrad Adenauer was in office until 1963 (when 87), whereas Alcide De Gasperi was prime minister until 1953 (when 72). Furthermore, Winston Churchill served as prime minister until 1955 (when 81), Amintore Fanfani was appointed as prime minister in 1982 (for a fourth time) at the age of 74. However, by duly utilizing the age of the Soviet rulers, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was trying to basically impress young audience.
Serving as adviser to many presidents, the granddaughter of Caucasus could do and actually did many good things for the benefit of the French-Russian relations and to the advantage of France; European Union (then ‘European Communities’) could also capitalize thereon. As she was sought after by the French political elite, she did her best in every sense, but she did not take any political decision as she was never a minister, prime minister or president. And this was the problem for France; because to mostly benefit from her advice, understanding, and perspective, the various elected governments and presidents of France should have taken very different decisions on many other topics, which would affect and also be affected by the Franco-Russian relationship.
For France and Europe, it is as simple as that: you cannot possibly imagine having good relations and strong partnership with Russia as long as you don’t follow the example of Charles de Gaulle against UK, NATO and the US. And it is so, either we live in 1965 or in 2023.
No French president could possibly utilize Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s pertinent advice, as long as he had not taken in advance a long series of measures to restore continental (or if you prefer ‘landmass’) concord and integration and to keep the various maritime powers out of Eurasia. This is the task of Russia/USSR to do, as far as Russian/Soviet territory is concerned; similarly, this is the imperative duty for France, Germany, China, India, Iran, Turkey, Italy, Spain and several other countries to carry out respectively. But to do this, the French political class should first uproot the parasitic weeds and remove the toxic pro-UK, pro-US and pro-NATO elements by any possible means. There are no foreign policy perspectives before the clearance of internal enemies. All the problems that France faces now are due to the absurd and calamitous way the country was governed after 1969, and more particularly after 1981. But an erudite academician and a formidable connoisseur is not a determined statesman.
XVI. The European convictions and the pragmatism of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
I got my DEA (Diplôme d’études approfondies) in July 1981; the extra part of studies that I wanted to add to my Orientalist formation was completed, and after 3 years of studies in Paris, I moved to London, only to continue next year to Brussels and then to Muenster. Due to Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, many of my convictions were fully confirmed, my horizons greatly broadened, and my perception of the Afro-Eurasiatic continental unity finally born. Only after 1981, I started realizing that borders mean truly nothing; this definitely proved to be indispensable for my life and explorations in the following years, when I moved to the Orient.
The formation that was given to all of us was certainly Western, but thanks to my Orientalist background and my explorations in Eastern Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and other countries, I gradually converted it to the new terms and codes of comprehension that I was then creating in order to better assess the objects of my researches. The education that all my professors in Greece, France, England, Belgium and Germany gave to me and to all of my classmates was good but only up to a certain extent; I confirmed my opinion in Israel. I did the same in Syria and Iraq where I realized that the education given to locals, who had studied in Europe, was in reality ‘bon pour l’Orient’, i.e. a unilateral viewpoint that served the interests of few states in Western Europe, and those of their academic and intellectual elites.
But this education was too little or too erroneous for someone, who intended to objectively assess and comprehend the human genius in its entirety, the history of Mankind in its originality and the living spirit of Man in its integrity. After several years of trouble, self-contradictory opinions, and premature judgments, some time in the late 1980s, while in Iran, I realized that ultimately the academic education offered in Western Europe was ‘bon pour l’Occident’ – only!
It is not a matter of deliberate falsehood, but of partly examination of the topic; having no spherical perspective on a research topic, you condemn yourself in the position of a unilateral observer, who has no multiple viewpoints on his study subject. You cannot possibly evaluate correctly anything if you happen to view it as a parameter of your own interests. The French-Russian relationship has to be viewed from Moscow’s standpoint and from Paris’ point of view. If you don’t view this topic or any other issue in this manner and you apply a one-viewpoint approach to your study, your conclusions will be wrong, because simply you will have become, even without understanding it, part of the problem.
I kept reading books and interviews of my late professor, while living in different countries in Asia and Africa; with the advent of the Internet, I also had the chance to watch many of her speeches and lectures. She certainly gave a new dimension to her career by ‘forgetting’ Soviet Union and delving into the Russian past – well, mainly the 18th and the 19th centuries. But she always reproduced the same pattern that could not allow her to go beyond the level of ‘borders’.
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s Russia is a truthful, genuine Russia that exists only for the interests of the French vision of this world! Is that an extraordinary assessment of mine? Not at all! Read some paragraphs from her books or watch some of her online interviews! The same approach is everywhere: during five centuries, the French-Russian relations existed only for France to tame and civilize Russia! After the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, speaking to a journalist about Sergey Lavrov, she described him as ‘very civilized’! Oh! Really?
– Who provided her with a special counter, a civilo-meter if you want, so that she measures every now and then the degree of civilization of the Russians and the others?
This incredible arrogance and absurd degree of Franco-centrism or Euro-centrism unfortunately does not constitute a personal issue of the deceased academician. It is an inherent part of the Western European education and it can be attested over the past centuries in all the major colonial countries. The personal problem of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse is that her multilingual and multicultural past, family traditions, culture and knowledge proved to be weak opposite her overwhelming (I should say ‘excessive’) degree of Francization. Despite her undeniable advantages and in-depth knowledge, she functioned like a clerical assistant or a high functionary of the state administration. This partiality reduced her effectiveness and limited her pragmatism.
Although she repeatedly stated that the world decisions are not taken any more in Europe or the West world, which is very correct and very exact, she failed to attack and destroy the delusions of all those who undeservedly accused her (and Hubert Védrine) for anti-Americanism. This is not a joke! Read here the typical nonsense or the folly that is being published in France and in other European countries to get an idea:
La pieuvre. Pourquoi le régime de Poutine doit être défait
An even worse sample of absurd disinformation you can find here:
Despite the fact that Hélène Carrère d’Encausse repeatedly admitted in her interviews that it is up to Moscow to decide where Russia belongs, i.e. either in Asia (with China, India, Iran, etc.) or in Europe (with the ‘civilized world’!), she failed to explain to her compatriots three crucial topics:
First, if the entire political-academic-intellectual establishment in Moscow finally comprehends that Russia has always been an Oriental state, this will be the first defeat of a multilateral Western European scheme systematically perpetrated against Russia for no less than 550 years by means of gradual Occidentalization, cultural identity elimination, and socio-economic subordination.
Second, Russia has always been an Oriental state, either this reality was perceived as such by all parts of the Russian Imperial, Soviet and Republican elites or not.
Third, if the entire Eurasiatic alliance, Russia included, appears as a coherently established organization at the international level in the years ahead, the European Union, France included, will have to either adhere to the new superpower or simply disintegrate.
Of course, I am fully conscious of what my late professor’s answer would have been, had I had the chance to discuss with her this topic any time recently! She would find a typical article produced by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and she would respond to me, saying:
– This is not what I only describe! This is what the Russians say about themselves in the first place!
And she would have been right! But I never pretended that this situation concerned only her approach. The problem exists also in the Russian perception of themselves, after many centuries of Western interference and compact effort to westernize Russia. Example (dating back to 2016s):
But, again, I have to admit that these major issues demand statesmanship decision and do not depend on academic advice; in addition, as leading historian and political scientist, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse offered either in-depth presentation of the past or pragmatic evaluation of current circumstances. However, she never attempted to spearhead dramatic changes at the international level; in this regard, she was quite different from her famous ‘heroine’, Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai (Александра Михайловна Коллонтай; 1872-1952), to whom she dedicated her last research and book. About:
Former French President of the French Republic Jacques Chirac and Helene Carrere-d’EncausseState Banquet at the palace of Elysee. Helene Carrere d ‘Encausse and the president Chirac in Paris, France on November 20, 2006Jean-Marie Rouart, Valery Giscard D’Estaing and Helene Carrere d’Encausse in Paris, France on December 16, 2004
XVII. The limits of historiography: a History of leaders and governance or a History of peoples and culture?
Great historian is not the one who writes many books and lengthy articles or comes up with the publication of new textual sources, fresh interpretations, resourceful conceptualizations, inventive contextualization of historical events and processes, groundbreaking approaches, and valuable rectifications of earlier errors, distortions, omissions and oversights; great historian is the one whose publications also offer the chance to discuss general issues of History in the light of the superb manner he/she reconstructs and represents a moment of the past throughout one of his/her texts.
Historiography is not History; it is merely a reconstruction, namely a representation of facts, circumstances, conditions, situations or even processes and developments over a certain span of time. Either you write one day or one millennium after a battle, what you write is never ‘History’; it is historiography. Of course, if you share a life experience as a real testimony or if you rely on authoritative documentation and key sources, writing little time after an event happened, your text will be considered as a ‘historical source’, whereas if you examine the historical sources about an event, your text will be classified as ‘bibliography’. However, this is a minor differentiation; the major distinction is between History and historiography; History is exclusively what happened. Even the Annals of Sargon II of Assyria or Julius Caesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico constitute ‘historiography’, not History.
But by means of a forceful manner of reconstruction of the historical past (or of representation of the historical events and processes) a great historian impacts other historians who may even be specializing in other fields of History. This is due to the fact that, after the adequate completion of the documentation and the comprehension processes, the reconstruction of the data involves intellectual effort, mental endeavor, and a great deal of imagination, more particularly in the identification of data interconnection.
Assessing how each piece of data is (or may be) interconnected with another is a work that can be done by every historian; but there is an enormous difference in this regard, due to the fact that there are scholars, who proceeding mechanically end up writing a dead narrative, and others, who -ingeniously feeling human life in all the pieces of data that they have collected- manage to come up with a most vivacious narrative that fully reflects the events. After all and put in few words, History is inherent and integral part of Life. But only the great historians reach this level of reconstruction. And Hélène Carrère d’Encausse repeatedly demonstrated that she was feeling the life of the environment that she reconstructed in her books. After all, it is the charisma of the great historians to know very well where the limits stand; and by this, I mean the invisible boundaries between historiography and literature.
Reading Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s books, one gets the impression that she wrote a History made by leaders, administrations, elites, structures of governance, and series of successive decisions that impacted one another, always bringing the respective consequences. And this is true! My late professor viewed History mostly as a matter of states and ‘political power’; she kept using the term even when speaking about Soviet Union whereas there was no politics at all in that country, due to the fact that the dictatorship of proletariat -in and by itself- is the living rejection of politics. She was at the antipodes of the renowned Soviet-Russian historian Lev Gumilev (Лев Николаевич Гумилёв; 1912-1992), who was her senior by 17 years.
Strong advocate of Eurasianism, theoretician of the ethnogenesis phenomenon, great conceptual thinker who invented the concept of passionarity, adept of historiosophy, the son of Nikolai Gumilev and Anna Akhmatova portrayed History in an entirely different manner, giving the impression that History is composed by societies of people with venerated traditions, moral values, folk tales, narrative history, age-old habits, heroic legends, distinct idiosyncrasy, traditional sports, vivid spirituality, daily expression of piety, strong feeling of sacredness, rich material culture, genuine sense of communality, behavioral authenticity, imaginative impulse, unquestionable equality among the society members, strong attachment to their identity, adamant respect for their integrity, unconditional rejection of any corrupt attitude, concept or idea, and uncompromising commitment to community/society preservation.
In this case, there are no ‘leaders’; there is no bureaucracy; the administrative affairs are fast expedited; any notion of state is worthless or evil; and the male members of the community meet to decide on equal basis about every matter. They all fight together, they all migrate together, and they all resettle together. No bravery can possibly qualify for preferential treatment or ‘leadership’, because bravery is the common task for all men, and there is no exception in this regard. On the other hand, all the heroic deeds are immortalized as legends in the oral culture, which is far more valued than worthless written paperwork that can contain lies to confuse posterior generations. This is a History of peoples and culture, because for the historian, who has this vision of the historical developments, even in cases of kingdoms, empires, temples, emperors and high priests, it is culture and civilization that impact their decision-making and not vice versa.
The two schools are irreconcilable like oil and water; however there is a determinate distinction, which is intrinsic to the two diametrically opposed geostrategic models. There cannot be triumphant Eurasianism without a History of peoples and culture.
There cannot be effective Atlanticism without History of leaders and governance. However, all people know that ‘Atlantis’ sank every time; it is irrevocably inevitable.
Despite her attachment to France, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse realized this factor. That is why she tried to preserve the invisible bridges between Paris and Moscow; with all her intellectual force and outstanding eloquence.
Россия, Украина и мир-VI: аспекты императивной девестернизации российского образования
Discussion with an astute Russian reader
Обсуждение с проницательным русским читателем
Contents
I. Introduction
II. How Western Europeans westernized Russians for 300 years
III. Unreliable Wikipedia
IV. Reading texts & reading in-between the lines of texts
V. Rejection of the fallacy of Hellenism: starting point of every effort of De-Westernization
VI. Why Shakespeare and the Western European Theater must be removed from the Russian, Chinese, Indian, African, Muslim and Latin American Education
VII. Shakespeare’s black magic trickery against the concept of Messiah, and his vicious hatred of Eschatology and Revelation
Содержание
I. Введение
II. Как западноевропейцы вестернизировали русских за 300 лет
III. Ненадежная Википедия
IV. Чтение текстов и чтение между строк текста
V. Опровержение заблуждения эллинизма: отправная точка всех усилий по девестернизации
VI. Почему Шекспира и западноевропейский театр надо убрать из русского, китайского, индийского, африканского, мусульманского и латиноамериканского образования
VII. Шекспир и его черная магия против концепции Мессии и его яростная ненависть к эсхатологии и Откровению
My articles about the Russia – Ukraine conflict generated vivid reactions from many readers and several among them wrote to me in order to ask about several topics or comment on my approach and description. A long correspondence ensued, and at times it helped me better feel how readers perceive different issues and understand my criticism of several practices or developments.
I. Introduction
Numerous recent speeches given or articles and books published by leading statesmen like Xi Jinping, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Vladimir Putin, Wang Yi, Dmitri Medvedev, Narendra Modi, and many others underscore the need to establish a new, multipolar world order and thus take mankind to the next stage of comprehensive, multilateral development and progress. An important part of this discourse is dedicated to the need of de-Westernization or de-Occidentalization. The topic is being now discussed in the foremost venues of the BRICS member states and in other international bodies. I herewith mention as examples the Valdai Discussion Club (est. 2004) and the Valdai Club Foundation (est. 2011), which manages the Club’s projects.
In his article “A New Era of De-Westernization Has Begun” (6 January 2023), Valdai Club expert Wang Wen made it clear that “the political equivalence structure between the West and the non-West is increasingly strengthened and is becoming an important feature of world politics in the third decade of the 21st century. Of course, the world in 2023 will not be mellow, but in any case, amid the “de-Westernization”, major changes unseen in a century will continue to evolve in an irreversible way, writes”. https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/a-new-era-of-de-westernization/
Although the need for de-Westernization is evident and highly acclaimed across Asia, Africa, Latin and -notably- Eastern Europe, it is not quite sure that all people mean the same connotation when using this term. I don’t suggest that there are opposite approaches to this issue, but many people still fail to fathom the depth and the width of the de-Westernization that is needed for nations across the Earth to finally achieve national identity, cultural integrity, political independence, and economic self-determination. Many people limit unconsciously their approach and efforts within politics; but there a major danger is lurking.
Does it really matter whether all the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe are politically, militarily, economically and financially independent from the block of the Western European and North American states that colonized (and, in the process, Westernized) almost all the other nations of the world?
I would even ask the following:
Does it really matter whether all the countries of Western Europe and North America collapse and disappear from the surface of the Earth?
With the former colonizers dissolved and with Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe politically, militarily, economically and financially de-Westernized, still all these countries will indeed be inhabited by mere ‘copies’ of Western citizens and Westernized automatons or homunculi, if the de-Westernization effort fails to be as deep and as wide needed at the levels of academic and intellectual life, scientific research, education, socio-behavioral system, culture, mentality, and even religion and spirituality. This is so, because a Muslim incorporated into or accommodated within the Western system of values, principles, concepts and worldview will de facto function as a non-Muslim either he fasts, prays and has no extramarital relations.
——————————————————————-
What is De-Occidentalization for Russia, Asia, Africa and Latin America?
In your school, you learn about the Kurukshetra battle (Mahabharata) – and not about the insignificant battle of Thermopylae
In your school, you learn about Gan Bao’s Soushen Ji (here in a Ming copy ca. 1550), which is a compendium of legends and narratives concerning the spiritual universe that was first written around the middle of the 4th c. CE – and not about Seneca’s Hercules furens (Mad Hercules)
In your school, you learn about the Annals of Ramses III and the narratives about his victories over the Sea Peoples that determined the World History – and not about the absurd lies that the Carian (non-Greek) traveler Herodotus wrote about the unimportant wars between a few Ancient Greek states and the invading armies of the Iranian Emperor Darius
In your school, you learn about Enuma Elish, the Assyrian-Babylonian Epic of Creation (four tablets in cuneiform in the upper picture), and Atrahasis (also known as Ut Napishtim), the archetypal, Mesopotamian Noah, whose epic (see one part in the lower picture) is at the origin of all later Biblical and Islamic traditions – and not about Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey or Virgil’s Aeneid
In your school, you learn about Kartir, the great Zoroastrian reformer and founder of Mazdeism (the Sassanid times’ reformulation of the Zoroastrian faith), imperial high priest, theoretician and mystic whose Celestial Voyage antedates that of prophet Muhammad (Mi’raj) – and not about the petty philosophers of Ancient Ionia, Macedonia, Thrace and Greece, who proved to be unable to fathom the spiritual universe in its true dimensions
In your school, you learn about the eschatological Hittite Epic of Ullikummi – and not about the racist anti-Macedonian discourses of the Athenian demagogue Demosthenes
In your school, you learn about the Ashoka edict (on the Delhi-Topra pillar) – and not about Thucydides’ worthless narrative concerning the incessant wars among the petty kings and politicians of the tiny cities-states of Ancient Greece
In your school, you learn about the Ancient Egyptian Holy Book Amduat that details events taking place in the Hereafter – and not about Julius Caesar’s boring historical description about how Romans killed one another, before massacring the inhabitants of Gaul
In your school, you learn about the Ancient Egyptian Expedition to Punt (Somalia) that was undertaken (ca. 1475 BCE) by Admiral Nehesy and the Imperial Fleet of Pharaoh Hatshepsut and became the object of a long narrative (texts and reliefs) inscribed on the walls of the first female pharaoh’s mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari, Luxor West – and not about the wrong stories of Diodorus of Sicily or Arrian’s description of Alexander’s military campaign
In your school, you learn about the Chinese Dunhuang Star map, the first known star chart (ca. 700 CE) from China, which contains the data collected from the three different schools of Astronomy that existed there – and not about Pausanias’ Description of Greece that has very limited value.
In your school, you learn about the Vendidad, which is the part of the Iranian Holy Book of Avesta that contains fragments from the discussion between Ahura Mazda and Zardosht (Zoroaster) concerning possible ways for humans to confound spirits and demons – and not Ancient Greek mythology where the Divine World is desecrated by Ancient Greeks’ fake and idiotic gods that were poorly conceptualized after sinful human behaviors and examples
In your school, you learn about the Dhammapada (collection of Buddha’s admonitions; here written in Gandhari language and Kharosthi writing) – and not about the verbose, worthless writings and the absurd scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas that constitute a major reason for the collapse of religiosity in the Western world
In your school, you learn about the Manichaean Evangelion (here as it is in the Cologne Mani-Codex), which was one of the seven holy books of the Manichaeans, who spread from NW Africa and Western Europe to North Africa to China – and not about Dante and his heinous Divine Comedy
In your school, you learn about the greatest historian of Islamic times Tabari (9th – 10th c. CE) and his History of Prophets and Kings (here portrayed in a miniature of the historical Farsi translation of his monumental opus by Amirak Bal’ami) – and not about Edward Gibbon, an 18th c. English historian, who wrote only to distort, adapt Roman History to English colonial interests, and propagate concepts of white supremacism and racism
In your school, you learn about the greatest epic poet of Islamic times Ferdowsi (10 th c.) and his majestic Shahnameh (‘Book of Kings’) that was called ‘the Iranian Quran'(here a book cover with a miniature from the Shahnameh especially handwritten and decorated for Shah Tahmasp in the 16th c.) – and not about 17th c. French Classicist Theater
In your school, you learn about the great innovations and inventions brought about by the great Turanian scholar Al Farabi (9th-10th c.), who established a groundbreaking Zodiac chart (left) and conceived an eight string ‘ud/lute (right) – and not the fallacious calculations of Nicholas Copernicus.
——————————————————————-
II. How Western Europeans westernized Russians for 300 years
Russia is an excellent paradigm in this regard; as land, it was never colonized by any Western colonial country. Yet, today, Russia is extensively westernized and must be systematically and effectively de-Westernized. The discussion I had with an astute Russian reader sheds light on the innumerable niches of the de-Westernization (or detoxification or decontamination). I therefore publish it in its largest part.
– English Translation of a Comment Made by a Russian Reader –
Hello dear Shamsuddin.
I read your articles with numbers “IV” and “V” (while waiting for public transport and on the road). Be careful when referring to information from Wikipedia in your articles! I say this because this site regularly misrepresents information about my country.
Your article with the number “V” reminded me of the book by the Russian philosopher Povarnin “How to read books” and the American writer Adler “How to read the book”. After getting acquainted with these books, I realized that before my attitude to books was like to fast food: “quick breakfast / lunch”. And that I didn’t read a single book “correctly”.
After reading article “IV”, where you described Ancient Greece not as a State, but simply as a group of different people, I now can’t wait for you to read the book I recommended. They also show the “inconvenient” truth about Ancient Greece.
At the end of the article, I was struck by your idea of abolishing Shakespeare in school. I agree with this only if you meant that when you are young you cannot understand great works. To do this, you need to be older and so that life will harden you a little.
Last question.
There are authors who are unknown in Russia, or only one book out of many books of each of them has been translated. Could you evaluate which of these authors are “harmful” to the Russian public, and which should be known?
Sincerely,
Fedor.
————— My Response —————–
Dear Fedor,
Thank you for your points that will certainly empower me to better present my approach and to describe several hitherto undiscussed topics!
Reading and writing in transportation means, with or without a laptop (I never had and I will never have a smart telephone), has been for me a time-honored tradition; it involves trains, boats, ferryboats, airplanes, interurban buses, metro, trolleybuses, and buses. Also: taxis and private cars (of friends)!
As it happens with every series of articles, the complete idea about my approach you would get reading all of my five hitherto published articles about Russia, Ukraine and the world. My recent article-proposal for a new UN organization belongs -in a way- to this series, which is -never forget it!- ongoing. All the same, articles IV and V are quite representative; in the former, I expand on spiritual topics {because there is spiritual dimension in this conflict/the difference between Earth and Sea viewed as primordial elements of the Creation (in forming people and societies opposite to one another: ‘continental’ and ‘maritime’)}, whereas in the latter, I focus on educational issues and I expand on how to perceive History of Northern Asia and Northeastern Europe as History of Russia.
Now that you read article no V, you can easily read article no II, which is an entire repositioning of the History of Russia; this means that article no II serves as the foundation for article no IV. In it, I expand more on the long and wide historical continuity that you must focus on, instead of minimizing Russia’s history to an ethnic narrative of ‘Slavic’ tribes that accepted Christianity in Kievan Rus. Your History, the History of all Russians, is far larger than that; Western linguists, Slavologists and historians did their best to limit your view of your past and to make you see it as a ‘racial history’ (or an ‘ethnic history’ if you want) only to your disadvantage. History is not a narrative of ethnic groups and races, but a description of cultures and civilizations.
By making you focus on a limited past and by dragging you in a way that you use the racial-racist approach to your past (that they invented for others – haha! but not for themselves!!), they subtly bring you to a frontal clash with Turanian (Turkic) nations and with Muslims; this will be disastrous for Russia and for the entire world.
You must understand (and I don’t speak personally but generally for all Russians, your government included) that, for the evil Western forces, ‘politics’ starts with History, continues with Education, advances with Culture, and ends up with Political Philosophy and Ideology, which forms the context of what people call now ‘politics’, but in reality is ‘governance’.
What is called today ‘Western world’ is a fallacy that started with Renaissance and the early colonial empires, namely Spain and Portugal, but when it comes to the way modern countries are governed, the two Iberian kingdoms are obsolete forms of state that are closer to Ivan IV’s Muscovy, to the Eastern Roman Empire or even to Sassanid Iran. The structure of contemporary states originates from end of 17th c. Holland and post-Cromwell England. In this evil form of tyranny, everything is utilized in (i.e. distorted in order to be fit to) politics.
——————————————————————-
Muscovy, a Christian-Muslim, Russian-Tatar, Asiatic City
The Conquest of Siberia by Yermak; painting by Vasily Surikov. In the 19th c., despite their advanced cultural-educational Westernization, Russian painters like Surikov reproduced a totally non-Western ‘image’ of 16th c. Muscovy and Russia.The Russian Soul is this.
The Siege of Kazan; painting by Vladimir Stepanovich Bodrov
‘Battle’ of the Ugra, 1480; from 16th c. miniature – The ‘battle’ took place because Ivan III did not want to pay tribute to the Great Horde; Ahmad Khan bin Küchük led the Tatar forces. It is a critical and quite odd historical moment, because the two armies stood on the opposite banks of the river and, in spite of tricks and threats, no battle was fought, and at the end, the two armies withdrew. It is not correct to consider this date as the beginning of Muscovite independence, because the Muscovites continued being vassal to the Tatars of Crimea. The overall situation was far more complicated, because Poland sided with the Tatars of Sarai, whereas Ivan III was supported by the Khan of Crimea; even more so, because the Great Khan was later killed by the Khan of Siberia and his Nogay Turanian allies.
Muscovy at the time of Ivan Kalita (early 14th c.), painting by Apollinary Vasnetsov (19th c.): apparently an Asiatic town that had nothing to do with Western European norms.
At a time of advanced Westernization, the famous Russian painter Apollinary Vasnetsov (1856-1933) felt the need to represent, based historical accounts, ‘Muscovy at the time of Ivan III’, thus fully revealing the entirely Oriental and Asiatic nature of his fatherland.
‘The Last Minutes of Metropolitan Philip’ painted by Aleksandr Nikanorovich Novokoltsev (1853-1919) in 1889 was the way the illustrious Russian painter evoked the awaken in the 15th c. Muscovite spirituality that had gone extinct in late 19th c. Imperial Russia due to the multi-layered and advanced Westernization; the painting also reflected the wrongdoings of Ivan IV the Terrible, who ordered the assassination of Philip II (1507-1569) because the thirteenth (13th) Metropolitan of Muscovy (1567-1568) rejected to bless him due to the Oprichnina system of persecution against the boyars (the wealthy and powerful landlords).
‘Ivan the Terrible and Associates’ painted in 1903 by Andrey Ryabushkin (1861-1904): there was nothing Western in Ivan IV.
Andrey Ryabushkin’s ‘Wedding train in 17th c. Moscow’ (1901) demonstrates that Russia was an culturally Asiatic realm.
‘Streltsy’ (the accent being on the last syllable / ‘Стрельцы’: infantry carrying firearms) painted in 1907 by Sergey Vasilievich Ivanov (1864-1910): one more evidence that the Westernized Russian elites of the beginning of the 20th c. felt an inexorable nostalgia for their totally non-Western past and heritage (Streltsy existed as military units from the mid-16th to the 18th c.)
‘The Morning of the Streltsy Execution’ painting (1881) by Vasily Ivanovich Surikov (1848-1916) helped spectators recall a critical historical event that took place in 1698, when Russia had almost no Western cultural or imperial attribute: the great uprising of the glorious military unit, which was due to the fact that the Streltsy rejected the vicious project of Westernization that Peter I wanted to introduce and the disastrous (because uncontrolled) presence of foreign (Western) advisers. Quite indicatively, an English soldier, Patrick Leopold Gordon of Auchleuchries (1635-1699) commanded the army that killed the genuine Russian officers in battle. All those, who were not killed in the Battle of Voskresensky (Resurrection) Monastery, which is also known as New Jerusalem Monastery, were executed in Moscow (between September 1698 and February 1699): more than 1000 noble soldiers – early victims of Westernization.
If you think that you can oppose, England, France and the Western world at the ‘political’ level, you are deceived and you will fail, because it was ‘politics’ to their elites
a. how to Occidentalize / Westernize Peter I;
b. how to progressively detach the executive of the Russian Empire from the Eastern Roman (falsely called ‘Byzantine’) imperial tradition and to drag it to sheer imitation of the Western pseudo-kingdoms;
c. how to corrupt the Russian elites by initiating them to various orders particular to the Freemasons, the Jesuits, and even the Zionists;
d. how to attach the Russian academic and intellectual elites to the fallacies of Renaissance, Classicism, Hellenism, Enlightenment, European Classical Music, and the Greco-Roman foundations of Modern European White Supremacism and Racism;
e. how to engulf Russians into Pan-Slavism in order to bring Russia in clash with Germany and Austria-Hungary;
f. how to ‘teach’ the Russian elites that ‘being Christian Orthodox’ meant ‘being anti-Muslim’ and thus engulf them in wars against the Iranians and the Ottomans; and
g. how to link Russia ‘historically-culturally’ with Classical Greece and Rome (which is wrong and disastrous) and how disconnect Russia ‘historically-culturally’ from Ancient Orient (Caucasus, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, Iran, Central Asia, China and Indus River Valley), which is also erroneous and calamitous.
———————————————————–
The Westernized Russian elites and their non-Russian venues
Peterhof Palace, St. Petersburg: Peter I’s ‘response’ to Louis XIV’s Versailles. All the same, this conventional approach is an oxymoron indeed, because in reality, the monumental palace was a ‘French’ (not ‘Russian’) response to something French!
Peterhof Palace, the main staircase
Peterhof Palace, the main staircase
The Greek Hall of Pavlovsk Palace
State Bedroom at Pavlovsk Palace
This is the Freemasonic ‘chapel’ in the Catherine Palace, St. Petersburg; the quasi-totality of her empire’s Christian Orthodox population would not find it proper to pray there. Along with Westernization in Architecture, Art and Religion comes the historical falsification that took the form of the Occidentalization of Russian History. Leading example in this regard is Nikolay Karamzin (Николай Михайлович Карамзин; 1766-1826) who wrote his 12-volume History of the Russian State (История государства Российского) only to break with the earlier Russian historiographical tradition that was exemplified by Vasily Tatishchev (1686-1750). Both distinguished Russian historians are described as proponents of autocracy, but this is very erroneous; actually, it looks like a deliberate effort to confuse specialists and average readers. Karamzin’s advanced Westernization made him write after French prose style and his exposure to Occidental post-Renaissance concepts made him introduce alien and corrupt elements (like Hellenism), insult Ivan IV Terribl,e and slander the true Russian identity – only to the benefit of the dark forces that incessantly promoted Russia’s rapid Westernization. What went wrong with Karamzin? This is easy to answer: in 1789, he traveled to Germany, France, Switzerland and England. This was an enormous mistake. He should have traveled to the Ottoman Empire, Qajar Iran, Mughal India, and Qing China instead.
———————————————————–
III. Unreliable Wikipedia
You mention the Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of sophisticated distortion, alteration, historical falsification, and adaptation of the historical truth to the ideological-political needs of the Western world’s ruling elites.
You misunderstood my attitude to constantly add numerous Wikipedia links to my articles.
I do not “refer to information from Wikipedia”; I only mention links to Wikipedia entries, so that my readers find them easily, go there, make their own search, check the notes, sources and bibliography, and thus have access to more specialized info that they may want, after reading some of my points.
As I do so quite often, in several articles I have already stated that I disagree with the contents of most of the Wikipedia entries that I mention. Now, your point makes me understand that I should perhaps prepare a 3-5 lines text about this issue, and copy / republish it in each and every one of my articles.
IV. Reading texts & reading in-between the lines of texts
“How to read books”! You raise an enormous topic.
Basically, you mean that one person must also read in-between the lines of a text.
That is very correct.
The real essence of the reality is never in the words of a text.
In fact, a word -in itself- is almost nothing.
Semantics is a field of ignorance and paranoia.
Ancient Greek philosophers’ opinions on these topics were childish and nonsensical; this was due to their low level of understanding the Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Iranian priests next to whom they studied for years.
Realities do not exist because humans exist; they exist on their own.
Only God knows the purpose of every element of the Creation, and the interminable possibilities that they have to amalgamate with one another. You can never know anything before duly identifying the composition of the elements that constituted it: Ether, Soft Waters, Earth, Air and Salt Waters.
Nothing is signified or denoted by a human; everything is signified per se – by itself. When someone speaks, describes and narrates about something, he only shows what he understood from a tiny part which belongs to a world created by the Almighty God. Our understanding is merely our revelation: what we reveal (and therefore represent to us and others) out of the infinite universe that God created. As God is invisible, the link of the tools that a speaker or narrator uses is invisible. Yet, without this link, all the words of a sentence are meaningless and can be re-arranged in a way so that they mean, reflect and describe other realities.
All the same, at this point, I should add that, in reality, language is not necessary for communication; it is only a low means of communication. Animals and even insects communicate with one another better than humans do. This fact deletes the stupidity of the idiots like Aristotle, and at the same time it demonstrates that longer we stick to rationalism and the Aristotelian thought, farther from the truth we will be and deeper into wars and misunderstanding we will be plunged.
A man, who has not awakened in the spiritual universe, can never have a clue of what exists in the material universe; this is so because nothing was created in the material universe without a counterpart (soul, spirit, etc.) in the spiritual universe. For this reason, the sciences of all the ancient Oriental nations were comprehensive systems of learning that combined spiritual and material research; ancient scholars never dissociated the spiritual aspect from its material complement of an item, point or issue. Consequently, every man reads a text differently from another, according to their progress in being re-connected with their soul.
Otherwise, one needs to stop in almost every line of a text and make questions about what he reads in order to extract further details and, above all, reach and grasp the deeper meaning of the text.
You are lucky that you realized this issue, namely that you had not read even one single book correctly, before you understood that this serious trouble was real. Most of the people do never reach that level. Even worse, in our days, there are many professors, specialists, experts, researchers and intellectuals who do not reach the point that you mention. They then project their mentality and knowledge, opinion and predilection onto the text that they read, and they don’t truly read the text that they have in front of their eyes, but an imaginative text that they create by failing to separate their personal delusion (i.e. their sick ego/I say ‘sick’ because ego is always so) from the true text that they supposedly read.
V. Rejection of the fallacy of Hellenism: starting point of every effort of De-Westernization
There is no ‘inconvenient truth’ about Ancient Greece. Your sentence is a minimal understatement.
In fact, there is a devastating truth, as documented by numerous sources, which simply deletes once forever the dreadful forgery ‘Ancient Greece’, which never existed.
Whereas Ivan IV and the Muscovites of his time knew the truth, i.e. knew nothing about Ancient Greece, you live within an enormous falsehood that had started being elaborated in Western Europe; thence it was diffused already in the last days of Tatar-Muslim prevalence in Russia. However, it took some time for this falsehood to be diffused outside Western Europe, which is the region where it was produced. The period of the diffusion of this enormous fallacy we call ‘colonialism’. Russia was never colonized at the military level, but even at the times of Romanov, it was colonized at many levels, namely political, economic, socio-behavioral, artistic, educational, academic and intellectual.
The Western European falsehood about Ancient Greece does not only involve distortion and misinterpretation of Ancient Greek and Latin sources, but it also includes systematic and extensive concealment of other historical sources. Now, this concealment is disproportionate, extraordinary and unprecedented. It starts with the Western scholars, who first explored Anatolia, North-Northwestern Africa, Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia, Sudan and Eastern Africa, Yemen, India, and China. These people, before traveling to explore, had studied all Ancient Greek and Latin texts about those lands, peoples, monuments, faiths and civilizations. As you can understand, these views and standpoints were external, irrelevant, erroneous and at times nonsensical. In fact, they did not consist in an authoritative source about those nations, empires and histories.
Herodotus’ and Plato’s descriptions of Iran and Egypt are ridiculous, idiotic and utterly valueless; they have the ‘value’ that an ignorant traveler’s idea has about a land that he has no skills, stamina and predisposition to duly study. The same is valid for other Ancient Greek travelers’ narratives about Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Iran, Anatolia, Egypt and other regions. Those guys did not know even the correct terms to describe the achievements and the traits of the great civilizations they wrote about, let alone the vast theoretical-spiritual background that these terms reflected.
Beyond that, there is an even more disastrous comparison: although there are -in Ancient Oriental sources- many references to the various and different nations that modern European scholars name “Ancient Greeks”, these passages are relatively few, brief and secondary because simply the Ancient Ionians, Aeolians, Achaeans and Dorians were not civilized enough to possibly attract the interest of the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Hurrians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, the Egyptians and the Iranians. Ionia and Aeolia in Western Anatolia produced a civilization lower than that of the Phrygians and the Lydians who were better documented in Assyrian cuneiform sources. Even more importantly, Greece, i.e. the most confined part of the Balkan Peninsula, south of Mount Olympus, was a peripheral land far from the great centers of civilization.
Only when a serious trouble originated from those lands, like the Peleset-Pelasgian-Philistine reaction against the Achaean siege and destruction of Troy, we have longer descriptions in Oriental historical sources. This was the case of the ‘Sea Peoples’, as the Ancient Egyptians called the Peleset and their allies, Trojans included. When, as allies of the Hittites, the Achaeans were asked to attack Troy and they achieved to conquer the highly important city, the reaction of the enemies of the Achaeans, namely the Pelasgians, was forceful.
Near colorization of part of the bas-reliefs
Part of the bas reliefs of the northern external wall of Ramses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West); texts and bas-reliefs full narrate the three battles that Ramses III won to disperse the Sea Peoples.
Drawing of a larger part of the bas-reliefs
First pylon of the Medinet Habu temple
Ramses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West); view from the southeast
The Anti-Achaean and Anti-Hittite Pelasgians formed an alliance and then rebelled against the Achaeans and ruined them (which is mentioned in the Ancient Egyptian texts and archaeologically evidenced as the conflagration of the Mycenaean fortresses), attacked Hattusha and destroyed the Hittite Empire, invaded the Canaanite coast of Eastern Mediterranean, notably Ugarit (a small kingdom but the Ancient World’s greatest library and center of Translation), and Amurru (today’s Syria), and ultimately attacked Egypt (Kemet).
There Ramses III, after three battles, was able to destroy and disperse the Sea Peoples. The Peleset/Pelasgians, who took part in the invasions, settled in the coast of Southern Canaan and became known as the Philistines / Palestinians. Ionia and Aeolia in Western Anatolia and Ionians, Achaeans an Dorians in the South Balkans (‘Greece’) were plunged in abject misery and barbarism for 400-450 years (1200-750 BCE). When the epic cycle’s most famous poet Homer wrote about the deeds of the Achaeans, he in fact galvanized his contemporary fellow men and called them to form kingdoms and states after the Achaean example and to propagate the pro-Achaean and anti-Pelasgian version of History and narrative (rhapsody) that he composed. But all this was marginal, unimportant and trivial to the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Iranians.
So, this is the disastrous comparison I spoke about earlier:
1- the highly civilized nations of the Ancient Orient did not bother to describe the petty stories, absurd regimes, and endless strives that characterized all those uncivilized and peripheral tribes; and
2- the hardly civilized, ignorant and uneducated Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians, originating from tiny cities-states, which were at times smaller than the area of a major Egyptian temple (like that of Karnak, Luxor), traveled to study in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran (6th – 4th c. BCE), but failed to duly conceive the spiritual and the material universes after the local spirituality, wisdom, science and imperial culture.
That is why, when these people returned back to Ionia, Aeolia, Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria and Greece, they called themselves ‘philosophers’, i.e. ‘friends of wisdom’. In reality, this term is very modest, if not pejorative; this is so because it means that they were not ‘sophoi’ (wise) and they did not possess ‘sophia’ (wisdom). So, they were merely ‘philosophoi’. This means that all those guys, like Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus, Plato and others (who have been propelled to undeserved consideration and absurd evaluation by Western European scholars and intellectuals), knew very well that, in front of an Egyptian, Babylonian or Iranian (Zoroastrian) high priest, hierophant and mystic, they were humble and puerile schoolchildren.
Now, the low position of the peoples of South Balkans and Western Anatolia opposite the great Oriental civilizations is extensively reflected in the Ancient Greek texts. Plutarch wrote about the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan religion (involving Osiris, Isis, Horus, etc.). But no Egyptian priest bothered to write about the petty cults of the clownish pseudo-divinities of the Ancient Greeks (Athena, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon, Zeus, etc.). The reason for this is double:
1- in many cases, the names of the Ancient Greek ‘gods’ were of Oriental origin, and
2- in every case, the cult was weaker and the spirituality nonexistent.
In striking opposition to the aforementioned historical realities, the 19th – 20th c. Western European explorers of colonial times, after their discoveries, excavations, decipherments, representations, essays, treatises and publications about Ancient Oriental civilizations, continued having the Greco-centric and Romano-centric approach that they had prior to their expeditions, researches, vast collection of documentation, and remarkable knowledge acquisition.
Although the texts and the monuments that they unearthed totally canceled their earlier knowledge (which was based on Ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew sources), the Western European Orientalists continued preposterously viewing the anterior (the Ancient Oriental civilizations) through the eyes and the criteria of the posterior which was apparently lower and corrupted.
This absurd attitude only corroborates the fact that what the Western European scholars saw as ‘Ancient Greece and Rome’ was not what is documented in and reflected from Ancient Greek and Roman sources, but their biased delusions and preconceived schemes of racist nature.
For this reason, the Western European scholars did not modify their measures, standards and approaches, after the discoveries made over the past 250 years. They still stick to an absolutely obsolete and fully delusional model that -even worse- they want to impose onto Russia, India, China, Africa, Latin America, and all the Muslims of the world.
You understand of course that this model is false and disastrous in two dimensions:
1- first, it is an evolutionist model that serves to propagate the false concept that in the past the humans were uncivilized and that they progressed gradually until they reached the modern times, and the Western sciences. This is entirely wrong, because the Sumerians, the Akkadians and the Egyptians before 4500 years had spiritual and physical capacities that they gradually lost. It goes without saying that Western scholars want to hide this truth.
2- second, the Greco-Roman model that they intended and tried for more than 550 years to impose encompasses all the evil and corrupt elements that the forces, which selected it, need to diffuse and impose worldwide.
The clash between Orient and Occident is a fake, and that’s why they needed to diffuse Aeschylus’ sickness, paranoia and anti-Iranian racism and Herodotus’ silly lies and heinous bias.
The case of Ctesias clearly helps us understand that the ancient manuscripts must have been drastically tempered with by Catholic monks who copied them. So, there is an extra aspect to examine, analyze and comprehend in this regard.
———————————————————–
Ctesias could not make mistakes; others put lies in his mouth!
Behistun, NW Iran; the cliff with Darius I’s relief and inscriptions
Behistun (Farsi: Bisotun / Old Iranian: Bagastana, i.e. ‘the place of God’ / Ancient Greek: Βαγίστανον όρος) was mentioned by Ctesias, who totally misunderstood the inscription, attributing it to the ‘Babylonian’ Queen Semiramis and describing it as a dedication to Zeus! In reality, the text is part of the Annals of Emperor Darius I the Great, duly detailing his victory over a rebellion; the Iranian monarch dedicated his triumph to Ahura Mazda. However, Semiramis seems to have been an entirely misplaced Ancient Greek legend about the historical Queen of Assyria (but not Babylonia!) Shammuramat. The Assyrian queen was the consort of Shamshi Adad V; she has also been mentioned in the original, Assyrian cuneiform sources as co-regent during the early phase of her son Adad-nirari III’s reign (811-783 BCE). But the Assyrian Queen had nothing to do with Mount Behistun and the Achaemenid Iranian inscription.
If we now analyze the extraordinary errors made by Ctesias on this topic, while also taking into consideration the fact that he lived long in Iran where he served as physician to Artaxerxes II, we will find ourselves in front of impossible inconsistencies. Apparently, he was fluent in Achaemenid Iranian (taking into account that he was involved in the negotiations between the Iranians and the Greeks after the Battle at Cunaxa) or he had excellent interpreters (since this was crucial for the emperor’s health). With all these points confirmed, we have every reason to ask the following: how did Ctesias make so ridiculous mistakes when visiting Behistun and getting information about the holy mountain and the local reliefs and inscriptions?
First, it is quite doubtful that any Iranian, Babylonian or Elamite historian, erudite scholar, and knowledgeable courtier knew anything (or even had access to textual documentation) about the historical Assyrian Queen, who lived 400 years before Artaxerxes II. This means that not a single interlocutor of Ctesias would ever associate the Behistun inscription with her.
Second, and even more deplorable, either Ctesias was fluent in Achaemenid Iranian or he relied on excellent translators and interpreters, it is absolutely impossible that any person related to the imperial administration would ever attribute the Behistun inscription and reliefs to anyone else except Darius I the Great.
This concludes the case about the fallacy that average people and academics alike believe today as ‘Ancient Greek History’: it is an entirely fallacious fabrication of the Catholic monks who copied and in the process distorted the ancient manuscripts, replacing truths with lies, eliminating trustworthy narratives, and inventing silly stories to put in the mouth of ancient authors. Ctesias’ texts that have been saved down to our time were systematically and unrepentantly distorted by the pseudo-Christians monks of Western Europe.
———————————————————–
The endless wars, conflicts and divisions of the so-called Ancient Greek states were superbly reflected in Thucydides’ calamitous descriptions and historical narratives; but that was exactly what the forces that selected it needed. By making it part of the Western European education, they ensured interminable strives and bloodshed in Europe and, by means of colonialism, worldwide.
The utterly Anti-Christian, Greco-Roman model serves also to propagate corruption, immorality and extreme obscenity; several Ancient Greek temples were in reality brothels in which blasphemous orgies were practiced by the idiotic followers of various pseudo-divinities that were miserably fashioned in the Antiquity after the human weaknesses. The focus on Ancient Greece that the biased Western European intellectuals attempted and the modern pseudo-historical dogma of Hellenism are the main responsible for all the problems of our time. As disruptive and destructive elements, they must be cast away by all societies that intend to advance, progress and still preserve their identity, integrity and morality. Unfortunately, the Ancient Greeks had none.
VI. Why Shakespeare and the Western European Theater must be removed from the Russian, Chinese, Indian, African, Muslim and Latin American Education
People accept customarily what is offered to them as education. It is part of what is called ‘conventional wisdom’. But this is extremely erroneous.
So, there is first a question to make about the topic; why, on Earth, should the education of a Russian or Uzbek or Chinese or Indian or Somali or Algerian or Peruvian include texts written by an English author?
Second, in the modern Western world, the value and the importance of everything depends on Marketing. You know about the advertising campaigns of Coca Cola, but you don’t know anything about the advertising campaigns of Shakespeare, which were undertaken by the English embassies, diplomats, academics, etc. The latter lasted longer – clearly.
Third, there are many people nowadays, who realize that something went wrong in the West. Unfortunately, the entire West is a wrong, sick and devious construct whose elaboration spanned over 500-600 years. Now, if someone thinks that all the mistakes, the biased conclusions, and the preconceive ideas occur only at the political level, he simply does not have a clue about how this world functions.
Shakespeare and theater in general were instrumental in the deliberate corruption and decadence of the world. Colonialism is not mere occupation of territories; mainly it is projection (or imposition) of one nation’s culture onto another nation’s culture. Now, if the colonizing power’s culture is in an intentionally corrupted and putrefied condition, colonialism turns out to be a real contamination.
Gillis Mostaert, Passion play in Antwerp; 2nd half of the 16th c.: Christian ‘theater’
There was no theater in Christian times; it was prohibited. And for a very good reason! It was denounced as obscene, vulgar, salacious and disastrous for the moral standards of a Christian society. The only sort of theater that existed in Christian societies was the representation of the Passion of Jesus. Similarly, the sole type of theater that existed in some Muslim societies was the representation of Hussein’s martyrdom in Kerbala; these theatrical acts are performed in independent buildings known as Hussainiya. About:
Islamic ‘theater’ (ta’zieh/تعزیه): painting from Lukhnow, Mughal India (ca. 1800)
Public representation of Hussein’s martyrdom in Kerbala (680 CE) in Shiraz, Iran (1977)
Theater did not exist in monotheistic cultures and societies, like Assyria and Iran.
Historically, Theater started in Egypt. It was a religious, eschatological theater that involved the representation / repetition of acts and stories narrated as a diachronic or supratemporal description of the Creation, the Life and the End of the Universe. Thus, by ‘acting’ / playing the roles of the major driving forces of the spiritual world, the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan sacerdotal colleges believed that they truly contributed to the auspicious developments that they expected to take place at the End of Times. In a way, it was a sort of magic, and they considered as such the inner enforcement of external facts and actions (also known as the royal art of Making). Since it was entirely benevolent, they considered it as moral, because it would contribute to the re-establishment of a perfect (or paradisiacal) order that had been lost.
Ancient Egyptian Opet religious festival procession: representation available on bas reliefs
Widely diffused across the Roman Empire, the Ancient Egyptian religious festival Navigium Isidis, as envisioned in 1902 by the American painter Frederick Arthur Bridgman
Bas-reliefs with representation of the main Divine Beings of the Hermupolitan dogma (known in Ancient Greek as Ogdoad); during the religious festivals, there were theatrical acts that represented the qualities and potentialities of each of them to faithful followers who participated.
Horus, Osiris & Isis: the major driving forces of the divine world, as comprehended and proclaimed in the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan religious dogma.
You can correctly assume that Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, and Hittite eschatology are vast narratives of supreme spiritual endeavors. As such they are at the origin of Ancient Hebrew Biblical (and therefore Christian and Islamic) world conceptualization, worldview, cosmogony, cosmology, eschatology and soteriology. Neither the Messiah nor the Chosen People is an invention of the Ancient Hebrews; as concepts they predate the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah by 2000 years, and there is nothing strange in it. The major Ancient Oriental civilizations constitute a hitherto unequaled peak of spirituality, transcendental power, wisdom and spiritual perfection that later nations, like the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Iranians, the Greeks and the Romans never reached. But the History of Mankind is a narrative of falls, decay, decadence and corruption, and unfortunately those, who could build great pyramids around the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE, could not do so again 2000 years later.
Meanwhile, the formation of polytheistic religions in Babylonia, Phoenicia, Carthage and elsewhere incorporated early theatrical acts in their religious processions, but this was not anymore a human comprehension of the various aspects of the Divine and of their consequences, but a human invention of otherwise nonexistent stories, which were only useful for the spiritual enslavement of the adepts of each and every religion. In this case, the religion and the early theater turned from benevolent into malevolent, monotheism became polytheism, and moral freedom was transformed into sexual exploitation of the victims (i.e. the believers). Spiritual achievements (like levitation, teleportation, materialization/manifestation, etc.) became ‘miracles’ and the great initiates turned out to become mystical swindlers, petty magicians, and slaves of evil spiritual hierarchies.
In Ancient Greece, theater took progressively a form of moral education, but it reflected the political divisions, the tribal conflicts, and the racist character of their elites, therefore giving deliberately biased and viciously erroneous representation of the ‘Other’, notably the Iranians.
Ancient Roman amphitheater in Siracusa (Syracuse), Sicily
In Ancient Rome, the amphitheaters and the circuses soon superseded to the theater, placing the military training and martial sports at the epicenter of the public interest and entertainment. During the Christian imperial times, the interest for the martial arts continued to generate great enthusiasm, massive attendance, and personal involvement as the illustrious Constantinople Tzykanisterion (Циканистерион) testifies to. (https://wiki5.ru/wiki/Tzykanisterion) Of course, this palatial sport demonstrates a Sassanid Iranian influence on the Eastern Romans. However, it also shows that Constantinople was culturally closer to Turan and Central Asia than to Merovingian France. But the ancient Greek theater was, as I said, entirely forgotten, duly rejected, and wholeheartedly despised as a villainous endeavor and obsolete, anti-Christian activity.
The Tzykanisterion was close to the great palace of Constantinople, by the seaside
After the early diffusion of the racist, colonial and fallacious concepts and ideas of the Renaissance intellectuals and anti-Christian magicians, the rise of Classicism brought forth a return to ancient Greek themes; all the same, the movement was a very wrong imitation of partly or entirely misunderstood topics. However, the end result was a sheer degradation not only in terms of art but also with respect to Moral. This we can fully understand, if we compare the representation of a topic by Ancient Greek playwright and the distortion of the same topic by a Modern European poet. The latter is definitely more immoral, more lascivious, and more sacrilegious. By the way, this entry is very distorted and absolutely false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism
Example:
Phaedra, as narrated by Euripides in Hippolytus and by Seneca the Younger in Phaedra, and
Phèdre, as represented by Racine, who was born in France a quarter century after Shakespeare came to life in England.
Morality, Theater and content degradation: Phaedra from Ancient Greece & Rome to French Classicist Theater to Hollywood Cinema
Phaedra in fresco from Pompeii, ca. 60–20 BCE
Phèdre; painting (1880) by Alexandre Cabanel (1823-1889): based on Racine’s play
Jules Dassin’s Phaedra, 1962: a disgrace of ‘art’ produced to merely glorify the immoral elite
———————————————————–
As you understand, the issue is far wider than just one author, notably Shakespeare. It has to do with the entire modern Western European literature, art, philosophy, and intellectual-political life, which set the true foundations of today’s decayed, corrupt and infamous Western world. You will perhaps tell me that the Bolshoi Theater, like many other historical theaters built in Russia during the late 18th, the 19th, and the early 20th c., is part of the Imperial, Soviet and Republican social life of the Russians. You are right; but you surely know that the Western European Theater was not part of the Russian popular culture before the early 18th c.
Introducing the modern Western theater in Russia was a key tool of Westernization. But westernizing the non-western is tantamount to subduing, altering and controlling the de facto opponents of the cruel, racist, colonial, modern Western world.
Art played an important role in this regard; many nations worldwide were corrupted not because of the Western theater but thanks to the Western cinema. But this ‘art’, i.e. the fake art of the modern Western world, is detached from Moral, Religion, Culture and Spirituality.
But in reality, there was never a civilization in which Art was uncoupled from the moral considerations, values and principles of a specific nation. In the disreputable, heinous, racist and atheist state of Ancient Athens, which was duly destroyed by the Spartans after three decades of war, the priests denounced as heresy and blasphemy the fact that the worthless sculptor and painter Phidias dared to write his stupid name on his filthy works. There is no artistic value in an impious and sacrilegious work; such shameful works must be destroyed and pulverized.
As you see, I needed an introduction before proceeding to respond to your comments about my suggestion for removal of the English playwright from the Russian (and other) educational manuals. Now, I will focus on this poet.
Of course, you certainly have an idea about the extraordinary eulogies and the unmatched hyperboles that all the English constantly use when they refer to Shakespeare; examined without exaggerations and biases, his art hinges more on his particularity and bears witness to the mystical contents of most of his works. His plays do not allow us to openly describe him as paragon of the Western European Classicism, as it happens with Racine and his opuses. However, Shakespeare used Ancient Greek and Roman stories, myths, concepts and plots extensively.
Consequently, modern English scholars’ effort to dissociate Shakespeare from Modern European Classicism is absurd. Titus Andronicus, Julius Caesar, Troilus and Cressida, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, Pericles Prince of Tyre, and Cymbeline, namely 8 (out of a total of 38) plays have -even in their title- a direct reference to Greco-Roman Antiquity. This makes of Shakespeare a major champion of Modern European Classicism and a very particular playwright indeed among the other Classicists.
VII. Shakespeare’s black magic trickery against the concept of Messiah, and his vicious hatred of Eschatology and Revelation
When it comes to the needs of today’s Russian Education and to the desires of all Russians to see their fatherland as a major pillar in a multipolar world free of Anglo-Saxon perfidy, madness and criminality, I have to state the following points:
First, Modern European Classicism has nothing to do with the Asiatic civilizations that shaped the ancient cultures, which flourished on today’s Russian soil from Scythians to Huns to Tatars; it is therefore improper for Russian schoolchildren to learn what is not theirs and not to study what is theirs.
Second, Shakespeare does not represent anything related to the culture, the past, the civilization, and the spiritual-intellectual heritage of the Asiatic nations that are adjacent to the Russian Federation, namely the Turks, the Armenians, the Georgians, the Iranians, the Kazakhs, the Turkmen, the Azeris, the Uzbeks, the Kyrgyz, the Tajik, the South Asiatic nations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Tibetans, the Uighurs, and the Koreans. We have therefore to conclude that masterpieces of the literatures of the nations are far more useful for the new Russian generation that will speak Chinese as first foreign language.
Third, there is not a shred of Christian moral in Shakespeare plays; his theatrical plays disastrously encompass unprecedented cynicism, unsurpassed narcissism, absurd arrogance, villainous scheming, abject immorality, loathsome concepts, and plenty of other very negative traits and behavioral notions that are totally unrelated to the core of the Russian soul. Quite often, Shakespeare exacerbates the negative feelings and propels evil characters to the epicenter of the plot; even worse, he does not castigate the evil-minded characters, therefore leaving the audience with the impression that no substantive punishment awaits us at the end.
Fourth, there is not a single element of Russian (or Chinese or Indian or Turanian or Iranian or African or Latin American) value, character or virtue in Shakespeare’s plays. More specifically, and with respect to Russian culture, there are no Ivan Durak, no Baba Yaga, and no three Bogatirs in Shakespeare. And more importantly, there is no Stepan Razin in English history and culture. Quite critically, at the geographical level (whi so much affects and determines Human History), there is no Volga in England. To fully complete, one needs to spell the truth out: there is no heroism in Shakespeare and there are no heroes among the English.
Dobrynya Nikitich, Ilya Muromets, and Alyosha Popovich, i.e. the three Bogatirs after Victor Vasnetsov (1898)
Fifth, in many of his plays, Shakespeare incorporates eschatological and messianic stories and plots, but he does it in a most counterfeit manner. Through his mystical affiliation with the early Freemasons and other secret societies, Shakespeare had been ostensibly initiated in corrupted forms of the Ancient Egyptian Isiac mysteries. Isis- and Horus-related cults flooded, as you know, the Roman Empire in the first 3-4 centuries of the Christian era. Many Isea (Iseum is a temple dedicated to Isis) were excavated and monuments found in Europe, England included. The Egyptian esoteric tradition survived in England clandestinely forming at the antipodes of the Christianization a sub-culture that went down to the Knights Templar and later mystical orders; however, the tradition was progressively corrupted and spiritually dead.
Representation of an Iseum on a Roman fresco from the temple of Isis in Pompeii
Osiris, Horus and Isis: drawing from bas relief, made by the authors of the book ‘Egypt, Handbook for Traveling’ that was published (1898) by the German Verlag Karl Baedeker, the world’s pioneer in travel books. The prestigious edition comprises also 20 maps, 55 plans and 66 views and vignettes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baedeker
The original initiates of Isis’ esoteric orders and the faithful, who adored the goddess in Isis’ temples throughout the Roman Empire, believed the Iwnw Heliopolitan dogma that was also known as Ennead among Ancient Greeks during the Late Antiquity. This comprehensive spiritual system of Egyptian cosmogony-cosmology-eschatology/soteriology was extensively popularized in Greek and Latin thanks to the numerous Isis Aretalogies (Ареталогия). Plutarch expanded on the topic in his De Iside et Ossiride (About Isis and Osiris/ Об Исиде и Осирисе), which is part of the voluminous opus Moralia (Ethics). About:
In several of his plays, Shakespeare ostensibly rewrites the Isis-Osiris-Horus myth. This becomes strikingly clear in Hamlet. In an article of mine published before 30 years under the title “What a priesthood is and how it functions” (Trito Mati, Athens-Greece, September 1993), I established the correct parallels among
a. the original Ancient Egyptian myth,
b. the Revelation by John, and
c. Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
You can find the article (scanned pages of the review) online here (3rd page from the end, in 4 columns):
The correspondence of the major elements of the Ancient Egyptian myth to the main characters of Shakespeare’s play is a vast topic that would need a book to analyze. I herewith provide you with a brief diagram.
Egyptian Myth
Revelation by John
Shakespeare’s Hamlet
Osiris
God
The assassinated King Hamlet, Hamlet’s father
Isis
woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars
Gertrud, the Queen
Seth
Satan/Dragon
Claudius, the fratricidal king (of this world)
Seth (ditto)
{not mentioned}
Polonius, chief priestly figure and father of Ophelia
Nephthys
{woman sitting on a red beast}
Ophelia
Horus
King of Kings
Hamlet
substitute of Seth
beast coming out of the sea/Antichrist
Laertes
Now, all this is not merely useful for comparative literary analysis and for a dissertation in History of Religions. What matters most in this regard is the way Shakespeare was personally involved in the distortion of the Ancient Egyptian narrative, the Isiac myth, and the eschatological/messianic plot. And this is the most obscure and the most vicious part of Shakespeare’s role and work.
Egyptian Isis as the Christian Revelation’s ‘Woman Clothed with the Sun’ / From Apocalypse Picture Book; English, c. 1255-60; Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts (MRMSS) B1 350 B MS M.0524; the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York – http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/16/110814
Egyptian Nephthys as the Christian Revelation’s ‘Woman sitting on a red beast’/ From Beatus of Liébana’s Las Huelgas Apocalypse, Spain, ca.1220 (purchased by Pierpont Morgan, 1910); Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts (MRMSS) B1 363 B MS M.0429; Pierpont Morgan Library – https://www.themorgan.org/collection/Las-Huelgas-Apocalypse/30
Different moments of the ultimately cosmic, eschatological clash between Horus and Seth (: the Antichrist or Laertes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet), as depicted on numerous bas-relief panels of the interior side of the external wall of the Horus Temple at Edfu (Behedet in Ancient Egyptian) in Upper Egypt, 750 km south of Cairo. The Pharaoh Ptolemy X (Alexander I) appears in several bas reliefs as also fighting against Seth, which symbolizes his close cooperation with the Messianic Heliopolitan priesthood and epitomizes the pro-Heliopolitan nature of his deeds. Seth is alternatively represented as hippopotamus or crocodile. About:
The pylon of the Temple of Horus at Edfu: the most voluminous corpus of texts of the world’s eschatological literature
Entire walls covered with panels of symbolic descriptions detailing, in texts and bas-reliefs, the major episodes of the End Times’ mythical (i.e. absolutely real at the spiritual and the material universes) fight between a. Horus (or Hamlet, Ninurta, Etana, Tasmisu, Messiah, Mahdi, King of Kings, Jesus Christ, Saoshyant, Maitreya, etc.) and b. Seth (or Laertes, Ullikummi, Masih ad-Dajjal, Antichrist/Beast, etc.) Brief presentation – interpretation of Horus’ eschatological drama & ultimate Victory: Edfu Temple and the Sacred Drama of Horus https://egyptraveluxe.blogspot.com/2014/11/edfu-temple-and-sacred-drama-of-horus.html
Read first the Ancient Egyptian myth (either Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts or Plutarch’s essay)! You get an impressive feeling of an overwhelming supratemporal victory and an enthralling prevalence of Horus-Messiah, who rules the spiritually rearranged and rejuvenated world as Emperor, having totally eliminated the evil (Seth).
Read the Revelation by John! There, you get an even more fascinating description of the victory of the King of Kings and of the annihilation of a) Satan (Dragon), b) the Woman sitting on the red beast, c) the Antichrist (Beast), and d) the Pseudo-Prophet. It is an identical narrative, which is incorporated within the nascent Christianity, although in Jesus’ words we find no reference to the three latter spiritual entities.
Read now Shakespeare’s Hamlet! Although basic parts of the plot and even the critical clash (Hamlet exterminating Claudius) are there, we observe with extreme indignation that, minutes after vanquishing Laertes, Hamlet dies too, when he and the rest hear the news of Fortinbras arriving. This makes the difference; the evil difference, I mean. Fortinbras is an absolutely unnecessary figure or character. He is absolutely useless and utterly nonsensical.
Only because the Satanic nature of Shakespeare wanted the Messiah (or Horus or Jesus-Christ or Mahdi or Etana or Saoshyant or Maitreya) dead and unable to savor his victory, the need for an extra character was created in the plot. It is a devilish trick against the noblest of all prophecies.
Do you know, Fedor, what Fortinbras means?
It means that there will not be any Kingdom of Heaven, because the Messiah/Horus will die at the moment of his victory. This is the World History’s most hateful, most lowly, and more fallacious concept; it constitutes the most blasphemous rejection of the Christian Revelation by John, and of all the anterior and posterior revelations, eschatological epics, and Messianic narratives. It is a vicious and shameless attempt to exterminate Soteriology and a conscious effort to prevent the Ultimate Emperor and Redeemer from ruling the Mankind with iron fist (inferred in Isaiah 11:4; explicitly stated in Psalms 2:7-9; and repeatedly evoked in Revelation 19:15, 12:5, 2:26-28).
Why is this so? Why is Fortinbras so badly needed to Shakespeare’s mystical and devilish peers? This is easy to answer! The evil societies cannot stand every notion of Kingdom of Heaven, because this brings forth their irrevocable annihilation; they therefore passionately and continually intend to disreputably prolong the present situation of the Fallen Mankind as long as they can. Their ‘poets’ perform therefore all possible acts of Black Magic to obtain the desired results. And the premeditated distortion of an eschatological narrative, plot and development, particularly when it is part of a play repeatedly performed by actors and formidably contemplated / cherished by the audience over the centuries (which means an enormous number of victims whose spirituality was held captive), is a very sophisticated form of Black Magic.
In Shakespeare’s malevolent and black magical eschatology, the Messiah (Horus or Hamlet) wins over the Antichrist (Seth or Laertes), but dies soon after! This irrevocable fact of the World Literature convincingly demonstrates where the location of Evil on Earth is.
Consequently, with a fallen human Fortinbras as bogus-ruler, the present condition will continue, and the (disastrous for Shakespeare and his peers) Kingdom of the Heaven will be delayed or averted.
Shakespeare did not have the strength or the paranoia to make Laertes kill Hamlet. This is genuinely impossible. He therefore did not attack spiritual forces that would madden and annihilate him on the spur of the moment, namely at the time he would be writing such an execrable obscenity. However, his evil nature was good enough to invent the Satanic trick: ‘the Messiah/Horus wins only to die after his victory’. Preposterous!
Exploring Shakespeare’s evil profundity, one can therefore unveil the depth and the extent of the English perfidy. I need now to terminate my lengthy response.
You are very knowledgeable, Fedor! But you seem to forget a critical detail.
Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616.
His active years are thought to have been between 1585 and 1613.
But the most important event of his life was not the coronation of James VI & I, who was the successor of Elizabeth I.
The historically most determinant fact that took place during Shakespeare’s life was the war between Spain and England (1585-1604) and mainly the circumnavigation of England and Ireland by the Grande y Felicísima Armada (also known as Invincible Armada), i.e. the Enterprise of England undertaken by the Imperial Spanish fleet in July-August 1588.
If the Spaniards won, you would never know Shakespeare and his black magical texts, which are idiotically staged in numerous countries worldwide only at their own detriment and to the prejudice of billions of readers and spectators.
You don’t need either Shakespeare or English in Russia. No one needs them.
De-Occidentalization is the guarantee for the Russian victory; and as you can guess, the term comprises also the most resolute de-Anglicization.
Replace therefore Shakespeare in the Russian Education syllabus with the Azeri Nizami Ganjavi, the Armenian Movses Khorenatsi, the Georgian Shota Rustaveli, the Iranian Ferdowsi, the Turanian-Indian Amir Khusrau, the Chinese Guo Jujing (郭居敬) and you will discover all the musical undulations of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade!
Removing Shakespeare from your education and defenestrating England out of the new multipolar world order, you will lose nothing, but you will gain the whole world! And the world will gain peace.
Thank you again for the opportunity you offered me to expand on these topics!
II. Skillful Western European Falsification of Russian History
A. Erroneous contextualization of Archaeology of Northern Asia
B. Deliberate use of overlapping terms: Northern Asia, Siberia, and Scythia
C. Prehistory and Ancient History of Northern Asia are subject to modern borders and to the meaningless attempts for ‘national archaeology’
D. Failure to discern Northern Asia in its entirety and true dimensions
E. Deliberate, multifaceted distortion of the Asiatic Turanian Migrations
F. Minimization of the cataclysmic presence and prevalence of the Turanian nations throughout Eastern Europe
G. European academia-backed biases: malignant disregard of the spiritual value of Kievan Rus, and absurd focus on ethnic, racial and linguistic considerations
H. Erroneous focus on Kievan Rus and disastrous neglect for Volga Bulgaria
I. Concealment of the historical reality of the Turanian (‘Tatar-Mongol’) period
Russia, Ukraine and the World-III: the need for a New UN or how UK, US, France and NATO must be defenestrated from the world (28 March 2023)
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.
Анатолия и Турция: Духовность, мораль, культура, легенда, народная религия, управление, религия, теология и политика
Оглавление
Введение
I. Народная религия, сражения и воины
II. Духовность, мораль, культура, легенда и народная религия
А. Духовность
Б. Мораль
В. Культура
Г. Легенда
Д. Популярная религия
III. История религии: несовместима с западноевропейским манихейским мировоззрением.
IV. Управление, религия, теология и политика
А. Управление
Б. Религия
В. Богословие
Г. Политика
V. Анатолия, Турция, культура, духовность, религия, история и образование
А. Сегодняшние тюрки: они в основном исламизированные восточные римляне на этнокультурном уровне.
Б. Частями национальной души Турции являются все анатолийские цивилизации, культуры и религии.
В. Неоосманизм — антитурецкая паранойя и хитрая западная ловушка против государства Кемаля Ататюрка
Г. Не называйте Анатолийское море «Эгейским морем»!
Д. Восточные римляне и туркменские кочевники: история — это история народов, а не элит или государств
Е. Почему Кемаль Ататюрк мудро закрыл дверь Турции перед уродливым лицом Энвер-паши
а- Тюркские или туранские народы, племена и роды всегда воевали друг с другом.
б- Страны с нерешенными проблемами ничего не получают при слиянии с другими.
в- Пытаясь объединить несколько маленьких стран, вы теряете большую картину и лучший шанс!
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Popular Religion, Battles, and Warriors
II. Spirituality, Moral, Culture, Legend, and Popular Religion
A. Spirituality
B. Moral
C. Culture
D. Legend
E. Popular religion
III. History of Religion: Incompatible with Western European Manichaean Weltanschauung
IV. Governance, Religion, Theology and Politics
A. Governance
B. Religion
C. Theology
D. Politics
V. Anatolia, Turkey, Culture, Spirituality, Religion, History and Education
A. Today’s Turks are mainly Islamized Eastern Romans at the ethnic-cultural level
B. Parts of Turkey’s National Soul are all the Anatolian Civilizations, Cultures and Religions
C. Neo-Ottomanism is an Anti-Turkish Paranoia and a Subtle Western Trap against the State of Kemal Ataturk
D. Do not call the Anatolian Sea ‘Aegean Sea’!
E. Eastern Romans and Turkmen Nomads: History is the History of the Peoples, not of the Elites or the States
F. Why Kemal Ataturk wisely shut the door of Turkey on the Ugly Face of Enver Pasha
a- Turkic or Turanian peoples, tribes and clans always fought one upon another.
b- Countries with unresolved problems gain nothing when merging with others.
c- Trying to unite few small countries, you lose the greater picture and the best chance!
————————-
The rise of Kay Khosrow to the Heaven; the legendary hero who fascinated the Anatolian Muslims for a millennium was the reflection of pre-Islamic Iranian and Turanian epics, myths and imperial universalism. Evliya Çelebi narrates that meddahlar (errant minstrels) were reciting excerpts from Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh about Kay Khosrow in public venues in Bursa.Antalya – Statue of Gıyâseddin Keyhüsrev I (reigned: 1205-1211/غياث الدين كيخسرو بن قلج ارسلان), the Seljuk sultan of Rum (i.e. the Eastern Romans) who was named after the legendary Kay Khosrow.
A long response and an article full of definitions …
Introduction
A few days ago, I received an interesting comment sent by an astute reader of my recently published text in which I analyzed the interaction among the following factors: falsified history, fake religion, and perverse education. In that text, I made it clear that this nefarious combination leads to wars serving the eschatological agendas of several secret societies and evil religious Orders, notably the Jesuits.
The title was published under a rather long title as it concerned many countries:
Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Greece: False History, Fake Religion and Worthless Education lead to Disastrous Wars to fit an Evil Eschatological Agenda
I- The Calamitous Structure of Cultural Colonialism
II- Southern Canaan: an Egyptian Territory
III. Wrong Education & Ignorance of Historical Identity can destroy entire countries
IV. National History, not Religion, makes today’s Nations Strong
V. What means National History for today’s Turks?
VI. Between Turkey and Greece, there can only be a Clash between Two Opposite Historical Models.
VII. Muslim Countries without National History will disappear in the Forthcoming Reconquista
VIII. Religion does not liberate Nations! National History and Identity do!
My reader’s comment made me understand that I did not clarify several points and I will now do so, while also responding to the comment. As a matter of fact, even if all the historical data are accurately known to someone, a persisting confusion about several critical terms does indeed generate incomprehension and misjudgment.
Many conflicts, strives, unrests and wars would have been avoided had people not confused terms such as ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’, ‘moral’ and ‘religion’, ‘religion’ and ‘theology’, ‘governance’ and ‘politics’, and ‘culture’ and ‘religion’. These conditions of the Mankind are presently misperceived, misunderstood, misinterpreted or even ignored, and this dire situation opens the way for people to be subconsciously manipulated up to the point of failing to react against their forthcoming, well-planned annihilation. I will therefore plainly define these terms and also clearly demonstrate how distinct they are from one another, thus offering a better and most accurate understanding of my positions.
——————– Comments made by a reader ————————
Dear Prof. Megalommatis,
The writing style looks mostly ranting, but you have some strong points. I like how you paint the ‘religion’ of a nation as the collective spirit that keeps them alive through the times. I would say that it is very likely that when two populations get into a war in the material plane through kinetic warfare, they also engage in “metaphysical” warfare in the narrative plane. The god of freedom defeating the forces of tyranny only makes sense because the American Revolution and its gods defeated the British monarchy. That is why the revolutionary trope is repeated in so many cultural artifacts of the west. The victory of the sacrifice of Christ over the militant Hebrews only makes sense because the Hellenic-Romans that adopted some Semitic customs took control over the Roman Empire. The militant Jews had a second opportunity with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad as the Semitic-speaking Aramaeans took control over the Middle East.
I guess that what you try to say in this post is that the current historical narrative of Turkey lacks of gravitas to pull traction into its direction, maybe because they take the Islamic faith in full while you advocate for a model where the history of Turkey absorbs all the residents of the Anatolian peninsula. For example, Ankara should take Justinian as its own emperor. Here then rises the challenge of how to explain the Byzantine-Ottoman wars. Are they civil wars? Why do you renounce pan-Turkish in full when the union with Azerbaijan would be fairly feasible?
I believe you are onto something, and I hope my comment helps to further your intellectual quest.
—————————– My response ————————-
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your time and comment!
Yes, your points do help me clarify my position.
Apparently, my writing style varies according to the topic; when I present the History of Kazakhstan, there is no trace of rant. However, when I denounce the falsification of History or another sort of evildoing, my wholehearted denunciation of the iniquity certainly impacts my written expression.
I. Popular Religion, Battles, and Warriors
Your definition of ‘religion’ (or rather what you describe as my way of painting it) and my definition of ‘religion’ are not the same; but they are both very far from the absolutely ridiculous, worthless, vicious and evil understanding of the term that most people, believers (Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, etc.) and non-believers, have today.
What you say that you like in my way of painting the ‘religion’ (namely ‘the collective spirit that keeps them alive through the times’) is not the ‘religion’, but the ‘popular religion’ or ‘folk religion’. This condition is inalienable to the humans. You can be a human being or a human society without systematic theology and without official religion, but definitely you cannot be a human or establish a human society without a ‘popular religion’ or ‘folk religion’.
‘Popular religion’ or ‘folk religion’ is the cornerstone of every culture and civilization. That’s why today’s criminal forgers and gangsters, who intend to bring about the massive extermination of the Mankind, express paranoid rage, extreme hysteria and nonsensical argumentation in their effort to discredit and to delete ‘popular religion’ or ‘folk religion’ from among human societies. In their worthless ‘definition’ of the term, they even use the adjective ‘pervasive’! Rabid dogs are healthier indeed than the authors of this poisonous text t, which literally speaking was written with the intention to spiritually kill the readers:
“Popular religion as the pervasive beliefs, rituals, and values of a society”
Behind this disingenuous attack against ‘popular religion’ or ‘folk religion’ are the Anglo-American gangsters whose forthcoming nuclear extinction will liberate the Mankind from its current slavery. These are the sick and corrupt rascals, who contaminated the Earth with their fake discoveries and evil ‘inventions’. Now, they must disappear along with their Facebook, Metaverse, transgenderism, homosexual marriages, and the rest of their diseases and anomalies.
What you say about the clash of two populations is essentially true:
“When two populations get into a war in the material plane through kinetic warfare, they also engage in ‘metaphysical’ warfare in the narrative plane”.
You mean ‘spiritual’ warfare; I personally never use the false term ‘metaphysical’. In reality, it is meaningless, confusing and erroneously produced: Aristotle wrote a text without title. It concerned his understanding about the spiritual world; when this text was copied in the libraries of the Late Antiquity (in Turkey’s Antioch or Egypt’s Alexandria), it was written (on the papyri) after another text written by Aristotle that concerned his observations of the material (or natural) world. Christian monks, who copied these texts later (either in the Eastern Roman Empire or in pseudo-Christian Western Europe), named the former ‘Physica’ (i.e. ‘about the natural world’ / it has nothing to do with ‘Physics’) and the latter ‘Metaphysica’ (lit. «text written after the ‘Physica’»).
As you see, the original use of the 3-word phrase (in Greek: Μετά τα Φυσικά) has nothing to do with the contents of the text, but merely denotes its location in the papyrus (‘after the text about the natural world’). Only later, the contents of the text (about the spiritual world) gave another meaning to the word ‘Metaphysica’ and, at a later stage, the word ‘metaphysics’ started being used to describe all references to the spiritual world. It is therefore advisable to avoid using this term.
What you write about a 2-level war during the battle time, namely the material and the spiritual planes, is correct, but it does not happen always at the same scale; it depends on the degree of the national spiritual consciousness that the fighters have during the battle. It also hinges on the degree of sincerity that the fighters (from both sides) have in their respective faiths. In any case, the issue of each and every battle is a complex matter to study, if you truly want to be fully aware of what actually happened there.
Never forget that a battle is engaged between two armies; every military force is composed of human beings; and every man’s thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires, passions, fantasies, imaginations, and even delusions are expressed at all levels: material (physical), mental-sentimental (lower spiritual – also known as ‘astral’), and spiritual. Sometimes, a warrior’s imaginative skills, particularly when making parallels between himself and legendary heroes (such as Rustam or Fereydun) can do wonders, because they activate spiritual forces of what you call ‘the collective spirit’. I would not describe it like that, although the terms are not wrong, but it is clear that you refer to an existing spiritual entity (in the case of each community or population or nation).
Contrarily to what you say (“the collective spirit that keeps them alive through the times”), the spiritual entity of a community or nation does not ‘die’; it continues existing and has evidently its own History, because it affects and impacts in many different ways
a- the remnants of a defeated nation after the collapse of a state, kingdom, etc.;
b- the amalgamated population that may have come out of intermarriages between the rest of a vanquished population and the invaders/newcomers;
c- the settlers, who arrived in a specific land, which had been earlier populated by another population of which none survived; and
d- later incomers, who may have settled in the same land many centuries after the early disappearance of the first inhabitants.
Typically Hittite artistic traits in the statues of lions and eagles at Nemrut Dagh (Mountain) peak sanctuary (62 BCE), more than 1100 years after the fall of the Hittite Empire and more than 600 years after the Assyrian invasion of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, and the subsequent assimilation of the Neo-Hittites into the Aramaeans.
———————————————-
Similar developments are not always visible – to the greatest chagrin of modern materialist and atheist scholars who cannot comprehend the diverse ways by which numerous concepts, visions, designs, beliefs, traditions, eschatological faiths, and artistic designs are passed on from one nation to another. Typical examples in this case, as far as Anatolia is concerned, are
i- the absolutely Hittite design of the statues of lions and eagles in Mount Nemrut peak sanctuaries, and
ii- the typically Hittite concept of the Antichrist rising from the sea (Revelation 13), which originates from the Hittite eschatological epic Ullikummi.
There is therefore, at this point, an evident need for several definitions of terms that we use in our conversation.
II. Spirituality, Moral, Culture, Legend, and Popular Religion
A. Spirituality
Spirituality is not identical with religion; it is incommensurately higher than religion.
DEFINITION
Spirituality is the ability of the human being to establish sensible connection among his soul (spiritual entity), his heart, mind and solar plexus (lower spiritual entity or ‘character’), and his body (material entity). Spirituality is not a theory, a thought or a consideration; it is a practical exercise involving spiritual effort to utilize the body and its electromagnetic flows for a certain purpose either at the spiritual or the material level.
The results of spiritual exercises bring forth the comprehensive synergy of the human individual’s three parts and the materialization of what today’s average people would call ‘miracles’. Spirituality allows humans to enter in contact with spiritual entities of all created hierarchies; its cardinal importance can be assessed if one takes into consideration that only through one’s soul (so spiritual entity) can one person contact or fathom the Creator. Spirituality does not exist without incessant praise of God, endless thanks for His misericord, glorification of His attributes, and complete devotion to the Moral principles and standards which make the spiritual-material synergy possible.
The Wikipedia, among other rather confusing statements, offers a partly correct definition of ‘spirituality’: ‘a process of re-formation which aims to recover the original shape of man oriented at the image of God’. Although this is true, the definition does not make it clear that this is a practical endeavor. During this process, every apprentice carries out many exercises in order to sense, familiarize with, and streamline the electro-magnetic fields of his body in view of a better synergy among his soul, character and body.
However, in the same entry, the definition involves several absolutely mistaken statements: this process is described as ‘religious’, which is extremely wrong and very confusing. Irrespective of his own religion, any person can practice spiritual exercises, because the ability for this is inherent to humans from the Creation and totally unrelated to ethnic, linguistic or religious differences. However, this very ability is highly conditioned by Moral, and persons living in immorality or amorality are de facto incapable (and also unwilling) to re-connect with their soul. In the same definition, spirituality is confused with religion for a second time, when it is stated that spirituality was exemplified by the founders of religions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
‘Founders of religions’ is an entirely modern misconception, an evil forgery, and a viciously treacherous term fabricated only to spread confusion; there have never been ‘founders of religions’. The identity of the persons, who are called like that, is other: they are prophets, false prophets, eventually founders of an organization, but not of religion. Religion is certainly very different from spirituality, but it is not an ‘office’. Only offices, companies, institutions and organizations can be founded. I will further expand when defining religion.
Spirituality has nothing to do with philosophy, which is a theoretical, not practical, effort to grasp the truth, to make real wisdom out of it, and to describe some of the spiritual world’s facts, situations, conditions and developments in human language (up to the very limited extent that this is possible). Philosophy is a minor and low mental activity, always viewed as profane by high priests, ancient scientists, spiritual masters, and mystics; a philosopher is a man who talks uselessly, because even if he understands, he does not feel or sense the realities he speaks about.
Israa and Mi’raj of prophet Muhammad depicted on a manuscript of the famous opus ‘Bustan and Gulistan’ of the 13th c. Iranian poet Saadi (Calligrapher Sultan Muhammad Nur; date: 1525-153; Folio 3v, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
————————————————-
Quite contrarily, a mystic is a man of action, able to reveal to his disciples the unfathomable realities of the spiritual world and the way to perform while in synergy with their soul. Describing the method of spiritual action, narrating in detail the various spiritual exercises, writing in detail about the spiritual world is an oddity of our time; in the Antiquity, this was absolutely impermissible as it was viewed as a profanity and a blasphemy. Apparently, you cannot reveal the spiritual truth to the vulgar infidels who live in compact materialism, paranoid rationalism, absurd utilitarianism, and other mental-sentimental-intellectual diseases.
Within the context of the Islamic world, spirituality was uniquely embodied by prophet Muhammad and his spiritual experience, notably the nocturnal journey and the ascension (al Isra’ w-al Mi’raj) and the revelation of the Qur’an. Since Islam (i.e. the correct attitude of a human toward God) did not start with prophet Muhammad (it was actually only spelled out more analytically thanks to his recitations and his revelations/explanations), spirituality was also exemplified earlier by all previous prophets, starting with Adam. Spirituality was concretized in the exercises and the teachings of Hz. Ali ibn Abi Taleb, his sons and his descendants; the same concerns several mystical orders of the Islamic world (notably the Mevlevis, the Safavis, the Bektashis, and many others), which tried to preserve the cherished practices until they progressively lost them due to the decay that spread throughout the Muslim societies.
B. Moral
Many people make the mistake to exclusively associate Moral with religion; this is wrong. Equally mistaken is the effort to associate Moral with philosophy. Modern definitions of Moral basically relate to the ‘standards or principles of good behaviour’ (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/moral_2) or to ‘a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality).
These approaches and interpretations fail to explain why mystics and prophets have always been necessary to appear every now and then to call societies to the correct path. Although it is undeniable that priests specified the correct moral standards for their adepts to follow and philosophers examined almost every issue pertaining to the principles of Moral (or Morality), it is clear that neither religion nor philosophy can be taken as the true source of Moral.
Modern scholars have anxiously attempted to find the origin of the moral values in the organization of the early societies, but this approach is inherently ideologized as it merely reflects militant evolutionism, Darwinism, materialism, agnosticism and atheism. Actually, it cannot be taken into account, particularly in the light of so many sacred texts and holy traditions, as per which the code of moral behaviour is entirely divine.
On the other hand, all people acknowledge that, in reality, Morality is synonymous with ‘goodness’ or ‘rightness’; this helps us understand that the origin of every moral order is the spiritual universe, which is also called the ‘divine world’. In fact, the inherent freedom that the Human Being enjoys since the Creation and, in parallel, the existence of the fallen angels, have produced the double reality of moral and immoral standards, therefore subsequently generating the possibility of the human being to choose for either ways. In fact, these two categories reflect the prevailing situation in the spiritual universe: the Divine Ideas and the lack thereof. Noticeably, it was early known to Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian sacerdotal colleges, mystics and spiritual masters that the Creation of the World hinges on the axe of the Being and the Non Being. At the material level, this means that immorality is a form of denial of one’s own existence.
The association that religion and philosophy have with Moral only corroborates the inherent (in every human) quest for the ‘good’ and the ‘right’ within the context of a fallen world.
DEFINITION
We can therefore conclude that, in reality, Moral is the inherent code of the Creation that must never be breached by any human being; in fact, every person’s conduct in life must be in agreement with the -common to all- moral standards. Spirituality (synergy between the soul, the character and the body) is the only way for humans to pertinently identify the moral standards that they must follow.
Rhinoceros, bull, and the naked beings of the Tree; from Zakariya al-Qazwini’s masterpiece of spirituality and moral ‘Aja’ib al-Makhluqat wa Ghara’ib al-Mawjudat’ (عجائب المخلوقات وغرائب الموجودات/ Wonders of Creatures and the Oddities of Beings); Zakariya’ Qazwini (1203-1283; زكرياء القزويني) in his aforementioned masterpiece of spiritual and material cosmography clearly demonstrates that every irregularity or oddity of form is due to a moral non-conformity, moral idleness and moral depravity.
All present definitions of Culture are false because they are written by authors who intended to dissociate humans from their spirituality and therefore presented the History of the Mankind as a succession of customary acts and a process of material actions, as if humans were idiotic automatons and silly robots. Several definitions of Culture may seem therefore correct, but they are actually not, as long as they do not establish a clear link between material actions and spiritual faiths.
In a typical example of wrong definition of Culture almost everything is accurately stated, but there is no mention of or reference to Spirituality and Moral: ‘the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society’. Yet, all these ‘ideas’ and ‘customs’ originate from the spiritual activities of a society and the ‘behaviour’ hinges indeed on the moral standards of these very ‘particular people or society’! (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/culture_1?q=culture).
Even worse, other definitions of Culture involve unnecessary elements of modern societies, such as institutions or laws. This is merely a consequence of the erroneous but prevailing evolutionism as per which modern societies are more ‘developed’ whereas in reality they are more decayed than the traditional societies. An example is offered by the Wikipedia: ‘Culture is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior, institutions, and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups’. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture)
In this manner, modern lexicographers and grammarians are forced to dissociate ‘culture’ and ‘folklore’, because they want to offer to the former a much wider range of notions and concepts in order to also comprise within the semantic array of its values possible definitions of secluded segments of society (notably the elites and the secret companies or initiation organizations) and of their ‘culture’. However, this is an elitist approach, and as such definitely Nazi and absolutely evil. Even worse, this lexicographic and academic attempt consists in an amalgamation of the truly genuine (the traditional unitary societies) and the fake (modern, stratified and segmented societies). In this case, the distorted definition (of Culture) and the dissociation (of ‘culture’ from ‘folklore’) help only further corrupt today’s societies, engulf readers into misconceptions, and rapidly spread the grave contamination that leads today’s sick Western World to death.
Culture, folklore and lore are similar notions.
When it comes to lore, one could consider the following definitions as correct, but they are not: ‘a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of mouth’ and ‘knowledge and information related to a particular subject, especially when this is not written down; the stories and traditions of a particular group of people’
First, these elements (‘body of traditions’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’) do not concern just persons or groups of people but entire societies, communities or nations.
Second, the total absence of reference to the spirituality of the community or society or nation in question fully cancels the veracity of the definitions; this is so because these elements (‘body of traditions’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’) emanate from, pertain to, depend on, and account for the spiritual life of the said community or society or nation.
As lore we should therefore define the totality of oral traditions, stories, narratives, songs, fairy tales, legends, didactic and moral tales, oral historical knowledge, as well as statements of popular wisdom and proverbs, which are passed from generation to generation as cornerstone of the local home education. This oral treasure of the community or society or nation in question is indissolubly linked to the spiritual life of these people. Consequently, it constitutes the foundation stone of the national identity, because without cherishing the values encrusted in their lore, individuals of this group of people cannot be considered as really indigenous.
Eastern Romans soldiers (above) and Janissaries (below): different states, similar traditions
Double-headed eagle in the Seljuk (above) and the Palaiologos family Roman (below) versions
Double-headed eagle from the time of Ala ad-Din Kaiqubad (1188-1237) in Iconium-Konya (above); two divinities standing on double-headed eagle from the Hittite rock-relief (13th c. BCE) of Yazilikaya, the Hittite religious capital (below, at the right end of the picture)
————————————————————————-
Folklore is a wider notion, because it also includes material traditions and activities (involving local architecture, handicraft, typically local artifacts, etc.), many religion-related practices (that are not religiously indispensable stricto sensu), customary actions, popularized faith, art, folk dances, material culture with respect to the human life cycle (birth, weddings, funerals, etc.), rituals, initiation rites, ceremonies, celebrations, customary lore, undertakings that are necessary for folk beliefs and local traditions, etc. Similarly with lore, folklore hinges on the spiritual life of the community or society or nation and makes the daily life very colorful, joyful, vivid and pleasant for all the members of that group of people, thus strengthening the bond that unites them. Folklore is therefore a crucial element of the national identity and the cultural integrity of a nation; it goes without saying that nations that lost their folklore have zero chances to survive.
The Red Apple: Basic Element of Anatolian Folklore
Folklore, as notion, is not as wide as Culture; the latter involves also behavioral patterns and customs, the moral values of the community or society or nation, the popular religion, the rudimentary structure of education, the annual cycle of agricultural activities, and -in general- the traditional way of life, which is markedly impacted by the geomorphological and meteorological conditions of the land inhabited by the said group of people.
That is why, although they have the same religion, the Baluch of Pakistan’s coastland, the Hazaras of central Afghanistan, and the Tajiks, who inhabit the Valley of Fergana and the Pamirs, have ostensibly different cultures. This shows that the (‘official’) religion is not as determinant as Culture in the national life of every nation. And this was something that, for the case of Anatolia, Kemal Ataturk understood very well and very early. This fact marks indeed his irrevocable superiority over all the ignorant and pathetic sheikhs of Al Azhar, Mecca, Medina and today’s Diyanet (a Turkish ‘office’ that must be abolished).
DEFINITION
In brief, the Culture of a nation is the reflection of its collective spiritual entity on the material life of the population.
D. Legend
As in all the previous cases, all the existing definitions of the term ‘legend’ are ideologically motivated and severely distorted in order to deprive the term from its spiritual nature and dimensions. This fact has calamitous consequences on our understanding of past and present cultures, traditions and nations; furthermore, similar definitions destroy the originality of the national education in every country where these definitions and the associated ideas are accepted. Example: ‘a story from ancient times about people and events that may or may not be true; this type of story’ (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/legend?q=legend)
In the Wikipedia, the notions of lore and folklore are entirely confused; this affects the definition of ‘legend’, which is associated with the folklore, and not the lore of a nation. The definition of the ‘legend’ becomes therefore the epitome of the most absurd materialism: ‘a genre of folklore that consists of a narrative featuring human actions, believed or perceived, both by teller and listeners, to have taken place in human history’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend). It is very interesting that neither the word ‘myth’ nor the term ‘symbol’ are mentioned in this monstrously distorted definition. In the rest of the definition, we notice the systematic effort to avoid the use of the words ‘spiritual’, ‘faith’, ‘heroism’, ‘heroic’ and ‘spirituality’: ‘narratives in this genre may demonstrate human values, and possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Legend, for its active and passive participants may include miracles. Legends may be transformed over time to keep them fresh and vital. Many legends operate within the realm of uncertainty, never being entirely believed by the participants, but also never being resolutely doubted’. It is clear that such definitions constitute a severely biased attitude of scrupulous militants, who want to deliberately plunged readers in ignorance and confusion.
A legend is by definition a constituent element of the identity of a community, society or nation. There cannot be nation without legend or it will be a fake. At the earlier (and most important) stage, a legend is an oral story / tradition that can give birth to an associated epic, i.e. a long poem orally remembered from generation to generation due to memory techniques (mnemotechnics). Whether the epic is written down or not is immaterial. If this happens, the legend itself and the epic may follow totally different orbits.
DEFINITION
As an oral story, the legend describes heroic deeds of superb men, who fight ferocious enemies in magnificent battles – epitomes of the contrast ‘Good and Evil’. In other words, there cannot be a legend dissociated from the high moral standards that must be cherished by all those, who want to be true humans and carry out the great deeds that everyone has to perform in the material world before returning to the eternal, spiritual world whereby the only possible reward is to be sought after.
There is no legend for disbelievers, materialists, consumerists, modernists, sectarian idiots, filthy plotters, evil crooks, and most of the common types in decayed periods like ours. At times, legends serve to overwhelmingly denounce devious egocentric and greedy imbeciles for whom material benefits are all that matters in life. In this regard, various legends memorized, recited and cherished among many different nations constituted the means to preserve healthy, moral and human societies of people, who were/are diametrically opposed to the sexually devious and perverse, worthless and idiotic consumers of today’s materialist and corrupt Western World.
In other words, the legends offer exemplary paragons of life and perfect paradigms of honorable men, who should become the models for children and adolescents to follow in life. The legends functioned therefore as educational systems able to sustain the local societies or nations for centuries and millennia. The various legendary heroes and valorous characters became part of the national soul, which maintained the encapsulated virtues as national traits throughout ages. We can therefore safely claim that the legends reflected the national spiritual entity and epitomized the lofty values for which the brave ancestors of each true nation died.
As narrative, a legend is composed by people, who fully accept the existence of the spiritual world and are therefore fully acquainted with the mythical language and the symbols that stand between the spiritual and material worlds as lighthouses and landmarks. The mythical perception of the spiritual and material universes and the ensuing mythical language are the only possible manner by which realities of the spiritual world can be communicated to humans and understood by them.
The legend of Fereydun, antedates the splendid poetry of Ferdowsi (Shahnameh), which merely gave literary value to an old story that the diffusion of Islam in the Iranian-Turanian world proved unable to erase; even the Ottoman Selim I, when exchanging insulting letters with Ismail Safevi before the battle of Chaldiran (1514), identified himself with Fereydun.
———————————————————————
This is so because supernatural and supratemporal situations have to be conveyed at (or converted to) the material plane and this inevitably involves concepts, which are nonexistent at that level. For this to be achieved symbols have to be created at the intersection of the two worlds (spiritual and material); they don’t represent what is actually seen (in them) but what they stand for as encoded notions within a field of semiotics.
The mythical language was earlier known to all; later, due to several calamitous developments mythologized as the ‘Flood’, it became a privileged instrument for priesthood; it subsequently lost most of its coherence and original meaning. This apparent deterioration of the human conditions of life generated major hindrances (notably polytheism, organized religion, doctrinal narratives and evil themes) in the path of average persons toward the spiritual world and increased the distance that they had from it (turning people to material cults, liturgies, black magic, superstition and idolatry).
Despite the fact that the mythical language always existed within the context of spirituality, religion and popular religion, many theologians of various religions tried deliberately to leave it aside or diminish its importance in order to spiritually control the followers of their religion. Philosophers and scientists tried to oppose them but failed. At the end, the mythical language was decomposed and it remained as the incomprehensible part of a nation’s culture and popular religion, serving as unfathomable foundation for the epics and the legends, the fairy tales, and the traditions of the said nation.
E. Popular religion
About the popular religion, I already expanded in Unit I; however, at this point, I will add a definition. In striking contrast to the nonsensical definitions that are available today, popular religion is the leading part of a nation’s culture. It is far more important than the official religion itself, in the sense that it is alive. It has nothing to do with the concepts and theories of a Talmudic Rabbi, a Father of the Christian Church, and a Muslim Initiator of Madhhab (School of Jurisprudence) or with the interpretation and the hermeneutics of modern theologians of any religion. Verbosity is by definition not a virtue in every popular religion worldwide.
DEFINITION
Popular religion stands often in striking contrast with the official religion; in that case, the popular religion is far more original and trustworthy. Popular religion, to start with a simple definition, is the way people feel their religion in their daily lives, involving the physical activities, the moral values, and the imaginative power of every faithful as regards mythically conceived and narrated facts or historical events of cardinal importance, legends, and exemplary attitudes of brave believers, who preferred salvation in the spiritual world than success and pleasure in the material world. When it comes to popular religion, imagination is far more important than thought, reason, and rationalism.
Reasoning cares, argumentations, and ‘proofs’ are nonexistent as entirely worthless within the context of popular religion; it is all about impetuous compassion, impulsive expression of religiosity, cultic devotion, piety, and other forms of emotional self-accomplishment effectuated on the lines of transcendental experience, repentance, truth, and magnanimous altruism.
Official religion is experienced in religious litanies, ceremonies, liturgies, feasts, congregations, festivals and solemn celebrations on specific occasions. It can be at times pompous, grandiloquent and imperious.
Popular religion is lived in every single moment of a person’s life.
It is therefore intricately intertwined -in every single believer differently and markedly individually- with other spheres of the culture of the local community or population or nation, i.e. the historical traditions and the legends, the myths about the origin of the nation, the lore and the folklore, the annual cycle of agricultural activities, and the behavioral philosophical system that emanates from the customs and the habitudes of those people.
Official religion may or may not depend on a hierarchical organization that carries out the material schedule of the religious activities; there have been religions with minimal structure in their organization and religions with multilayered, perplex and sophisticated structure.
More perplex the material administration of a religion is, more polytheistic the religion may be; in such a case, the spirituality becomes weaker among the adepts, an increased dose of fear, superstition, and negative emotions is spread across the popular religion, the daily life takes a less heroic dimension, and materialistic concepts and concerns prevail in the minds of the people, turning them to heartless beings.
The triumph of the popular religion can be attested in every believer’s balanced stance at the very center of a triangle from the three corners of which depart paths leading to exploits of unprecedented gallantry, examples of magnanimous solidarity, and acts of humble devotion.
Soviet stamp commemorating the Nowruz (نوروز / Новруз) in Azerbaijan (left); Iranian family commemorates the major feast (New Year’s Day) in Nishapur. Neither the Soviet instructors of Marxism-Leninism nor the Islamist theologians of Iran could uproot the popular religion, although they both hated it, because it represents the true social life of a nation.
Tajiks celebrate Mehregan (مهرگان), a traditional pre-Islamic Iranian feast which is still cherished among Zoroastrians, Parsis and Muslims; originally dedicated to Mithra (also known as Mehr), the feast coincides with the fall as it starts ten days after the fall equinox.
Feasting Yalda (winter solstice) or Shab-e Yalda (شب یلدا) in Zibad, NE Iran
Typical Yalda tables
Chaharshanbe (چهارشنبهسوری) festivities on the eve of Nowruz
—————————————————————–
III. History of Religion: Incompatible with Western European Manichaean Weltanschauung
Having clarified issues pertaining to the correct definition of the aforementioned terms (in the previous unit), I can now continue responding to your comments.
You speak of the ‘god of freedom’ and of ‘the forces of tyranny’. This is exactly what you say: “The god of freedom defeating the forces of tyranny only makes sense because the American Revolution and its gods defeated the British monarchy. That is why the revolutionary trope is repeated in so many cultural artifacts of the west”.
I find your approach as mechanically Manichaean and I disagree; there is no ‘god of freedom’! What you call as ‘the forces of tyranny’ are not literally so. They are simply sick and paranoid gangsters, tools of the Evil, and enemies of the Mankind; their evildoing is not limited in the case of their colonies in North America. By using these terms, you only confuse yourself. The humans are created free, and for this reason ‘tyranny’ is basically an evil effort to strip humans from their normal condition. But I don’t take part in that conflict; the Americans, who wanted to ‘be free’, were in reality English or other West Europeans, who carried out a shameful genocide of the highly civilized indigenous populations (falsely called ‘Amerindians’).
Because of their clash with the English at the time, the Americans did not have their sins atoned. Even worse, approximately one century after their independence, the Americans were again invaded by the English in a more subtle and clearly invisible manner. Historically viewed, the American Independence is merely … ‘too much ado for nothing’. The oppression and the persecution of the indigenous nations of those lands is a shame for the entire Mankind. For all the other states of the world, this fact consists in a clear reason for immediate termination of every possible contact with the US. The same concerns the relations of third countries with UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Above: As divine trinity, Mithra performing tauroctony (Sterzing, Tyrol) in presence of Cautes (: sunrise), at the right, and Cautopates (: sunset), at the left, who hold their torches. / Below: Crucifixion, in the earliest manuscript illumination from the Rabbula Gospels {written by the Aramaean monk Rabbula (ܪܒܘܠܐ)}, which were copied in the Monastery of St. John of Zagba, near Apamea (close to Hama), Syria (late 6th c.).
———————————————————————————-
When referring to the sacrifice of Christ, you become eminently schematic. You write: “The victory of the sacrifice of Christ over the militant Hebrews only makes sense because the Hellenic-Romans that adopted some Semitic customs took control over the Roman Empire”. Unfortunately, this can never lead to correct conclusions and understanding. It is not a black and white affair; actually, it is not the sacrifice of Christ, but that of Mithra! The Mithraic slaying of the Bull! Strange? No! First, the bull-sacrifice was transformed into a Crucifixion. After people for almost 2000 years believed that ‘god’ killed himself in order to be resurrected, the survivors (i.e. eight billion people) are now being processed into the next stage. And the unrepentant Jesuits still today intend to perform the ritual and, instead of a bull, sacrifice the entire Mankind, leaving only five (5) million people alive after the well-planned double nuclear extermination. They expressed regret in public for several cases of Catholic evildoing; true! But they never rejected (let alone repented for) the evil teachings, the duplicity, the mendacity, the heinous mentality, and the atrocious deeds of the founder of their religious Order, Ignacio de Loyola, and of his followers.
So, long before the Romans “adopted some Semitic customs”, they had accepted Iranian faith, mysteries and cult, initiation rites and divine attributes, traditions and cosmological concepts. Certainly the Romans embraced also Hamitic cultural, spiritual, intellectual, religious and esoteric rites and traditions, notions and world views, by seeking salvation in the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan Isiac dogma. Nevertheless, a certainly strong Semitic spiritual component made its way to Rome, due to the diffusion of several Aramaean and Phoenician religions throughout the Roman Empire; but it has little to do with the Rabbinical (: Talmudic) Judaism of those days. You should know and remember that!
If you forget Elagabalus, you allow every Western European and Anglo-American racist pseudo-scholar to fabricate and spread his evil pseudo-historical dogma of ‘Greco-Roman civilization’. This is not only totally false and viciously discriminatory, but also harmful and destructive for the national interests of all modern Oriental states concerned (Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, etc.). This is so because the young Roman Emperor of Aramaean Syrian origin, who reigned from 218 to 222 CE, replaced the cult of Roman Jupiter with that of the Aramaean god whose name he was bearing.
Elagabalus (204-222; reigned from 218) coin minted in Antioch; high priest of the homonymous Aramaean god of Emessa (Homs) before becoming Roman Emperor, he posed a major threat to those who wanted to prevent the diffusion of Aramaean and Babylonian festivities (Akitu) that would block the later imposition of sacrifice-related festivals. That is why Elagabalus was slandered in unprecedented manner.
————————————————————-
Semitic impact on the Roman Empire was multifaceted; when you discover this fact and you propagate it worldwide, you will produce an enormous friction between the colonial gangsters and the rest of the world, fully justifying your national position and canceling all worthless claims to ‘Western’, ‘Greco-Roman’, ‘Hellenic’ civilization and to Indo-European supremacism. Otherwise, you allow your villainous enemies to tell you ‘you came from Central Asia and Siberia; go back there’! This statement is of course entirely false, but if it is left unanswered, it can become the first paragraph in an entirely false (but widely acclaimed) discourse, which would back any sick type of colonial irredentism.
That is why the importance of Manbij (Menbiç/ مَنْبِج) hinges on Ancient Aramaean past, heritage, cults and sacredness, and not on Islamic eschatological considerations. Known as Mabog in Syriac Aramaic, this location in today’s NW Syria was the religious center of the ‘Syrian goddess’, i.e. Atargatis. To make her mysteries and cults known to the Greeks and the Romans, the Aramaean author, philosopher and erudite scholar Lucian of Samosata (Samsat; now under the waters of the Ataturk Reservoir Lake) wrote his treatise ‘On the Syrian Goddess’. For all Turks, Syrians and Lebanese, this text is more important than all the Hadith of prophet Muhammad, because these states face perplex colonial threats, involving historical revisionism, territorial irredentism, military attacks, financial war, and political plots from the US, England, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Holland, NATO and their local stooges and pawns.
Atargatis, the Syrian goddess of Manbij; the remains of the ancient castle of Samosata (Samsat) before the erection of the Ataturk dam and the formation of the dam lake
Of course, I understand that not all the people will become specialized historians and intellectuals; however, it would be absolutely essential for Turkey’s national identity, academic-cultural orientations, international stance (notably in UNESCO), foreign relations, and bilateral affairs to closely monitor educational patterns in Italy and duly implement them locally, after effectively replacing/readjusting all mistaken parts of the contents. When facing the financially backed Armenian irredentism, the pseudo-Kurdish nationalist discourse, and the paranoid bogus-theory of Hellenism of Greece, Turkey does not need Islam in its cultural, educational, intellectual and academic discourse.
On the contrary, Turkey needs a creative, proactive reassessment of the Anatolian historical heritage (in all of its components and in its most genuine, comprehensive and vivacious interpretation) and its effective application in the formulation of the country’s national identity internally and externally. For this to be done, the useless syllabuses of Turkish Primary and Secondary Education -with their meaningless, ineffective and rather childish references to Early Islam- must be resolutely thrown to the rubbish basket and entirely replaced with translations of sacred texts, historical documentation, and epigraphic material originating from all ancient civilizations that flourished in Anatolia – and of which the only true descendants are today’s Turks.
No Armenian can speak of Commagene and no Greek can speak of Ionia more than a true Turk of Modern Turkey; because in fact, by introducing the name Türkiye in replacement of the Ottoman Shame, Kemal Atatürk meant ‘Anadolu’ (Anatolia), and this can be shown in the truly first Turkish Constitution (ratified on 29th October 1923). It is implicit, not explicit, but still very clear in the formulation of the founding text. You must therefore realize that any great achievement at the international level starts always with the correct, efficient and up-to-the-point Secondary Education.
Anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever, people are linked to the Earth, their own land, and not to the silly bogus-religious story of an ignorant and uneducated imam who confuses religion with theology. Irrespective of their veracity or fallacy, historicity claims including references to the Antiquity cannot be opposed by idiotic Islamist literature; they can be rejected only by opposite claims which go back to more ancient times. But this must not be one author’s conviction or one diplomat’s erudition; it must be shared by the entire nation, as it vividly happens in Iran.
In fact, by consciously or unconsciously accepting Western colonial misinterpretation of the historical facts, by adopting typically Manichaean, bipolar stories that Western intellectuals intentionally produced, and by failing to know the history of every part of your land and its spiritual-cultural radiation, you only serve your country’s worst enemies, duly facilitating their plans. Whatever the name of your country may be, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Egypt or Yemen, with your attitude you unfortunately play only into the game of your enemies. That’s why the English colonial diplomats enroll and use idiotic puppets, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the fanciful leader of Pan-Turkism Alparslan Türkeş (a Turkish Cypriot!), in order to confuse sizable parts of population and attract them to sterile, counter-productive ideologies which do not reflect Anatolia’s cultural heritage, historical tradition, and spirituality.
The rise of Islam, as preached by prophet Muhammad, was not a “militant Jewish victory”. Again, your approach is mechanically Manichaean; you write: “The militant Jews had a second opportunity with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad as the Semitic-speaking Aramaeans took control over the Middle East”. If you were correct, every Anti-Roman and Anti-Constantinopolitan Christological dispute would be the product of Jewish militants. However, no one among Arius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Eutyches, Nestorius and many other theologians, who were denounced as ‘heretic’, was Jewish or pro-Jewish. More importantly, the History of Early Christianity and of the Christological disputes must be an indispensable part of the Turkish Secondary Education, because these ongoing disputes concern populations that still live in Turkey (the Monophysitic/Miaphysitic Aramaeans/Suryani) and, without good knowledge of the History of Anatolia, no Turk would effectively function as an Anatolian – duly rejecting foreign claims.
A man from Germanikeia / Kahraman Marash elaborated a Christian theology that was diffused without war throughout Asia and expanded more than Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, yet today’s average Turks now nothing about him: Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople (386-451). It goes without saying that when don’t claim your own cultural wealth, others do.
Above: Nestorians celebrating Palm Sunday from a wall painting in Qocho-Turfan, Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang-China / Below: Nestorian tombstone from Chifeng Inner Mongolia-China
The Tengrist-Buddhist Emperor Hulagu Khan (هلاکو خان / 1217-1265; grandson of Genghis Khan) and his Nestorian wife Doquz Hatun (دوقوز خاتون)
The Council of Chalcedon (in today’s Kadıköy, on the Asiatic side of Constantinople / Istanbul; 451 CE) condemned and rejected Nestorianism; when almost two hundred years later the early news about Islam reached the Eastern Roman Empire, they viewed the preaching of prophet Muhammad as a new, extreme version of Nestorian theology.
Instead of knowing the names of several culturally and nationally useless locations in Hejaz, Turks must come to know very well locations such as Mopsuestia (today’s Yakapınar, Yüreğir, Adana) and Germanikeia (Maraş) where Nestorius, a leading Christian theologian and patriarch of Constantinople, was born. His theological system served as foundation of the most important Christian denomination, i.e. Nestorianism (Nestûrîlik), which spread among many Asiatic nations, notably Aramaeans, Arabs, Yemenites, Indians, Iranians, Turanians, Mongolians and Chinese. Persecuted in the Eastern Roman Empire and in the Sassanid Empire of Islam, Nestorianism became the most widely diffused branch of Christianity before the 16th c., involving many churches and parishes in Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran, India, Central Asia, Mongolia and China. The grandson of Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, the magnificent Mongolian emperor who terminated the Abbasid Shame in Baghdad, had a Keraite (Keraitler) Mongolian Nestorian wife, namely Doquz Khatun (Dokuz Hatun), but still today’s Turks do not learn in their schools that it all started Germanicia/Kahramanmaraş. Only your worst enemies must have condemned you to this disastrous situation!
So, my conclusion about your points is that to best avoid this type of Western traps (which have engulfed dozens and at times hundreds of millions of people into fake dilemmas), you need to best study the historical heritage of your country, the wider region, and the Orient in its entirety. Stories about the wives of prophet Muhammad are useless in 2022; and, contrarily to the silly ideas of the uneducated sheikhs of Al Azhar, this conclusion of mine does indeed represent the correct Islamic approach to the topic.
IV. Governance, Religion, Theology and Politics
A. Governance
Before responding to your last points, I must expand and clarify several terms and situations that are disastrously confused nowadays by almost all people worldwide. This is due to your reference to historical, cultural, educational and intellectual matters that hinge on governmental decision-making. I have to also add that the confusion about which I speak exists only to the benefit of the Western colonial states, and of their respective agendas.
As you see, I mention four terms in this unit’s title and you can easily understand that most of the people worldwide would associate one of these terms with another, thus forming two pairs, i.e. a) Governance & Politics, and b) Religion & Theology.
These two groups of terms are very different in the sense that, with respect to the second pair, both ‘religion’ and ‘theology’ always existed, whereas as regards the first pair, only ‘governance’ existed always.
The two groups differ also in another manner; whereas ‘religion’ and ‘theology’ are considered and defined as different (despite the fact that many people confuse them and at times view them as interchangeable), ‘governance’ and ‘politics’ are ostensibly confused whereas they are different, in the sense that ‘politics’ is only one form of ‘governance’. In this regard, one must add that an enduring, multi-layered and systematic effort has been deployed worldwide over the past 100 years (and more) to deceitfully portray all types of ‘governance’ as ‘politics’ and to make the average people believe that the way societies were always ruled or governed can be called ‘politics’. That’s very wrong.
To further implement this calamitous forgery and widely diffuse this disastrous delusion, Western colonial academics constructed the absurd term ‘Political History’, which helps them engulf hundreds of millions of unsuspecting students into an enormous misconception that leads only to incomprehension and to a mistaken interpretation of historical facts. In fact, ‘Political History’ existed only in lands where, and in periods when, ‘politics’ was the locally prevailing system of governance.
Erroneous definitions of ‘governance’ make the term so generic that it can fit even companies, corporations and organizations; it is subsequently thought to be purely materialistic of nature, as if the governance of a country could possibly be an affair absolutely deprived of spiritual and moral dimensions. This most unfortunate and disastrous situation leads to extreme vulgarization of the society, which is governed by idiotic, pathetic and ominous people who believe that governance can possibly be unrelated to spirituality and morality. Prompt consequences of such a decayed and utterly worthless social environment are the catastrophic rise of lawlessness among rulers (: their laws are not laws), and the spread of criminality, monstrosity and bestiality among the people, who inhabit that deviate society and country; then the final decomposition and the ultimate disappearance of that country are highly ostensible. Examples: ‘the action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc.’, and ‘the activity of governing a country or controlling a company or an organization; the way in which a country is governed or a company or institution is controlled’
At times, verbosity is tantamount to nothingness; the English Wikipedia constitutes a good example in this regard, because it helps diffuse the confusion I already spoke about (‘governance’ and ‘politics’): ‘Governance is the process of interactions through the laws, norms, power or language of an organized society over a social system (family, tribe, formal or informal organization, a territory or across territories). It is done by the government of a state, by a market, or by a network. It is the decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that leads to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions. In lay terms, it could be described as the political processes that exist in and between formal institutions’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance
To add insult to injury, the same site adds the following as part of the definition: ‘A variety of entities (known generically as governing bodies) can govern. The most formal is a government, a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system (such as a state) by establishing laws. Other types of governing include an organization (such as a corporation recognized as a legal entity by a government), a socio-political group (chiefdom, tribe, gang, family, religious denomination, etc.), or another, informal group of people’.
Every definition of the term ‘governance’ that happens to be associated with this approach is entirely false and does not represent in anything the historicity of the term, the way societies were governed, and the conviction of people from different backgrounds, civilizations and times as regards how their governance was, why it was so or who specified how humans should be governed.
To effectively block every access to the aforementioned issues, which are not reflected in modern times’ definitions of the term, modern scholars incessantly produce articles and books, using the false term ‘Political History’ whereas this term is historically irrelevant in most of the cases.
There were no ‘politics’ and ‘Political History’ in Ancient Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Cush, Hittite Anatolia, Yemen, Iran, Turan (Central Asia and Siberia), China, India, Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria, Mexico and Peru; and similarly, there were no ‘politics’ and ‘Political History’ among the Ancient Somalis (Punt), the Phoenicians, the Aramaeans, the Armenians, the Georgians, the Scythians, the Celts, the Cimmerians, the Achaeans, the Ionians, the Etruscans, the Teutons, the Slavs, the Huns, the Mongols, and the numerous African and Asiatic nations that were organized as either proper kingdoms or tribal confederations.
Similarly, there were no ‘politics’ and ‘Political History’ in the momentary empire of Alexander the Great, in the various kingdoms of his successors (Seleucid Syria, Bactria, Ptolemaic Egypt, Attalid Anatolia, and Macedonia) and in the Roman Empire (from Octavian to Constantine I the Great and afterwards until 1453 and the Fall of Constantinople).
Equally, there were no ‘politics’ and ‘Political History’ in the Christian Nestorian communities in Asia, in the Manichaean Uyghur kingdom, in the early Islamic community around prophet Muhammad in Medina and in Mecca, and in the Islamic caliphates, emirates, sultanates, khanates, sheikhdoms and kingdoms down to 1923 and the abolition of the caliphate. The period of Western colonial involvement and interference and the time of the subsequent decadence and decomposition are of course excluded in the aforementioned statement for obvious reasons; it was then that the evilness of ‘politics’ started being malignantly introduced, masqueraded as ‘progress’, ‘modernization’ and similar nonsensical lies.
Last but not the least, there were no ‘politics’ and ‘Political History’ in the Soviet Union, in the state of Kemal Atatürk (Türkiye), and in the Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo (中华人民共和国/People’s Republic of China).
With the exception of the aforementioned three modern states, which were/are unrelated to politics and which were established over the past 105 years, throughout the History of the Mankind, ‘Governance’ was always conceived and accepted by all the inhabitants of a country and by all the members of a society, nation, tribe, clan or family as divinely inspired, spiritually implemented, morally guided, religiously endorsed, culturally corroborated, and intellectually-artistically praised.
DEFINITION
Governance has inalienably been the quintessence of human activity on Earth before we pass -generation after generation- away to Immortality; governing the smallest social cell or the tiniest group of humans (i.e. a family) demands wisdom superior to that needed for morally conducting one’s own independent life. From the earliest Sumerian agglomerations and pre-dynastic Egypt to the Tengrist beliefs of the first Siberian and Central Asiatic nomads and from the first small societies in China to the most rudimentary social structures in Africa, in the land of the Olmecs, and in the Andes at the time of Caral-Supe culture, Governance was viewed as the human effort to solemnly reflect the perfection of the spiritual universe on the surface of the Earth.
The best definition of Governance is the shortest and the oldest: ‘as above so below’. This maxim reflected the concept and the world view behind every empire in the History of Mankind. From the world’s earliest empire, that of Sargon of Akkad, to the Turanian Empire of Timur (Tamerlane), governance was in the hands of an Emperor, and not a high priest. Despite the incessant, antediluvian and postdiluvian efforts of an evil priesthood to introduce forms of Papo-Caesarism, the History of the Mankind was a permanent quest for the perfect Caesaropapism. That is why the spiritually most conscious emperors (those of Assyria), before being rulers of their land, they were ‘Kings of the Universe’ (sar kissati).
In Kemet (Ancient Egypt), the pharaohs were divine, and every one of them had to plainly declare his universal world view and to spiritually color his governance in the five Pharaonic names that he would chose as his, at the time of his coronation. Furthermore, each and every pharaoh had to perform as an exemplary embodiment of Horus, the Egyptian Savior and Messiah or Mahdi, who will eliminate Seth, the Ancient Egyptian Satan and Antichrist (Masih al-Dajjal), in an epic battle at the End of Time, thus ushering the Mankind into a paradisiacal society.
Horus, the Egyptian Messiah (left) vs. Seth, the Egyptian Antichrist (right)
Representation of the final battle between the Messiah (Horus) and the Antichrist (Seth) on the inner side of the external wall (western part) of the Horus Temple at Edfu, in Upper Egypt; depicted as double (on the shore and on the sailing boat) and superb, Horus demolishes Seth, portrayed as a small hippopotamus (and in other relief panels of the same wall as an insignificant crocodile).
Similar eschatological concepts and epics we attest in Assyria and in Hittite Anatolia, but there was never an eschatological notion without the respective cosmogonic narrative, cosmological description, and imperial quest. The reason is very simple: irrespective of the number of inhabitants (just 10000 people or even 1000000 people, which was a huge number in the Antiquity), the empire had to always be the perfect reflection of the divine order and of the spiritual universe on Earth. This had to be so because Man was created as a king, and he had therefore to act as a king; in reality, a king or emperor was only the divinely blessed ‘king of kings’ and in the successful empires, all men were treated as noble and royal humans by the emperor. The same concept was preserved in Islam, as per the principles of which Man is declared as the Caliph (lit. ‘Representative’) of God on Earth; that’s why the term ‘caliphate’ was used.
The modern notion of the term ’empire’ is materialistic, quantitative and therefore meaningless. People designate as ’empire’ a kingdom that happens to expand out of its traditional border; that’s silly. In the Antiquity, the distinction between ‘king’ and ’emperor’ was made thanks to few exceptional terms that were used in the case of the several kings whose spiritual force, intellectual clarity, and material deeds justified the distinction: ‘king of the four quarters’ (meaning that the empire was a reflection of the initial Paradise, which was divided into four parts by the four initial rivers), ‘stable king’, ‘strong king’ or ‘king of kings’.
The concept that Man was created as a ‘king’ is the cornerstone of Jesus’ teaching as documented in the Gospels; what all humans must seek, according to Jesus, is the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, which is the effective function, fruitful performance, and conscious synergy of all the components of the human being (soul, character and body) at the ethereal plane exclusively. By deliberately using the term ‘kingdom’ (and not ‘sphere’, ‘plane’, ‘level’, etc.), Jesus made it clear that the sole possible way of governance humans have been created to have is a divinely inspired, spiritually implemented, morally guided, religiously endorsed, culturally corroborated, and intellectually-artistically praised kingdom.
In other words, ‘Governance’ has nothing to do with the barbarian, inhuman and evil Athenian ‘Agora’ or Roman Senate, let alone the modern Western states’ disreputable brothels that are euphemistically called ‘parliaments’. In any case, one must add that the Athenian deviation and the Roman misfortune are not due to local conditions. As a matter of fact, the example was given to both of them by the system of governance that the Phoenician colons established throughout the Mediterranean in each and every of their colonies; whereas in Phoenicia, the small local states were organized as kingdoms (Arad, Byblos, Sidon, Tyre, etc.) after the earlier (2nd millennium BCE) Canaanite model (notably Ugarit, the earliest Translation Center in World History), the Phoenician colonies overseas during the 1st millennium BCE were organized as democratic republics.
Centuries before the ignorant barbarians of Rome and Athens established their wretched non-monarchical systems, the greatest Phoenician colony Carthage (Qart Hadasht: the ‘New City’) was founded in 814 BCE, and it was governed by the democratically elected Shoftim (plural of Shophet). The Shoftim (lit. ‘Judges’) were entrepreneurs and traders, captains and owners of companies specializing in the exploitation of Carthaginian colonies’ (in Libya, in the Iberian Peninsula, in Sicily, in Sardinia, and throughout NW Africa as far in the South as today’s Sierra Leone) natural resources, their extraction and collection, their transportation, and their sale in other parts of the Mediterranean, notably Phoenicia, Egypt, etc., and further beyond to the sole superpower of the then world, Assyria. In fact, what happened in Modern Times between England and America occurred first between Tyre and Qart Hadasht in the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE: the colony totally eclipsed the metropolis. In fact, within 200 years, Carthage outshined all the maritime kingdoms of Phoenicia combined, thus providing the first historically documented ‘sea power’ in World History.
Carthage today and in historical representation; the Carthaginian Empire (map)
Within this context, one can easily understand that the world’s earliest parliament (from which originate all similar institutions in South Balkans, the Italian Peninsula, Western Europe, and North America) was the ultimate venue for long discussions and debates about the exploitation of natural resources located within the sphere of the immense maritime Carthaginian (or Punic) Empire, the transportation, storage and sale of goods and merchandises, the navigation, further explorations, and the division of this wealth among the great magistrates and potentates of Carthage, as well as about the commercial profit and the business improvement, i.e. simple and low level activities of humans that are totally out of the sphere of the spiritual world. In other words, the Carthaginian Senate was properly speaking a merchant house, meticulously recording and fixing financial details, solving conflicts of interest, and examining other trivial issues pertaining to the material life and the financial profit of the representative body’s members.
That’s why they did not have a proper king (let alone an emperor) and no real monarch could ever exist among them, because no true sovereign deals with petty affairs like those of the Carthaginian Republic. This system affected very negatively the local people, namely the Carthaginians, all the Phoenician newcomers, and, preponderantly, the indigenous Berbers, who ensured the land and desert routes across the Atlas and the Sahara. There were of course many temples in Carthage, but religion became a rather ceremonial story, featuring cults and feasts in guise of tradition, detonating the average believer’s sentimentalism in the process, but having almost nothing to do with spirituality, except for black magic; this is so because the Carthaginian ‘gods’ were effectively subordinated to the material benefit that they defended and even ‘consecrated’. And black magic is nothing more than the blasphemous consecration of material benefits as the ultimate rejection of the Creation, and of the Destiny of the Mankind.
So, we can safely claim now that the correct definition of the devious Carthaginian system of governance was at the very antipodes of that of the traditional imperial system of governance: ‘as below so above’. This counterfeit system brings forth utter disorder, explicit paranoia, extreme immorality, overwhelming lawlessness, vicious individualism, and irreversible inhumanity. The invisible force that generated this immense negativity is, of course, the sea; such a monstrous system of governance could never be formed in a great plain, in a fertile valley, in a major plateau or atop of hills and mountains – only in a misfortunate coastal city or in an island.
This ominous situation -viewed as a concept- had nothing to do with the traditional trade of the Oriental Empires, as documented by numerous historical texts, notably Hatshepsut’s Expedition to Punt; the early commercial contacts and affairs were absolutely subordinated to the spiritual needs of the entire Empire, being totally deprived of any notion of individual profit. But in the case of Carthage and all the similar, posterior states and pseudo-empires, due to the vicinity of the sea, what was really happening was that, in reality, the entire state was a form of ‘institutionalized trade of individual character’.
This evil system of governance was diffused across the Mediterranean and prevailed in some tiny Ionian and Dorian cities in South Balkans, notably Corinth and Athens; as one could surely expect, it produced intentions of imperial character in a small scale of course, and it inevitably ended up with the destruction of Athens by Sparta (404 BCE), the subsequent subordination of Corinth and Athens to Macedonia (336 BCE), and the Roman obliteration of Corinth (146 BCE). Even worse, with the Roman conquest and ruination of Carthage (146 BCE), the basics of the Carthaginian concept of evil governance (institutionalized trade of individual character) spread among the earlier impecunious but militaristic and traditionalist Roman senators and ultimately became the reason of the collapse of the Res Publica Romana, and of the rise of the Imperium Romanum.
The idiotic Roman Emperors did something even worse that the pecunious Punic Shoftim had been wise enough never to attempt; they tried to use the material profit, which was over-centralized in one person’s hands (something that had never been the case in Carthage), in order to systematically wage invasions and wars, finance a terrible mechanism of local oppression, and subsidize unprecedented pompous ceremonies and festivities in a desperate attempt to imitate the Oriental Empires. This was absolutely pathetic for three reasons:
First, these ceremonies were entirely deprived of spirituality, mainly geared for the elite rather than the entire nation, and ostensibly distinct from the local popular religion.
Second, as concept, the ‘maritime empire’, which is merely institutionalized trade of individual character, cannot be a proper universal empire. It cannot combine trade across the seas and land expansion, which is a trait proper to all the true and original empires and which involves a strong dose of military doctrine, absolute order, and unmatched self-command. Quite wisely, the Carthaginians did not bother to invade the entire NW Africa, making a continental empire from Libya to Cameroon. They knew that such an effort would be absurd.
The ill-fated Roman Empire intended to walk at the same time on two roads leading to opposite directions. For a universal empire, it was located in the wrong place; for a ‘maritime empire’, it had impossible universal aspirations and an unnecessary militaristic character. The Romans failed to become the prosperous successors to the maritime Carthaginian Empire and they were unable to effectively inherit the supreme Oriental imperial tradition, namely that of Assyria. The catastrophic Roman wars with Iran, which lasted almost 700 years, were all due to both empires’ rivalry about the Imperial Heritage of Assyria; but imperial aspirations and maritime expeditions against the Yemenite kingdoms of Sheba and Himyar (like the one undertaken by Aelius Gallus in 26-25 BCE) can never make an effective combination.
The temple of Marib (capital of the ancient Yemenite kingdom of the Sheba / Sabaeans) and, below, the remains of the ancient Marib dam
Zafar (capital of the ancient Yemenite kingdom of Himyar); Aden (below)
Third, with the diffusion of Oriental cosmogonies, cosmologies, eschatologies, cults, religions, popular religions, mysteries and cultures in the Roman Empire, Rome ceased to be a proper empire in terms of spirituality, moral, popular religion, culture, cosmology, and eschatology. The vast extent of this unprecedented phenomenon draws a deep line between the genuine Oriental Empires (Akkad, Egypt, Hittite Anatolia, Assyria, Babylonia, and Iran) and Rome.
Pompeii Iseum (temple of Isis); Pompeii villa of the mysteries (below)
Rome, Mithraeum (temple of Mithras) in the Basilica of San Clemente
————————————————————-
Before Rome, there was never an empire flooded by foreign religions and cultures, which were particular to another empire. As a universal structure of governance, every empire based its material function on spiritual considerations of universal order, eventually containing spiritual and cultural subsystems (other nations’ religions and cultures). However, Egypt was never flooded by Assyrian cults, concepts and myths, and Assyria was never impacted by Egyptian spirituality, mysteries and culture. The same was valid for Nabonid Babylonia and Achaemenid Iran.
Due to its self-contradictory components and inclinations, internal inconsistencies and external cataclysmic impact, the Roman Empire finally collapsed only to become a typical Oriental Empire with a theologically composed religion (Christianity), very different in essence, nature, functions, attributes, symbols, and narratives from the religions of the ancient empires. While becoming finally a universal empire with Christianity as the official state religion, the Roman Empire lost its aspect of maritime empire; and this is very clearly noticed, when comparing the state and its commercial and maritime activities in the early 2nd century and in the late 4th century.
The entire process was completed at the times of Justinian I (527-565 CE), and despite the Reconquista of so many lands around the Mediterranean, the Oriental state takes firmly the appearance of a universal (now called ecumenical) empire headquartered in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Balkans and endowed with several ‘colonies’, notably in the Italian Peninsula, Carthage, Sicily, and the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula.
Taking the Roman Empire as the model state, all the modern colonial states of Western Europe (Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England) and the United States signed their own death warrant, because the model is defective, morbid and abortive of nature. On the contrary, the Eastern Roman Empire could be taken as an imperial universal model, but in this case, Heraclius (610-641 CE) is de facto much closer to Sennacherib (745-681 BCE, reigned after 705 BCE), Shalmaneser III (893-824 BCE, reigned after 859 BCE) and Sargonid Assyria (722-609 BCE) than to Sulla (138-78 BCE), Crassus (115-53 BCE), and the Roman Republic.
B. Religion
Using this term, I herewith speak exclusively of the ‘official’ religion of a state, nation, population or community – not the popular religion about which I already spoke in Unit II E. Religion is widely confused with spirituality and theology; this confusion is deliberately caused by the institutions that administer every ‘official’ religion. The reason for this confusion is that, without it, the religious institutions will lose their entire grip on the wealth, the natural resources, the economy, the society and the governance of the community, population, nation or state.
Most of the existing definitions of religion are nowadays false, deliberately mistaken, intentionally ideologized, and utterly distorted; alternatively, they can be so general that they become useless. A good example is offered by the English version of the Wikipedia: ‘Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements; however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion).
Everyone can understand how ridiculous the following phrase is: “a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations”! It seems they want to provide readers with a definition that is not a definition! Same of the ludicrous choice of words: “spiritual elements”! There cannot be ‘spiritual elements’ without a ‘spiritual universe or world’, but this truth is prohibited throughout this site of atheist militantism.
Other definitions focus on beliefs without mentioning anything about the central organization that administers each religion; they mention only ‘buildings’! Example:
‘Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple’ (for religion as uncountable noun) and ‘A religion is a particular system of belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this system’ (for religion as countable noun) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/religion
To deliberately decry the term and offer a most corrupt, deviate and vicious idea of it, the felony of Cambridge atheism suggests two definitions: ‘the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship’ (which is too general) and ‘an activity that someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly’ (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/religion), which is an outrage, because it takes the mistaken and distorted use of the term, which was produced within a degraded and corrupted environment, in order to present is as possible part of the definition. The criminal act of the Cambridge dictionary is tantamount to deliberate spiritual genocide, and it will inevitably trigger a truly devastating punishment. Vicious institutions that become the very mechanisms of systematic distortion have always an exemplary end, because the nature itself rejects them.
If almost all the contemporary definitions of the term ‘religion’ are erroneous and worthless, this does not mean that 20th and 19th c. encyclopedias and dictionaries offered pertinent definitions. In fact, the term was always troublesome. Within the context of the Ancient Oriental Empires, religion was the way the average people could be connected with the spiritual world; however, in most of the cases, it was a matter of indirect contact through intermediates (i.e. the priests and the high priests) and of representation of the divine and the spiritual world by means of symbols.
This situation ended up with the average adepts feeling an incandescent love for the aspects of the divinity represented to them; this subconscious love was expressed via reliefs, statues, and icons. This developmentwas a priestly crime, because in this manner they straightforwardly exploited the innocent believers, absorbed their spiritual, sentimental and mental energy, turning them to polytheists and depriving them from their spirituality, i.e. their chance to establish a connection among their body, their character and their soul. This fact constituted complete dehumanization of the humans. The ‘religion’ in which the souls of the faithful are held captive by the priests is a criminal and inhuman institution; one can describe these priests as the worst crooks, thieves and embezzlers -or even zombies- in the History of the Mankind.
Karl Marx called this type of religion as the ‘opium of the people’ and he was very right; but this statement did not end but only launched the discussion about the existence of the spiritual world, the spiritual drive of the human being, and the imperative need of all humans to establish -each one independently- a fully operable interconnection among the three parts of their being.
With minimal exceptions (noticeably those of the adamant monotheist Pharaoh Akhenaten in 14th c. BCE Egypt, prophet Jonah’s who preached in Sargonid Nineveh at the end of the 8th c. BCE Assyria, and prophet Zardosht / Zoroaster, who introduced monotheism among the early Achaemenid rulers in 7th/6th c. BCE Iran), all the ancient Oriental religions became the spiritual prison of unfortunate and misguided nations that went astray and sailed adrift. Still, those religions fully predetermined the faiths of the Hebrews, having subsequently a cataclysmic impact on the formation of Christianity and Islam.
That is why the greatest effort to exit from that world was deployed by Mani, and Manichaeism was a far more comprehensive system than Christianity (in any of its diverse Christological forms) or Islam in rejecting the earlier History of the Mankind; simply, it was so negative that it mistook the corrupt elements of the then already decayed world as ‘negative’ whereas they were ‘positive’ in their origin. However, contrarily to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Zoroaster, Jesus and Muhammad, who sought to demonstrate that, in spite of the undeniable fall, there could be salvation for the Mankind (via repentance), Mani attempted to provide salvation through extinction, which can hardly be viewed as compatible with the Creation. That is why in Islam we find diametrically opposed views on Zoroaster and Mani; the latter was never accepted as a prophet throughout the Islamic Ages, and the Manicheans were viewed as an evil group of infidels.
How could one define the Ancient Oriental religions? They consisted truly in a ‘state within the state’, because as organizations of faith and cult administration, they also assumed the absolute control of several other major fields of social life. Exploration, science, research, education, intellectual life, cultural activities and traditions, public administration and socio-professional formation (not in all but in many fields), along with spirituality, divination, moral tutorship, cosmogony, cosmology, mythology and eschatology depended on the temples. The temples functioned as universities, schools, research centers, secret societies, initiation organizations, mystical orders and -to some extent- governmental bodies.
The vast temple complex of Karnak, involving the temples of Amun, Mut and Khonsu
——————————————————————-
The temples controlled a significant part of the socio-economic life and constituted the only center of power, except the palace and the army; it should be added at this point that the palace also functioned as the main center of the government and as real headquarters of the army. All the same, this situation must not be viewed as a dictatorial, tyrannical rule, because in reality, there was not one religion or one temple, but many; different priesthoods waged real and interminable wars one upon the other. Among the many different religious-theological systems and temples that existed within one country there was a really ferocious clash of power.
The palace and the army were also involved in these developments for many reasons; first, each pharaoh was formed / educated by, and therefore used to side with, this or the other priesthood. So, as one could normally expect, each pharaoh would wholeheartedly favor his spiritual ‘brethren’, resentfully depriving opponents of their privileges. Second, the palatial priests, scribes, translators and advisers, as well as the army officers, who belonged to the class of major land owners and noble families, had also been earlier formed / educated in the different temples; they should therefore be expected to systematically support ideas and concepts cherished only by that part of the religious establishment, while opposing the other.
Consequently, we can conclude that the ancient religions were simply ‘spirituality institutionalized in a manner to effectively interrupt the direct contact with one’s soul that every person can and must achieve’. Ancient Oriental religions exemplified the interposition of priests between the human being and God. For this to be effectively achieved, the cult had to occupy a central part, whereas the spiritual exercises had to be reserved to the well trained and initiated priests, noblemen, generals and land owners, who would be irrevocably tied to one specific temple (namely the one where they were formed and initiated in the mysteries) and would promote that temple’s interests during their entire lifetime. Long liturgies, litanies and festivities along with ceremonial procedures had to replace spirituality, so that the spiritual force of the followers be permanently absorbed and used by the numerous high priests–zombies that became powerful only because their adepts were reduced to powerless, spiritless beings.
DEFINITION
Religion was not meant to be something so dirty and evil; whereas spirituality is the practical ability of the human being to act in full synergy of his soul, character and body, religion has to be the cerebral column of the human being’s character (founded on a person’s heart, mind and solar plexus). Religion, as sentimental and mental activity, involves the comprehension of the world (world perception), the knowledge of the universes (spiritual and material), the full understanding of the divine orders and the moral standards, the willingness to act according to the Divine Ideas, the permanent desire to discover and tell the Truth, the resolute decision to be always Just, Impartial and Selfless, the love to please the Creator, the need to express one’s own piety toward the Lord, and the magnanimity toward the other creatures of God.
When simple people nowadays define religion as ‘the means to contact God’, they make a mistake, because they
a) do not know what spirituality is,
b) amalgamate religion with spirituality, and
c) imagine that the heart and the brain can contact God, whereas only the human soul can possibly contact God.
Mental or sentimental belief is not tantamount to the true, spiritual belief. Believing in God via words, feelings and thoughts is a far lower level of belief; of course, it is not objectionable. Not at all! But it is not sufficient. It brings minimal results, while also exposing the believers to offenses expressed by the unfaithful, the atheists and the enemies of the Faith. This is how people were led to the extreme misuse of the verb ‘to believe’ in all the languages. Only because of the disappearance of the spiritual belief (a fact for which the religious organizations are responsible) can one misuse the verb ‘to believe’ as in the following sentence:
“Mr. A believes in Communism and Mr. B believes in Christianity”
or alternatively
“Mr. X believes Karl Marx and Mr. Z believes Jesus”
(note: it goes without saying that, in the first part of the two sentences, various ideologies, theories, philosophers and intellectuals can invariably replace the examples given, and similarly, in the second part of the two sentences, the names of different religions and of other ‘founders of religion’ can possibly alternate with those mentioned).
The limits between spirituality and religion are nowadays so confused that I have to offer some examples. When Moses (Musa) and Aaron (Harun) go to the Pharaoh to petition him about the right of the Israelites to go, we have an event included in a religious narrative; the Book of Exodus mentions this story. When Moses’s staff becomes a snake and then turns back into a staff (Exodus 4:2-4), we have an incident that reveals the divine initiation of Moses. This fact relates to spirituality.
When Jonah flees from before Yahweh and goes down to Yaffo to sail to Tarshish (Jonah 1:2) or when Jonah goes one day’s walk into the city of Nineveh and starts preaching (Jonah 3:4), we read about events that are important for a religious narrative. But when Jonah was in the belly of the sea creature three days and three nights (Jonah 2:1), we learn about an incident that reveals the divine initiation of Jonah. This fact relates to spirituality.
When Jesus speaks to people saying that “a prophet has respect, but not in his homeland nor in his family. And because they didn’t believe in him he didn’t do many miracles there” (Matthew 13:57-58), we read about the teachings of Jesus, whom the Fathers of the Christian Church defined as the founder of their religion. This excerpt is a religious narrative, and this point of Jesus’ teaching is an inalienable part of the Christian religion. But when Jesus and Peter are said to have walked on the water (Matthew 14:26-32), we attest a case of spiritual initiation of Peter, offered to him by Jesus. This fact relates to spirituality.
When Muhammad accepted the second pledge at al Aqabah (few kilometers far from the historical center of Mecca), during which 75 residents of Yathrib (later known as Medina) declared loyalty to him (during the Tashreeq Days: 11th to 13th Dhu’l Hijjah 622 CE), we learn about an important episode that triggered the famous Hijra (i.e. the migration from Mecca to Medina). But when we read in the Quran about prophet Muhammad the verses “And he certainly saw that (angel descend) a second time at the Lote Tree (Sidrat al-Muntaha) of the most extreme limit (: in the seventh heaven), near which is the garden of (eternal) residence (: the original Paradise), while the Lote Tree was overwhelmed with ‘divine’ splendors!” {Surah 53 (An-Najm):13-18}, we understand that this was part of Muhammad’s nocturnal travel (Isra’ and Mi’raj). This fact relates to spirituality.
Exactly because the religion is the cerebral column of the human being’s character, consisting in a sentimental and mental activity shared by every faithful, religion in its original form is not a systematic dogma, let alone an organization. A truthful and original form of religion is preached by a luminous mystic and messenger of God, who is the embodiment of the perfect spiritual master for the population to which he is sent. These few, supreme and sublime people do not care about the material goods and posterior reputation; this is so because there is nothing important in the material universe for a spiritual ‘pole’ to possibly care about. Of course, several names have been recorded, but one must bear always in mind that these are only a few among those luminous people.
The ‘messengers’ of God or ‘prophets’ or luminous mystics did not preach ‘religions’ – in any sense the term has had during its long history. I say so because historically the term ‘religion’ has been associated with various perceptions of ‘systems’, but in reality there cannot be anything ‘systematic’ in the reflection of the spiritual universe and order in the material universe.
In fact, the core of the divine teaching of all the ‘prophets’ is the quintessence of the Creation, the reminder of the ‘secret code of the Creation’ that the humans have totally lost after the first fall, being uninterruptedly deprived of it afterwards. The notion of the ‘system’ pertains to the finite world; but the spiritual universe is infinite and therefore the reflection of the spiritual universe and order in the material universe is of absolutely unfathomable nature for average humans.
At this point, one has to make a clarification, which is very easy for many to make, but all prefer to dodge it; all religions are conditioned on the initial fall of the Man. There is no ‘religion’ in the initial Paradise; instead, there are absolute spiritual consciousness and perfect synergy of the soul, the character and the body. Only because of the original fall and following many other subsequent falls, several prophets ‘had’ to be sent in order to demonstrate to all humans what they had meanwhile forgotten.
There is no ‘reason’ in Human History, and there is no ‘reason’ in the human nature; what people called ‘reason’ in different times was the common denominator of their abject ignorance, sinfulness, and delusion. Knowing this and having a supratemporal conception of the material universe, the prophets and the messengers, the mystics and the initiates ‘translated’ the divine reality into the various human languages and into the reasoning of the time they lived and preached in. Each of the sacred books of all the religions reveals therefore only an infinitesimal part of the Divine Truth that the prophets and the mystics were sent to convey.
There is no supratemporal validity in any sacred book in its totality; on the contrary, there is supratemporal truth in many specific excerpts of each sacred book. That is why the idea that a holy book is on a par with God constitutes extreme blasphemy. But the blasphemous religious organizations have the need to diffuse this villainous falsehood in order to justify their raison d’être. That is why there is no ‘prophet’ or luminous mystic who did not fight against an earlier established religious society or organization.
This shows that, when organizations undertake the hypothetical task to perpetuate earlier teachings of mystics and preaching of prophets, every true spiritual and supratemporal element goes, the temporal notion prevails over the supratemporal, and the real meaning of both, the revealed sacred texts and the mystic’s or prophet’s discourses, get fully distorted, deliberately misinterpreted or even concealed and forgotten. Gradually, out of the small circle of followers, disciples and adepts of a mystic or prophet a larger circle is created and then an even larger and so on – only to take more and more distance from the original preaching of the mystic or prophet. In the process, the ‘original’ religion loses its contact with spirituality, inevitably becoming captive of ‘hermeneutics’ and ‘theologies’, which can comfortably portray Satan as the true God – on the basis of the distorted sacred texts and mystics’ or prophets’ discourses.
Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their children adoring the Only God, who was symbolized as a solar disc with emanating rays that end in hands offering Life (Ankh)
—————————————————————
That is why Akhenaten, who changed his original Pharaonic name Amenhotep IV, closed down all previous, idolatrous and polytheistic temples of Egypt, terminating all the priests, banning all fake gods (because all the earlier perceived ‘aspects of the Divine’ had already been individualized and believed as independent ‘gods’), and prohibiting the anthropomorphic representation of the Only God. He relocated the capital to Middle Egypt to ensure that the old priesthood and the associated social context would not affect the return to the original, monotheistic religion of Ancient Egypt that he so fervently preached. The great pharaoh, high priest, spiritual master, groundbreaking thinker, visioner and poet can definitely be considered as a ‘prophet’ on the basis of Islamic principles and evaluations. His hymns to Aton were copied, translated into Ancient Hebrew, and included in the Biblical Psalms. The religion instituted by Akhenaten had minimal cult, few priests, intense spirituality, stressed piety, and no mysteries. However, Akhenaten failed and the polytheistic religion of the Theban Trinity (Amun, Mut and Khonsu) was restored.
We cannot properly say that Moses literally speaking ‘preached’ a religion. He took the Hebrews and the monotheistic Egyptians out of Egypt; he guided them in terms of spirituality and morality, but the depravity of the average people forced him to shatter the Tablets with the Ten Commandments. He so much failed that he was not even allowed to enter the Promised Land, and he died alone in the wasteland of the Sinai. Posterior Hebrew priests added however tons of ‘religious’ laws to effectively fabricate the enormous Pentateuch that Moses certainly did not write. Later, during the time of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, in most of the cases when prophets are mentioned, we notice immediately that they are in straight clash with the kings and the priests, due to the wicked manners that prevailed due to these two institutions, namely the palace and the temple.
Jonah marked a spectacular success in Nineveh, but the Assyrians were the main, central and supreme nation of the Ancient World; the Assyrians were the first nation in the History of the Mankind to identify themselves as the Chosen People tasked by God with the world governance and the administration of the worldly affairs. Not only did they accept Jonah’s preaching, but they also repented and acted accordingly. Reconfirming their role as the focal point of the End Times, they abandoned their land at the end of the reign of Assurbanipal, taking also the Ancient Israelites with them, as this population had already been transported to the NE confines of the Assyrian Empire. Jesus spoke explicitly about the crucial role that the Assyrians will play at the End of Times and the Quran referred to the issue. After completing his preaching, Jonah sat under a small tree on the opposite side of Tigris (Dicle) River in order to observe the developments; however, Jonah understood that he failed to guarantee the permanence of the Assyrians in their own land throughout the ages, and for this he saddened greatly.
As Emperor of the Universe, Assurbanipal (reign: 669-625 BCE) was literarily bearing the entire universe over his head.
—————————————————–
Jesus rejected the Jewish religious establishment of the Pharisees in a most ferocious manner. Examining Jesus’ terminology in order to accurately understand what evil system of beliefs, practices, intentions and purposes Late Antiquity Judaism had been transformed into, we safely conclude that, in the name of the Mosaic Law, the evil and villainous rabbis of Talmudic Judaism purposefully implemented iniquity, lawlessness, arrogance, fanfare and wickedness, eliminating spirituality from among the faithful. Jesus understood clearly that, due to the sensationalism that the evil Pharisees provoked among the Jews of those days, the priests extorted the spiritual force of the average people in order to ensure material benefits and privileges for themselves. Jesus evidently tried to show how average people could find the true path to Faith, but this was not a religious ‘system’, let alone a ‘church’.
Jesus’ utter rejection of the Pharisees’ raison d’être is not a historical event, but a supratemporal instruction; it is tantamount to absolute repudiation of the Christian Church (this is said with respect to all past and present denominations) and of the similar Muslim structures and organizations. Jesus failed to overthrow the Pharisaic establishment; furthermore, we can even state that he knew very well that, in his name, an evil establishment would then be formed – in the near future. That’s why he took distance from that: “for the ruler of this world comes, and in me he has nothing” (John 14:30).
Muhammad rejected the religious establishment of the then Christian churches in a most ferocious manner, while also making a critical distinction among the Christian monks and priests. Quite interestingly, Muhammad’s distinction between good and evil Christians has nothing to do with the then existing denominations, namely the Nestorians, the Miaphysites (known also as ‘Monophysites’, but the term is clearly derogatory), and the Orthodox (who were not accepted as such by the Miaphysites, who reserved this term for themselves, utterly considering the Orthodox as heretics). Neither the Quran not the Hadith (oral traditions) of prophet Muhammad contain references to these names. However, the distinction is very clear and it is mentioned repeatedly in the Quran.
Indicatively, in the third Sura (chapter) of the Quran (titled ‘the Family of Imran’, i.e. Ioachim, the father of Virgin Mary), we read the following: “They are not all the same. Among the people of the Book is a community standing in obedience, reciting the verses of Allah during the night and prostrating in prayer. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to do good deeds. Those are among the righteous. Whatever good deeds they do will never be denied, for Allah knows well the righteous” (verses 113-115).
Similarly, in the fifth Sura of the Quran {titled ‘the Table’ (al Ma’idah/ ٱلمائدة), we read the following: “and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. When they listen to what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears for recognizing the truth” (verses 82-83).
Tabari’s excerpts about the mission of Dihyah al-Kalbi to Emperor Heraclius and the details of the discussions that prophet Muhammad’s envoy had with the Eastern Roman Emperor fully reconfirm the aforementioned approach, which is recorded in the Quran. In Constantinople and in Rome, there were two totally different groups of priests and monks fighting one upon the other. That is why Heraclius, who had personally accepted Muhammad as prophet even before the arrival of Dihyah al-Kalbi (while speaking with Muhammad’s most ferocious enemy Abu Sufyan, little time after his victory over Iran and his return to Jerusalem in 628 CE), failed to impose his belief on his own empire.
The letter of Prophet Muhammad to Emperor Heraclius that Dihyah al-Kalbi presented.
——————————————————————-
The ‘messengers’ of God or ‘prophets’ or luminous mystics did not properly found ‘religions’, as it is constantly stated today, but they rather reminded people what the only, true and original religion is (as stated in the definition above): a sentimental and mental effort to support -in each person independently- the spiritual life and its modalities.
Religion, in its original state, has little to do with narratives; Moses did not narrate stories about Abraham’s abandonment of his fatherland in South Mesopotamia. Jonah did not go to Nineveh to teach Ancient History of the Hebrews. Jesus did not expand on the relationship between Solomon and the Yemenite Queen of Sheba. Similarly, Muhammad did not describe details about Aaron (Harun), David (Dawud) and Yahya (John the Baptist). Prophets and luminous mystics are not historians and it is very erroneous to take them as such. Sent by God, presented by Archangel Gabriel and uttered by Muhammad, the Quran contained indeed many Biblical stories from both, the Old and the New Testament; but this is due to the role of Muhammad who sought to culturally Aramaize the Arabs for the needs of his preaching and to his struggle to dissociate his fellow countrymen from the ancient culture of Hejaz.
But for the religious organizations, the maximization of the importance of the various narratives helps as a smokescreen in order to fool the believers, to distract their interest from issues of spirituality, and to turn them to spiritless pawns. For this to be done, a good deal of ‘Theology’ is needed.
C. Theology
Most of the existing definitions of ‘theology’ are nebulous enough to allow people to believe that ‘religion’ and ‘theology’ are overlapping notions. Example: ‘a set of beliefs about a particular religion’ and ‘the study of religion and religious belief’ (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theology).
An even worse and deliberate distortion made in this regard concerns the utter confusion between
a- the true ‘theology’ (of a historical religion), which involves vast historical documentation (‘theological texts’), as in the case of Christianity the texts of the Fathers of the Christian Church (St. Basil bishop of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, etc.), and
b- the modern academic discipline of Theology, which is taught in universities.
It goes without saying that the latter is entirely unimportant and meaningless within the scope of a pertinent definition.
Example: ‘Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries. It occupies itself with the unique content of analyzing the supernatural, but also deals with religious epistemology, asks and seeks to answer the question of revelation. Revelation pertains to the acceptance of God, gods, or deities, as not only transcendent or above the natural world, but also willing and able to interact with the natural world and, in particular, to reveal themselves to humankind. While theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that helps them lead lives of obedience to the deities they follow or worship’. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology)
DEFINITION – PART I
Theology is in reality what most people across the Earth call ‘religion’ today; in every case of a different religion, this calamitous achievement was the result of the unfair, laborious, incessant, systematic, multifaceted and multilayered endeavors of the organization that administers the religion. I do describe these endeavors as unfair because they cannot be unbiased. Theological texts are written by humans in order to interpret, explain, and popularize sacred texts and discourses of persons deemed to be ‘holy’ or ‘sent by God’ (by the adepts of each religion). As such, theological texts inevitably express one person’s view of a spiritual or religious issue, consideration, affair or narrative; they therefore consist in a de facto alteration of the original issue, consideration, affair or narrative, as a personal projection onto the original fact. They therefore do not represent the genuine spiritual or religious occurrence and text, but another person’s understanding of them.
Either it occurred (according to Christianity) or it did not (as per the testimony of Islam), the Crucifixion is a spiritual eventuality; the texts of the New Testament and the Quran about the topic are religious texts concerning this spiritual eventuality. But what the Fathers of the Christian Church and the early Islamic theologians write about this topic constitute a (Christian and Islamic respectively) theological approach and interpretation. The theological texts do not have the value of a sacred or holy text, but they are able to (first slightly) modify the original text’s reception (by the believers) by adding extra details (disguised as explanations) of absolutely personal nature.
In striking contrast to the religious texts (generally deemed to be ‘sacred’), the theological texts are voluminous, very lengthy, and at times extremely biased; this is due to the fact that in reality the theological texts -almost all- were written with the intention to
a- add vast part of unsolicited and even reprehensible cult (liturgies, litanies, mysteries, festivities, representations and invariably pompous ceremonies) to the few, early religious traditions and spiritual practices,
b- attach excessive, interpretational literature to a briefly discussed story,
c- adjust the sacred texts and the religious narratives to the arbitrarily drawn conclusions of an author/theologian,
d- adapt several excerpts to the evolved beliefs of the faithful after several centuries,
e- transform the quintessence of the preaching of the supposed ‘founder of a religion’ into a pathetic acceptance of the prevailing worldly conditions many centuries later,
f- attack and disparage other interpretations of a spiritual occurrence or a religious narrative (even describing the proponents and their adepts as ‘heretics’ – which in reality is a nonexistent term),
g- assault other religions, theologies, philosophies, mysteries, esoteric schools, dogmas and cultures,
and/or
h- justify the spiritually unacceptable, religiously unnecessary, and therefore immoral formation and rise of an organization hypothetically ‘tasked’ (by whom? !!) to administer the faith and the cult of the adepts.
Theology contributes to the strengthening of an organization that administers the religion; and reversely, the religious organization that controls the faithful may produce tons of theological literature in support of their claims.
Theology may be very evil or very good; it can be God-sent or Satan-incited. Each single text or excerpt of a theological treatise has to be examined independently so that we draw a just and accurate conclusion about it. Throughout Human History, there was never a religion without an adjoined theology; there are few exceptions in this regard. The only period of a religion during which there was no theological activity is the original, i.e. the very beginning of a religion. In presence of the early humans, there was no theology; before the eyes of Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Jesus and Muhammad, there was no theology. This says much about this rapacious activity that wants to eliminate the ‘other’, if the ‘other’ brings forth criticism, disagreement or simply a different perspective. Trying to do the best, theology can bring forth the evil.
When people say that “religions cause wars”, they are either evil liars or idiotic fools. In reality, theologies cause wars, because as utter rejection of spirituality, a theology wants always to bring about the Paradise ‘hic et nunc’ – which is of course absurd and false. All the same, what we know nowadays as ‘religions’ are not properly speaking religions, but vast expanses of theological seas that contain a small island, as their religious nucleus; the only exceptions are several spiritual-religious faiths and practices that are cherished among remote indigenous nations – all those who are blessed enough not to have invented a writing system for their language.
However, today, it is utterly impossible (or even unthinkable) to reject the religious-theological incorporations or amalgamations and to reconstitute the original stage of a religion; this is due to the fact that we don’t have the necessary sources, while also lacking the vast resources needed for the task. Any simple attempt to reconstitute the original stage of a religion, by depriving it of the theological body that was gradually attached to it throughout the centuries, is unfortunately a fully ahistorical approach, which -in reality- leads to nowhere (or to an impasse). Contrarily, such an attempt is eventually possible only at an individual spiritual level.
This attempt may eventually bring forth results and correct conclusions if it happens to be undertaken at the academic-scientific-intellectual level, involving therefore access to hitherto unstudied sources and mobilization of an extraordinary number of unbiased scholars. But at the very religious level, it is evidently nonsensical. This is so because only a spiritually distinct personality, a ‘prophet’ or a luminous mystic can bring the faithful back in the correct track; then, when this spiritually distinct personality comes, we don’t have a laborious academic endeavor, but a new spiritual beginning. This was done with Moses, Jonah, Jesus and Muhammad. And it will occur again at the End of Time with the leading spiritual personalities whom all the religions heralded.
This fact shows how useless the modern science is; even if an enormous and unique effort is undertaken by unbiased researchers in possession of known and hitherto concealed sources, the hypothetically complete discovery of the original stage of a religion, void of the ulterior theological adjunction, will never be able to properly trigger a new spiritual-religious beginning or restart. This is due to the fact that the intellect is part of the material world and therefore intellectual-academic endeavors are in reality lifeless; this is so because life emanates only from the spiritual universe.
Seneca, Ancient Rome’s most erudite person ever, could never bring forth the reinstatement of the Ancient Roman religion in its original form; his monstrous suicide only confirms that knowledge without spirituality is worthless or even harmful.
Seneca (4 BCE – 65 CE)
——————————————–
Similarly, Arius and Nestorius failed whereas Muhammad marked an undeniable success; the two great theologians acted at the mental-intellectual-theological (i.e. material) level only. Either they knew it or not, their eventual success would hinge only on material resources (impact on the emperor, control of the army, tremendous increase in the number of their followers, etc.). But Muhammad initiated a new spiritual beginning, which apparently had the same fate as Moses’, Jonah’s and Jesus’ teachings, preaching, and divine calling.
Similarly, what Luther attempted -obliterating the Fathers of the Christian Church- was doomed to fail and it failed totally. His followers -historically viewed- are not Christians; this is so because rejection of the historical Christianity immediately turns a person into a non-Christian. All the so-called modern Christian denominations are not parts of Christianity in reality; they are bogus-religious systems of political scope, origin, purpose and target. In other words, they are fraudulent, deceptive systems that represent the ugliest form of evilness; that’s why their ‘pastors’ scream like the most ulcerous Taliban.
First Council of Nicaea at the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel; Luther could not understand that without the Fathers of the Church there no ecumenical councils, which is tantamount to dissolution of Christianity.
————————————————-
DEFINITION – PART II
In reality, theology is a creeper and a parasite, developed usually around a religion. Despite its vast contribution to the formation of the cult, theology absorbs the believers’ sentimentalism, turning the faith into doctrine and utterly promoting intellectual terrorism, mental rigorism, and verbal belligerence. In other words, theology alters the original religion and often clashes with popular religion; it definitely mortifies Moral, turning it from a lovely, voluntary contribution to the universal balance into an austere and heartless imposition of rules and prescriptions. Ultimately, theology kills spirituality, because theologians never need their adepts to achieve direct contact with their souls and thence with God. Speaking about these topics, I only mention the norm; it goes without saying that there are also exceptions, but they only confirm the veracity of my statements.
Theology existed since the early stages of the Ancient Oriental civilizations; a great number of Ancient Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, and Ugaritic theological texts have been unearthed, translated and published until now. Theologians were not very verbose and theological treatises were not very long at those days; it was sufficient to establish a new list of ‘gods’ (i.e. aspects of the Divine), to compose a radically different hymn to a ‘god’, to write the name of a ‘god’ or ‘hero’ differently (with several variable cuneiform Sumerograms or Assyrian-Babylonian syllabograms), to offer a distinct version of narrative, myth, epic, etc., or to elaborate a new epic or apocalyptic myth.
It is at times difficult to define where theology begins and religion leaves off within the context of the Ancient Oriental civilizations; the most common case is the attribution of different nature, characteristics, and activities to a ‘god’ (of one priesthood) by another priesthood. When the Iwnw (Heliopolitan) priests describe the benevolent activities and marvelous exploits of Isis, we have a ‘religious’ text. When the Memphitic priests of Ptah compose a structurally different and even alien Isis for the needs of their religion, thus attempting the spiritual subordination of Isis to Ptah, we apparently read a purely theological text.
Ptah temple at Memphis (above); statuette of Ptah (below)
Osiris (: Wser, i.e. the ‘Well Being’) and Isis-Hathor from Seti I temple at Abydos
——————————————————–
The complexity of this issue and the extreme ferocity of the theological wars that took place within the palaces and the temples of Mesopotamia and Egypt became apparently known to Zardosht (Zoroaster), who revealed Avesta while prohibiting the writing of the holy text of Zoroastrianism. Becoming well acquainted with the terrible wars between monotheistic Assyria and polytheistic Babylonia and Elam, Zoroaster identified the problem very well and tried fervently to eliminate the chance of a creeper that would absorb his revelation and eliminate the spiritual climax of his preaching – only for the material benefit of the Jesuit-styled Magi. Zoroaster entrusted the divine revelation of Avesta to the Achaemenid tribal leader (before the formation of a proper kingdom and later empire under Cyrus the Great), his family, and their secluded court priests.
Above: Magus with barsom from the Oxus treasure in Central Asia (stolen by the British Museum); Middle: rock relief of Magus with barsom in Dukkan-i Daoud, near Sar-e Pol-e Zohab (Kermanshah, Western Iran); Below: Magus with barsom and haoma cup from Phrygia (Ankara Museum).
——————————————————-
Zoroaster’s witty device infuriated the Magi, forcing them to abandon the epicenter of the vast Achaemenid Empire where the different nations were duly initiated to the faith preached by Zoroaster. That is why only in Caucasus, Syria and Anatolia the Magi were able to preach their Mithraism in guise of counterbalance to the official Iranian Achaemenid religion that we conventionally name ‘Zoroastrianism’. The exasperated Magi diffused incensed anti-Achaemenid propaganda, and this is what we encounter in texts about Ancient Ionian mystics like Pythagoras, in essays by Athenian philosophers like Plato, and in treatises by Lydian historians like Xanthus. Whatever people in Western Anatolia and South Balkans learned about Zoroaster was totally false and vertically contradictory to the imperial Iranian truth; this is so because it was filtered by the evil Mithraic Magi.
Ahura Mazda, the sole God of the Achaemenid emperors, who forcefully imposed Zoroastrianism among Iranians, thus enraging the Mithraic Magi.
———————————————————
From the above, it becomes crystal clear that initially and for several thousands of years, theology was inextricably associated with religion. A very low-level theology is what we nowadays call ‘philosophy’. In the ancient civilizations of the Orient, spirituality, religion and wisdom were absolutely indissociable; but as it is widely known, every achievement of the Ancient Oriental Empires was due to the methodic organization of their vast temples, which -as I already said- functioned as research centers, universities, libraries, and centers of initiation; thousands of priests lived and worked there specializing in all sectors of spiritual and material sciences. Quite contrarily, the tiny temples of Western Anatolia and South Balkans functioned exclusively as centers of cult; their minimal scientific knowledge and their quasi-nonexistent spirituality forced several people to migrate for studies in the East: Assyria, Babylonia, Phoenicia, Egypt and later Iran. Consequently, Carians, Lycians, Ionians, Aeolians, Thracians, Macedonians, Illyrians, Dorians and many other individuals from peripheral lands traveled to the Valley of the Nile, the coasts of Phoenicia, the plains of Mesopotamia, and the plateau of Iran, seeking the wisdom, the spirituality and the spiritual-material sciences that they could not find at home.
It goes without saying that the lunatic priests of Dionysus, the heinous sorcerers of Hephaestus, and the fanatic sacerdotal colleges of Poseidon did not possess the foremost spiritual force of the Assyrian priests of Ishtar of Arbela, the scientific knowledge of the Babylonian hierophants of Nabu in Borsippa, the cosmological expertise of the astronomers / astrologers of Hathor at Denderah (Upper Egypt), and the eschatological hindsight of the prophets of Horus of Edfu. When the Ionians, the Aeolians and the Dorians, who went to study for many years in the Oriental temples, returned to their homelands and understood how fake the spiritual force of the local priests was, how deceitful their ‘miracles’ (euphemistically called ‘theurgy’) were, how minimal their knowledge was, how insignificant their skills were in terms of Cosmogony / Cosmology, and how nonsensical their eschatological lies were, they revolted. Out of humility toward their Oriental masters, they did not claim to possess their wisdom, and they coined a new term to describe themselves; they therefore were (not true ‘wise men’ but) simply the ‘friends’ or ‘lovers’ of wisdom (meaning that they had not yet achieved to reach and possess it): ‘philosophoi’ (philosophers).
Formidable spiritual symbolisms: Ishtar of Arba-ilu (Erbil)
———————————————————————
That is why I already said that the so-called Ancient Greek philosophy is a low-level theology; making analogies between the ancient religions of the countries where they had migrated to and studied and their local religion, the so-called Ancient Greek philosophers were theologians who tried to explain the world to their limited audience, by using mythical concepts in non-mythical wording. In its original stage, ‘philosophy’ did not have anything to do with ‘reason’ or ‘reasoning’. Modern definitions are once again nebulous, irrelevant, nonsensical, and misleading.
Ancient Greek philosophy ceased to be a theology, as soon as agnosticism surfaced; this development was due to the total lack of spirituality among the philosophers of the late 5th c. BCE. However, one must admit that it was not like that in the very beginning (6th c. BCE); Pythagoras had apparently a certain spiritual power and he was credited with the performance of several ‘miracles’ or ‘wonders’. Only this is enough to demonstrate the low level of the so-called Ancient Greeks and their poor culture and rudimentary civilization; apparently, due to their ignorance in terms of spirituality, spiritual sciences, material sciences, and genuine religion, they perceived the spiritually ordinary and common as materially extraordinary and uncommon.
It becomes clear that even the modern scholarly classification of those deemed to be ‘Ancient Greek philosophers’ is absolutely erratic, inconsistent and mistaken. Among them, there were mystics, theologians, philosophers, simple orators and pathetic fools, who thought they had the right to spread in public their ignorance and idiocy. Even worse, the best among them acted as independent individuals, and that is why they failed to function as a well-organized and systematized sacerdotal college and to truly, comprehensively and effectively ‘transplant’ the textual, cultic and spiritual ‘corpus’ of an Ancient Oriental religion in their homelands. Consequently, Western Anatolia, South Balkans, Thrace, Macedonia, and Illyria remained peripheral to the center of the world, which revolved around the Iranian Empire.
The detrimental failure of the so-called Ancient Greek philosophers is due to their confused understanding of the Ancient Oriental civilizations; this has nothing to do with what is called ‘Interpretatio Graeca’, which is not necessarily wrong. They did not the following cardinal points:
– there cannot be spirituality, wisdom and knowledge without a well-structured priesthood (involving enormous temples-universities-research centers-libraries) that serves a well-defined dogma and doctrine; an individual’s path in the spiritual universe is only personal. It is not enough to bring forth general results and to transform societies and nations.
– there cannot be spirituality and religion without an imperial state structure that is perceived as divine, sacred and universal. Imperial societies do not need to be big, but they have to be universal.
– there cannot be spirituality, religion and universal empire nearby the sea; the vast knowledge of all the Ancient Oriental scholars and priests in terms of Geographical Determinism fully demonstrates why there could never be an important empire and a center of knowledge, religion, theology and science in Western Anatolia and South Balkans. Nineveh, Assyria, Kalhu (Nimrud), Babylon, Eshnunna, Kish, Nippur, Borsippa, Hattusha, Susa, Iwnw (Heliopolis), Niwt (Thebes of Egypt), Men-nefer (Memphis), Pasargadae, Persepolis, Aram Dimashq (Damascus), Samaria and Jerusalem are located far from the sea. Ether, Earth and Soft Waters produce the correct habitat for humans to dwell and prosper spiritually and materially – not the Salt Waters (Sea).
In brief, the various peoples of Western Anatolia and South Balkans lacked the architectural magnificence and perfection of the Ancient Oriental temples, the unsurpassed spiritual and material scientific expertise of the Oriental sacerdotal colleges, and the systematic hierarchization of the universal empires of the Ancient Orient. Worse, they were not even blessed with a prophet or luminous mystic like Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Jonah, Jesus and Muhammad. And if we take, on the basis of the Alexander Romance, Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, and Nizami Ganjavi’s Eskandar-Nameh, Alexander the Great (identified with Dhu’l Qarnayn) as a prophet and king, then we have to conclude that what he did was to abandon his fatherland, move to the Orient, and die there; Alexander the Great was the most explicit and the most vociferous rejection of the Ancient Greek philosophers.
Prophet Jonah (Yunus) receiving instructions from God (above); when facing the cetaceous (below)
——————————————————————-
What the philosophers failed to understand, a king of Macedonia apparently realized and attempted to make its kingdom part of the Orient, by invading the then ailing Achaemenid Empire (at the end of 4th c. BCE): Alexander the Great. However, he soon realized that his native city and fatherland did not have the capacity to become an imperial capital and a universal center. That’s why he finally settled in Babylon.
Is it truly impossible for a theological system to exist without religion?
The answer to this immense question is given by several theologians of the Late Antiquity who are collectively known as the ‘Gnostics’; this appellation is very wrong, because these mystics and theologians elaborated very different doctrines or dogmas. The endeavors of all the Gnostics, i.e. the likes of Simon Magus, Bardesan (Bardaisan), Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion and others, were undertaken at all levels: spirituality, religion, theology.
Constructed Gnostic symbols
———————————————————————–
Compared to Plato, Antisthenes, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno of Citium, and their likes, the Gnostics were incomparably greater, wiser, nobler and closer to the truth. Some among the philosophers were talking childish nonsense, whereas all the Gnostics realized very well that the origin of everything is the human soul and the spiritual universe. Although some of the Gnostics were spiritually powerful (often due to immoral methods), they were not strong in formulating the basic tenets of a religion or in introducing extensive cultic material in their systems.
This failure prevented them from dragging vast masses of population to their dogmas / doctrines. They never went beyond the limits of a community or some communities (dispersed in various locations). Compared with either the ancient religions of the lands around the Mediterranean or the Oriental religions diffused throughout the Roman Empire and in Europe beyond the Roman borders during the Late Antiquity, the various groups of Gnostics remained a peripheral phenomenon, pretty much like the early Christian groups and sects which had minimal cultic material in their belief.
D. Politics
Modern times’ tyrannies and their instituted paraphernalia deploy a great effort to obfuscate the true meaning of the term ‘politics’, expand its extent, and transfer its application to almost all spheres of human activity and daily life. The reason for this paranoia of politics is very easy to discern; ‘politics’ is the inhuman foundation of all atrocities committed in the modern world. When discussions and debates are made around the different ‘political’ systems, involving bourgeois parliamentarianism, Fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism (Soviet Communism), Third World socialism, post-Soviet liberalism, and the leprosy of neo-conservatism, all participants are deceived, deluded and led to a moral, mental, intellectual, socio-behavioral, governmental, national, religious and cultural impasse.
Why this happens is easy to explain: politics is entirely inhuman, genuinely evil, and utterly Satanic. There is nothing ‘good’ or ‘positive’ or ‘humanly possible’ within ‘politics’. Simply, politics must not exist; wherever it does, it inevitably brings forth inhumanity, degeneration, disorder, destruction, decomposition and putrefaction. There was never a case of country where politics was implemented without awfully calamitous results. What is even worse is that, from Day 1, politics viciously cancels the ability of humans to accurately perceive the reality; people live therefore within the Satanic madness of politics until the tribulation comes, and then -of course- it is too late. This is so because the real essence of politics is a deceitful delusion.
This fact can be easily understood if a correct and accurate definition of the term is provided; that’s why all existing definitions are pathetic generalizations, so that readers never manage to identify the real origin of the term and then realize why nothing good can possibly emanate from politics. Examples of definitions: ‘the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power’ and ‘the activities involved in getting and using power in public life, and being able to influence decisions that affect a country or a society'(https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/politics?q=politics)
It is important to notice that the malicious definitions never comprise the term ‘system’! This is due to the fact that the present world’s wardens do not want to offer the prisoners, i.e. the entire Mankind, the chance to sense and feel the compact nature of their imprisonment within politics. Only a ‘system’ could bring the Mankind to their knees, if implemented, and this system was politics. Another example of definition: ‘the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics)
All the same, there can never be a perfect lie and that is why the unknown authors of the Wikipedia entry unwillingly provide full demonstration of the fact that politics is indeed a ‘system’. Under a picture, they include the following legend, which relates to ‘political philosophy’: ‘Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), from a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics secured the two Greek philosophers as two of the most influential political philosophers’.
The Epitome of Fallacy, Delusion and Evilness: Rafaello’s hallucinatory School of Athens (Scuola di Atene. 1509-1511) decorates the Stanza della Segnatura of the Vatican palace.https://en.wikipedia org/wiki/Politics#/media/File:Sanzio_01_Plato_Aristotle jpg
—————————————————————————
Philosophy involves various systems of understanding and consideration, and therefore ‘political philosophy’ encompasses the systems of political organization that ‘political philosophers’ conceived mentally and wrote about. Either consisting in the implementation of a theoretical, philosophical system or emanating from simple everyday life and experience, ‘politics’ is a system of governance.
DEFINITION
Politics is the system of governance that prevails in a ‘polis’ deprived of monarchical rule. In Ancient Greek, ‘polis’ means ‘city’, and it is a noun; the associated adjective is ‘politikos’ (masculine), ‘politike’ (feminine) and ‘politiko’ (neutral). The neutral adjective in the Plural makes ‘politika’. This was the title of a treatise written by Aristotle concerning the description of the system of governance of a city – not a country, not a kingdom, not an empire. Out of this, in modern times, the term ‘politics’ was coined to describe one type of system of governance; however, as term, it was absolutely misplaced. Politics can be only a system of governance of a city – not a country, not a kingdom, not an empire.
Even worse, Aristotle was very influential among Western European and North American, anticlerical and anti-Christian, Freemasonic and Zionist philosophers, intellectuals and theoreticians who attempted -absurdly and calamitously- to elaborate and propose systems of ‘politics’ for their countries or -even more criminally and dictatorially- for all the countries of the world. I describe the effort as absurd because the so pompously and ludicrously glorified thinkers of the times of the Enlightenment failed to make the distinction between ‘city’ (polis) and ‘country’, ‘kingdom’ or ’empire’. In their biased madness, these fools (the likes of Montesquieu, Diderot, Voltaire and Rousseau) imagined that it would be possible to implement in a country the size of France an arbitrary system envisioned by an ignorant guy before two millennia for a town – not a sizeable country. In other words, even if it had been correct as a system of governance, ‘politics’ would have been inappropriate for countries bigger than San Marino, Andorra or Lichtenstein.
In the above definition, I describe Aristotle as an ‘ignorant guy’ for a very good reason; he wanted to write about what he had never properly studied. This is surely the irrelevance of philosophy in general, but we can now focalize on Aristotle and his diatribe.
Aristotle’s opinion about the governance system of cities is biased, untrustworthy and irrelevant; he failed to understand that the governance of a country, a kingdom or an empire that one needs more than a month to cross on a horseback is not the same as the governance of a city. He viewed things structurally from his office and without acquiring fundamental knowledge by being present in other countries and getting firsthand information. He even did not have the sense of what it is to rule a country the size of (only) Egypt, because he did was not there – he never traveled. So, we can first conclude that the simple, physical-natural, geographical reality escaped totally his mind.
Second, Aristotle did not have a clue about what he was talking about. Failing to learn foreign languages and assuming a lot, Aristotle proved to be unable to even imagine the vast and complex theoretical systems, which had been formed in the Oriental Empires. Founded on the spiritual sciences and experience, supported by immense religious-theological systems that were maintained by thousands of scientists-priests, and epitomized as imperial doctrine, these Oriental theoretical systems, different from one country to another (Egypt, Babylonia, Iran), were totally beyond Aristotle’s capabilities to study and learn, let alone fully understand and correctly evaluate. To properly acquire therefore this spiritual, religious and imperial theoretical background, Aristotle would need to spend at least ten (10) years in some Egyptian or Babylonian or Iranian temples as a low level pupil and, after learning well the local language(s) and scripts, to study the fields of sciences, which would enable him to get a proper understanding of the topic. On his ignorance are based the modern Western European and North American failures, injustices and absurdities.
The impossibility to implement in a small modern country the size of Albania a system of governance practiced within the limits of a tiny Ancient Greek city (of 40000 people) is not the only reason for which ‘politics’ is an impermissible system of governance. The fact that ‘politics’ is impossible for big countries would only lead to failures. But beyond Aristotle’s hollow theorizing, politics is evil and, as such, it ends up in injustices and absurdities. Speaking about Carthage (in Unit IV A), I described the nature of the Carthaginian Republic and its democratic system, also explaining the reason for them; Carthage started as just a Phoenician colony. In addition, I made a brief comparison between the Carthaginian Republic and the Oriental Empires, highlighting the incomparable superiority of the latter.
In his second book of Politics (out of a total of eight), Aristotle details what he found as the three most exemplary models of politically ruled cities or countries. This part of his treatise (translated in Modern English, it makes around 95000 words) is the most concealed, because Aristotle’s best paradigms do not involve Corinth, Thebes, Argos or Athens, but Sparta, Gortyna (in Central Southern Crete) and Carthage. He states the following: “the government of Carthage seems well established, and in many respects superior to others” (Book II, chapter xi)
The problem with ‘politics’, as an ancient system of governance, is basically moral, spiritual and religious. As I already discussed when speaking about Carthage, this system of governance revolves around material considerations and interests. However, in Western Anatolia and in South Balkans different reasons led to the unfortunate establishment of a similar regime; either the sedentarization of some tribes occurred in parallel with the maintenance with the tribal Kurultay (Kurultai: general assembly) or an early kingdom was overthrown by a gang of disfavored rascals who made of their gang a ‘general assembly’, monstrously killing enemies, ostracizing rivals, discriminating women, and turning servants to slaves, i.e. ‘things’. The collapse of the early kingdom in Rome and in the petty cities-states of South Balkans is a sacrilege, a barbarous act, and a heinous, immoral incident.
Representation of a Turanian Mongol kurultai and coronation of emperor (perhaps Genghis Khan) from a double-page illustration of Rashid-ad-Din’s Gami’ at-Tawarih; Tabriz (?), beginning of the 14th century
———————————————————————-
Totally deprived of any legitimacy, the criminals who attended these fake assemblies postured as ‘gods’ of the misfortunate local society, deciding upon their destinies as if their filthy, monstrous and evil interests entitled them to decision-making. Even if representative and majoritarian, the decision making of a society does not lie with the people, who care about material interests, but with a brave fighter and his well-prepared, duly grown, severely trained, and comprehensively educated offspring, generation after generation. This person should not be a ridiculous leader (Führer), as the vicious needs of the deviate Western societies command, but a real king (or emperor), who -because he is spiritually enlightened, morally balanced, religiously just, culturally genuine, and nationally prosperous- will be able to uplift the entire population, making of every man a king and of every woman a queen, imposing the natural order ‘as above so below’, and eliminating the material interest and every form of egocentrism.
That is why there is no difference among ‘tyranny’, ‘oligarchy’ and ‘democracy’ as per the very erroneous distinction made by Aristotle, who failed to perceive what the Oriental Empires were (as I already said): the underlying concept of all these heinous systems is politics, i.e. the notion that people can be governed without primarily examining
– the spiritual order of the universe,
– the moral standards set by the Creation (Cosmogony and Cosmology),
– the scope of Life as exemplified in the eschatological narrative of every original religion and mythology, and
– the compulsory reflection of the spiritual universe that every universal empire must consistently be.
Aristotle failed to read either Atrahasis (above) or Gilgamesh (below); in addition, he proved to be unaware of the vast theoretical system, i.e. the Assyrian imperial universalism, which was attested on thousands of texts, particularly of the Sargonid (722-609 BCE) times; that’s why Aristotle is anything between irrelevant and nonsensical.
——————————————————————————————
It really does not matter whether a society is ruled by a tyrant, the few oligarchs or the adult masculine population that is not considered as ‘slaves’. The wretched system of politics corrupts the population, profanes the youth, and insults the elders. Politics is therefore the system of governance that deprecates the human soul, destroys the human character, kills the human mind, and putrefies the human heart.
Politics triggers a rift between spirituality and everyday life; politics cancel Moral, turning entire societies into realms of gangsters and liars; politics castrates Culture, transforming it into a hilarious caricature; politics eliminates heroism, therefore plunging majestic legends into a swamp of effeminate coyness and metamorphosing heroes into lobbyist rats.
Politics hates popular religion because it maintains people in life, hearts in warmth, and minds in soundness; owed to this polarity, politics cannot coexist with religion. Besotted people think that the two notions can, but their mistake is due to their inability to see things in perspective and realize that, within a political context, religion is gradually reduced to a parody of meaningless, tragi-comical ceremonies. However, the absurd and paranoid thought that politics and religion can possibly subsist side-by-side within a society is partly due to the prevailing confusion of religion with theology.
Last, politics tarnishes, injures and contaminates theology, by forcing it to deal with affairs that are morally impermissible to deal with, by obliging it to cope with an evil environment in which theology can survive only in a monstrously altered form, and by appending it to all the atrocities, the profanities and the anomalies that politics -by its nature- brings forth.
That is why the Christ of the Christian Democrat Party in Germany is the Antichrist.
For this reason, (the fake) Allah of the political islam (which is not Islam) is Satan.
Wherever and whenever politics and theology coincide, if there is no clash for the total elimination of one of the two notions, Theology becomes Satanology.
Politics is the Gates of the Hell.
V. Anatolia, Turkey, Culture, Spirituality, Religion, History and Education
Having defined and clarified the aforementioned notions, I now intend to reply to your last points; you understand correctly what I mean about today’s Turkey’s historical narrative. You write:
“I guess that what you try to say in this post is that the current ‘historical narrative’ of Turkey lacks of gravitas to pull traction into its direction”.
The present historical narrative of Turkey is a fake. It has nothing to do with what Kemal Ataturk established. The ignorant and idiotic liars, crooks and gangsters Erdoğan and Bahçeli, surrounded by the disreputable imbeciles of Diyanet, are talking nonsense. And by so doing, they erase the very raison d’être of Turkey.
I will herewith enumerate few cardinal points:
A. Today’s Turks are mainly Islamized Eastern Romans at the ethnic-cultural level
First, today’s Turks are only partly of Turanian/Turkic origin; if we don’t take into account the Zaza, the Kurmanji, the Aramaeans (Suryani), and the Arabic-speaking Aramaeans (the Muslims of Hatay), the Azeris, the Kyrgyz of Van, and few other ethnic groups, the Anatolian population consists in an amalgamation of Eastern Romans (Rumlar / Romioi) and various Turkmen nomads. The latter arrived in different successive waves of small populations over the span of several centuries; their sedentarization opened the way for intermarriages in the urban centers that were of predominantly Eastern Roman ancestry.
The early (11th–15th) Islamization in Anatolia was not enforced because the indigenous Eastern Roman populations embraced the Seljuks for some important historical reasons. For many centuries, the Anatolian Eastern Romans had rejected the Constantinopolitan theological tyranny, as they were Iconoclasts and Paulicians. The arrival of the Seljuks offered them therefore a wonderful opportunity to get rid of the heinous Constantinopolitan guards and tax collectors. With the establishment of the Sultanate of Rum, a very long process of Islamization started only to last for many centuries; but at its origin, there were religious clashes that had lasted for centuries before the arrival of the Seljuks.
Bülent Ecevit (1925-2006): evidently an Eastern Roman of Anatolian and Balkan descent (left); (right) Tuğrul Bey (993-1063; ابوطالب محمد تغریل بن میکائیل / Abu Talib Muhammad Tughril ibn Mika’il): apparently a Turkmen.
Seljuks defeat Ghaznavids, another Turanian dynasty, in 1040 (above); Seljuk art from Iran(below)
———————————————————————-
Religious differences were at the origin of the Eastern Roman loss of Eastern Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia in the 7th c. with the early arrival of Islam. And religious differences were also at the origin of the Eastern Roman loss of Central and Western Anatolia during the 11th–15th c. It is therefore imperative nowadays for every Turk, in order to truly assess his national identity and cultural integrity, to learn about the Constantinopolitan persecution of the Anatolian Eastern Roman Iconoclasts and Paulicians. These were the ancestors of the majority of today’s Turks. Their persecution is concealed as per the racist pseudo-historical dogma of Modern Greece, which defends the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate’s historical version. It is necessary for Turkey to reject the historical falsification as carried out as regards this point and many others.
By consciously identifying themselves as descendants of the Anatolian Iconoclasts and Paulicians, today’s Turks automatically refute and cancel the New Megali Idea that the racist Greek regime has systematically promoted after 1974 (involving a great number of lies, notably the fake genocide of the Pontus region Greeks, etc.) This means that Modern Turkey can overwhelmingly reject the Greek nationalist version of pseudo-history as per which ‘some Turks came from Mongolia’ and ‘it is the task of today’s Greeks to send them back to Central Asia’. Kemal Ataturk was wise enough to realize that what mattered was the true, uninterrupted historical continuity in Anatolia. But this means exactly what I am saying to you and therefore today’s Turks must feel as basically indigenous Anatolians and reflect this in their sociopolitical life, pretty much like they show it, without realizing it, in their cultural life.
For today’s Turks, Truva (Troy) is more important than Medina; that’s why Turkish schoolchildren must study more about the Hittites, the Luwians, and the Trojans than about the beginning of Islam in Hejaz. Otherwise, they leave vital space empty for others to occupy. Political Islam in the Turkish Education is open invitation for others to attack and invade.
————————————————————————————-
This means that next time Greek newspaper or TV Channel preposterously reacts about festivals organized by Turkey in Truva (Troy/Çanakkale), there must be an overwhelming response by the Turkish people, academia, intellectuals, and the state at the international level, fully denouncing the pseudo-historical, chauvinistic and paranoid claims of Greece. But for this to be done, Turkish politicians and academics alike must first understand that Greek nationalism is not a political phenomenon but initially an academic-educational-intellectual racist version of History, which has been imposed as state dogma in that country. The uneducated idiots of political Islam are mentally corrupt and absolutely unable to understand anything.
The only way to avoid a war with Greece (backed by France and others) is to fully demonstrate that today’s Turks represent the entirety of the Anatolian, Eastern Roman, Ionian, Trojan and Hittite historical heritage and that in their majority they are the descendants of the Eastern Romans, who had been persecuted for supporting Iconoclasm and Paulicianism and for rejecting the Constantinopolitan version of Christianity. This is actually what truly happened and thus, by claiming Eastern Roman ancestry ethnically, culturally and imperially, today’s Turks reveal that Modern Greece consists merely in a disruption and discontinuity triggered by the early 19th c. Western colonial intervention. As a matter of fact, until the last day of the Caliphate, the Ottoman Sultan was also Qaysar-i Rum, i.e. (Eastern) Roman Emperor.
Mehmet II as Roman Emperor (قیصر روم/ Qaysar-i Rum) and Gennadios II
————————————————————-
To conclude with, the clash between Turkey and Greece must be transferred from the political-military level and the silly purchases of arms to the academic-educational-intellectual-cultural level.
B. Parts of Turkey’s National Soul are all the Anatolian Civilizations, Cultures and Religions
Second, with my personal approach to the topic, I don’t mean that Turkey’s historical narrative should be exclusively associated with the Eastern Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman identity of the majority of today’s Turks. Not at all! It has also to be related to the Cappadocian, Pontus, Roman, Aramaean, Phrygian, Lydian, Ionian, Trojan, Lycian, Carian, Hatti, Luwian, Hittite and Assyrian heritage of Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia. It is not only stupid to waste pupils’ and students’ time with prophet Muhammad and his stories in Mecca and Medina; it is also lethal. Religion does never form the national identity of a people; culture does. And with neighbors maintaining an ulcerous chauvinistic discourse, what matters most is historicity. Islam is just yesterday’s story; you cannot oppose Greece’s nationalistic paranoia with Islam.
So drop Islam out of the governance, the education and the international relations! In terms of historicity, Anatolia is overwhelmingly more important than the South Balkans; this means that today’s Anatolian Turks must reconnect with their Hittite past. Excerpts from all types of Hittite texts (historical, religious, epic, etc.) must be taught in the Secondary Education in Turkish translation. By identifying Modern Turks as the cultural descendants of the Hatti, the Hittites and the Luwians of the 2nd millennium BCE (which is exactly what Kemal Ataturk sought to achieve in his outstandingly pioneering effort), by restoring the Anatolian cultural integrity via systematic Education, and by offering the Turkish pupils a genuinely multicultural vision of their past, you establish a historically correct Education, a strong National Identity, a formidable Sovereignism and an impregnable discourse in refutation of the nonsensical Modern Greek nationalism.
Sunset over the ruins of the old castle, Urfa, Turkey
Urhay / Urfa / Edessa of Osrhoene: the Aramaean Christian Monophysitic heritage of Turkey and the history of the Abgar dynasty (134 BCE – 242 CE) are far more important than Muawiya and Yazid of the Umayyad Caliphate for today’s Turks.
——————————————————————————–
Even more importantly, by so doing, you promote the victorious historical model of cultural continuity, in full rejection of the obsolete (launched in the 19th c.), racist theory of ethnic (racial) continuity, thus ushering the Turkish society into future, while the anachronistic concepts and the Anti-Turkish paroxysm that prevail in Greece will be good enough to provoke the implosion and the decomposition of that unfortunate land with the deceived population and the schizophrenic elite.
Tengrism, Hittite and other Anatolian religions, Assyrian-Babylonian religion, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, Orthodox Christianity, Nestorian Christianity, Monophysitic Christianity and Islam are all parts of the Anatolian-Northern Mesopotamian cultural heritage of Turkey. You cannot favor one part and misrepresent the other parts. For the historical heritage that is entrusted in the hands of Turks today, Islam is only a minor and secondary part; it cannot become the central part of Turkey’s National Education, because it will bring ruin and destruction.
What I am saying to you now can be described also in a more technical terminology; it is an enlargement of the national-cultural-historical basis of the Turkish state and nation. This is tantamount to solidification; opposite to what I am discussing, you have the paranoid destabilization of the Turkish nation, which is carried out by the idiots of AKP and Erdoğan. Why? Because compared to all the rest, the existing and truly important Islamic historical heritage of Turkey constitutes an undeniably narrower historical basis. In very simple words, you cannot have ten gold coins and care only about one!
C. Neo-Ottomanism is an Anti-Turkish Paranoia and a Subtle Western Trap against the State of Kemal Ataturk
Third, today’s Turks must entirely liberate themselves from the Western colonial myth of the ‘Ottoman Empire’. This shameful institution was rightfully terminated by Kemal Ataturk; it was a real liberation, as important as the military victory over the colonial armies of France, Italy, England and Greece. But when Kemal Ataturk was about to die, a notorious Zionist Orientalist was about to get his postgraduate degree in France with professor the colonial Orientalist Louis Massignon: Bernard Lewis (1916-2018).
Louis Massignon
Man of extreme erudition, of Jesuit formation, and of vicious rancor, Massignon (1883-1962) was an enemy of Islam, of the Ottoman Empire, and of Turkey. He was almost killed in his adventures in the SE Ottoman provinces as a French agent; he was masqueraded as a scholar. Perhaps his best description would be ‘the French Laurence of Arabia’, but he was definitely far more erudite and certainly far more mystical than the English prototype. Massignon taught Bernard Lewis the iniquitous art of academic hypocrisy, and the student excelled in it. Although accepting Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey as an exemplary Muslim state, Bernard Lewis taught Islamic History in a most distorting manner and with misplaced focus, while speaking and writing extensively about the cultural inferiority of Islam; but he failed to stand critically and properly explain the reasons for it.
Bernard Lewis (left) with H. Kissinger
Bernard Lewis (left) with B. Netanyahu
Bernard Lewis and Halil Inaclik, the ‘academic father’ of today’s Turkish Islamists
Along with Fernand Braudel (1902-1985) and the French School of the Annalistes (Annales school), Bernard Lewis politicized the History of the Islamic World and projected 20th c. concepts and approaches onto 15th – 18th c. History; he therefore failed to distinguish between the Ottoman state itself and the Ottoman civilization. Lewis had a calamitous impact on Halil Inaclik (İnalcık: 1916-2016), a Tatar historian who left Crimea in young age, settled with his family in Turkey, studied there and then, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, moved to Western Europe for research purposes. As he became a pioneer of the rapprochement between Turkey and post-WW II Europe and America, it was normal for him to diffuse a Western colonial interpretation of the History of the Ottoman Empire, at the very antipodes of the acts and the thoughts of Kemal Ataturk. However, trying to portray ‘Tanzimat’ as normal is preposterous; in reality, it was the death warrant of the Ottoman state. This approach helped spread an enormous confusion in Turkey; gradually, a nauseating nostalgia for the Ottoman times was produced among many idiots.
The stage was set for the theatrical act of Neo-Ottomanism, when Inalcik tried to refute the dark and murky portrait of Mehmet II Fatih that Franz Babinger (1891-1967), the famous German anti-Nazi historian, had drawn. The Turkish political elite, the academic class, and the average Turk fell into the trap, viewed the topic through nationalistic distorting lenses, and thus a subconscious ‘rapprochement’ with the shameful Ottoman Empire began. This was not Islamic of nature; it was Satanic.
Franz Babinger
The confusion continued with Ilber Ortayli (İlber Ortaylı; born in 1947), a scholar who (after having been the student of both, Bernard Lewis and Halil Inalcik – !! ??) has consciously served the colonial plots of England that provide for the Islamization of Turkey – a project that is absolutely impossible to materialize. This is so because, if the Turkish population is paranoid enough to accept the filthy excrement of political islam, Turkey will simply cease to exist a secular state and society, which in turn will automatically bring us back to the Treaty of Sevres and the decomposition of Turkey as per the terms of the only post-WW I treaty that was not implemented thus far – only thanks to Kemal Ataturk.
İlber Ortaylı
So, for all Turks today, Kemal Ataturk is definitely and undeniably far more important than prophet Muhammad. And if someone disagrees on this, he must be eliminated at once for high treason.
Ortayli is notorious for having contributed to the contamination of Ottomanostalgia.
Every naïve and ignorant person, who happens to entertain positive feelings for the Ottoman Empire, is the victim of an enormous propaganda mechanism launched by the Satanic English colonial state (MI6, Foreign Office, etc.). The incessant distortions, lies, and historical falsifications comprise also a great deal of concealment of the historical truth and unprecedented confusions. The following diagram contains only the major points that have been concealed, distorted or mystified as regards the Ottoman Empire which was calamitous already for Turks and Muslims, not only Aramaeans (Suryani), Copts, Berbers, Yemenites, Sudanese, Yazidis, Armenians, Eastern Romans/Rumlar (deprecatorily called ‘Greeks’) and many others:
a- the main contributors to what is called ‘Ottoman Civilization’ were enemies of the vicious, criminal and bogus-Islamic Ottoman family;
b- this generates an extraordinarily hiatus that very few scholars have sensed: the terms ‘Ottoman Empire’ and ‘Ottoman Civilization’ are therefore not synonyms but antonyms;
c- the real spiritual, academic, scientific, artistic and intellectual force of the Ottoman Empire were the great mystical orders, the Qizilbash, the Bektashi, the Mevlevi, etc. But as you know, Selim I waged a war and killed thousands of Qizilbash in Anatolia; he exiled 20000 of them to Mora (Peloponnesus), and persecuted the rest. For 400 years the greatest spiritual force of the Islamic World was under incessant, merciless persecution because of the wretched Ottoman family (should I say the ‘brothel of the gangsters’?). The disreputable and idiotic Mahmud II closed down the Bektashi in the 1820s – only to confirm that spiritual, intellectual, academic and scientific life was prohibited in his wretched state;
Rare double portrait of Haji Bektash from a 17th c. manuscript (above); tomb of Jelaleddin Rumi (Mevlânâ Celâleddîn-i Rûmî), mosque and Mevlevi museum in Konya (below)
————————————————————————————————–
d- in other words, the Ottoman family hated what we now call ‘Ottoman Civilization’ which is in fact ‘Islamic Civilization’ continued under the Ottoman Sultans mainly until the end of the 16th c. In reality, the Islamic civilization was terminated with the destruction of the Istanbul Observatory (1580) by the fanatic and ignorant mob, which was guided by the villainous rascal that happened to be the then ‘sheikhulislam’;
The prevalence of Ali ibn Abi Taleb, Hassan and Husayn over the Umayyad infidels is the cornerstone of Anatolian popular religion.
————————————————————————————–
e- the main contributors to what we call ‘Ottoman Empire’ and ‘Ottoman Army’ were the Janissary. Without the Janissary, the Ottoman armies would have never reached the faraway lands that they controlled; but the Janissary knew that the evil sheikhs under the sheikhulislam would finally destroy the empire, and that is why they repeatedly clashed with them. Following the deceitful advice of the worst enemies of the Ottoman Empire, i.e. the English and the French, Mahmud II dissolved also the Janissary in the 1820s – a decision that is tantamount to death warrant for the Ottoman army; without the Janissary, the stupid Ottomans were always losing, until they got lost.
Above: typical representation of a Qizilbash; below: the founder of the Great Mughal dynasty of Southern Asia Babur offers a banquet in honor of Qizilbash and Hindu, who came to present their valuable gifts (1528).
————————————————————————-
Above: typical Janissary; below: the secret but real, historical revenge of the Janissaries over the worthless Ottoman state: the victory of Kemal Ataturk, here represented (in the Taksim Square monument) as accompanied by his allies Clement Voroshilov (1881-1969) and Semyon Aralov (1880-1969), the Soviet army officers and statesmen.
————————————————————–
f- basics in Turkish Literature are enough for someone to understand that the Ottomans were the worst enemies of the entire Turkmen nation of Anatolia. You certainly know that the central part of the Anatolian Turkish literature is Ağıt Halk Edebiyatı, i.e. the Popular Literature of Lamentations. Very different from other nations’ popular lamentations, the Anatolian Turkish (in reality Turkmen) ağıtlar are closely interconnected with the ‘destanlar’, i.e. epics, legends and narratives of brave deeds undertaken by people who rejected the cursed Ottoman rule and the pseudo-Islam of the sheikhulislams, opposing the ensued oppression and persecution of the Anatolian Muslim Turkmen by the loathed soldiers of the ruthless Ottoman state.
g- the formation of the official position of the sheikhulislam in the 1300s and the officialization of the position by Murad II in the early 15th c. is an abomination. It consists in straightforward Christianization of Islam. Prophet Muhammad actually liberated the believers from the tyranny of the clergy, as he had early made a very clear distinction between faithful and disbelievers among the Christian priests and monks; this fact relates to both, personal understanding and divine revelation. Every person can randomly be the sheikh of the prayers in a mosque. There cannot be institutionalization of the sheikhs, because this is not only a deviation in terms of Islamic cult but also an evil act that suits perfectly well the interests of the worst enemies of Islam. So, you understand that, when you say about the Islamists and the present administration of Turkey “maybe because they take the Islamic faith in full”, you really mean that they mistake it in full!
h- Last, when it comes to Turkey’s Islamic past, I surely understand that it plays a cardinal role in today’s Anatolian Turkish culture, popular religion, folklore, moral integrity, and national identity; but it is mainly based on the Seljuk heritage and spirituality, the Iranian legendary traditions, and the Anatolian beyliks that have also been disastrously disregarded and misrepresented in the Modern Turkish Education.
The Artuqids of Mardin, the Danishmend of Sivas, the Saltukids of Erzerum, the Ionian beylik of Smyrna, the state of Eretna, the Hamidid dynasty of Eğirdir and Antalya, the Isfandiyar dynasty of Kastamonu, the Ladik beylik of Denizli, the famous Dulkadiroğulları of Marash, the Mentesh beylik of Milas, and many others are the strong trunk, the great boughs, and the soft twigs of the Kızıl Elma (Red Apple) tree of Anatolian culture, mysticism, identity, and integrity. Yes, this tree had indeed Ottoman green leaves, but to be honest, they consisted of Muslim and Christian populations that were equally and monstrously oppressed by the cruel Ottoman family.
Silver coin (dirham) minted by Nasir ad-Din al-Mansur Artuq Arslan (597 – 637 H. / 1201 – 1239) in Mardin, in the year 635 H
Mangir (mangır) or mankur, bronze coin from Kastamonu (Isfandiyar dynasty)
Akkoyunlu state (1378-1503)
In brief, the illustrious Akkoyunlu dynasty is more central to today’s Turkish national identity than the Ottoman family; even more importantly, the Akkoyunlu were able to merge in one state the eastern half of Anatolia and the entirety of the Iranian plateau. And, as you know, neither the Ottomans nor the Safavids were able to achieve this exploit.
D. Do not call the Anatolian Sea ‘Aegean Sea’!
Fourth, as I said, the entire historical narrative of Turkey is a fake; even worse, it functions destructively for the country. While staying close to facts and processes and denouncing falsifications and concealments of the historical truth that may have been undertaken by other regimes or establishments, the historical narrative of a country is not merely the historiography that the country’s academics teach in universities and historical societies. It can also be composed by well-educated diplomats, who not only know the past comprehensively, but also envision the future ingeniously.
This means that the historical narrative of a country must be to some extent creatively ‘invented’, i.e. constructed on the basis of truthful historical conclusions and state needs. You understand, of course, that by saying ‘invented’, I don’t mean ‘fabricated’ and ‘forged’ but ‘formulated’, ‘conceived’ and/or ‘re-discovered’, One example is the case of Mavi Vatan and Ege Denizi; the latter is merely a part of the former, but it is very wrong for Turkey to further use the term ‘Aegean Sea’.
Certainly this historical term, which relates to Ancient Ionian mythology, is historical and truthful; it was used in several languages (Arabic: بحر ايجه) and its historicity is undeniable. But this does not mean that no one can introduce a new name, which would correctly reflect the historical dynamics of this maritime expanse. As you know, the History of the Mankind is exclusively a ‘history of lands’, not a ‘history of seas’. Humans never lived in seas, because this is practically impossible. Seas served only as one of the existing means of communication. People traveled always across lands and deserts to meet and deal with other people or eventually resettle; and they did the same across seas. But seas are uninhabitable and no one can live there; all the islands that may exist -here and there- are in reality spots of land within an unlivable space. In fact, seas do not exist; they only do in relationship with the lands around which they may be located.
Viewing the Aegean Sea within the wider context of the lands among which this maritime expanse exists, one can draw determinant historical conclusions. The Aegean Sea is located west of Anatolia, south of Balkans, and east of the southern projection of the Balkan Peninsula, namely the land south of the theoretical line between Salonica and Vlore (Vlorë) in Albania. Projecting out into the Mediterranean body of water, the southern part of Balkan Peninsula is separated from the Italian Peninsula by the Adriatic and the Ionian seas.
As the Aegean Sea consists in merely a part of the Mediterranean Sea, we have to add that it is located north of Africa, because the island of Crete is in the middle of two maritime expanses, namely the main part of the Mediterranean Sea and the Aegean Sea. In fact, Crete is a historically African, Canaanite and Anatolian island, whereas the Çember Adaları (Kiklatlar or Kiklad Adaları / Cyclades Islands) originally were entirely African islands, as the so-called Cycladic Art (end of 4th–1st millennium BCE) testifies to, in spite of the racist interpretations, the falsifications, and the distortions that colonial academic gangsters publish in order to once again usurp African cultural heritage, monuments and art and shamelessly portray that culture as possibly European and White,
During the last five millennia, all the major historical developments that took place in the Aegean Sea originated from Anatolia. This is due to the fact that Anatolia proved to be the epicenter of several empires, whereas there was never an empire based in the Balkans, let alone the southern projection of the said peninsula. The Hittites expanded in the Balkans; Troy was their enemy, and the Hittites called upon their Ahhiyawa (Achaeans) cousins to solve the problem (and the Achaean military expedition became known as the ‘Trojan War’), as Hattusha was mainly focused on the Southeast, i.e. Northwestern Mesopotamia, Syria and Canaan. The Luwians and the Carians from Anatolia expanded to Crete and the other islands. Contrarily to the Indo-European theorists, the Achaeans, the Ionians and the Aeolians, coming from Central Asia, crossed from Anatolia to the southernmost confines of the Balkans.
The indigenous populations of the South Balkan extremities, namely the Peleset (Pelasgians), who were ethnically-linguistically-culturally unrelated to the Achaeans and loathed the Achaean supremacy, did not expand or migrate, except during the late 13th c. and early 12th c. BCE invasions that we now call ‘Sea Peoples’ Invasions’; after they revolted against the Achaeans, burned the Mycenaean acropolises, ended the Achaean rule, invaded Anatolia, Cyprus and Canaan, destroyed the Hittite Empire and its allies, they attacked Egypt. They were then destroyed and dispersed by the victorious Egyptian armies of Ramses III; after their defeat, they settled in the coast of South Canaan and became rather known as the ‘Philistines’, i.e. the ancestors of the Palestinians.
The Achaemenid Iranians invaded and controlled more than two thirds of the Balkan Peninsula as the Old Achaemenid cuneiform inscription (unearthed in 1937 and published in 1954) of Gherla (in Transylvania, Romania) demonstrates. Alexander the Great of Macedonia, after subjugating the South Balkan petty states, only crossed Anatolia to invade Iran, and then he fully disregarded the Balkan Peninsula in its entirety and made of Babylon his capital; his wife was not a Macedonian beauty, but the Sogdian princess Roxane, who was born in Central Asia. Later, during the reign of the Epigones, i.e. the successors of the Macedonian emperor, the South Balkan confines and the islands belonged to the Seleucids of Syria, the Attalids of Pergamum (Bergama), the kingdom of Macedonia, whereas Crete belonged to Ptolemaic Egypt.
The Romans came from the West to Anatolia; however, they did not originate from the Balkans but from the Italian Peninsula, as it is well known. More importantly, and on the basis of what the Romans thought of themselves, they did not actually ‘invade’ Anatolia, but they only returned there, since Aeneas, their ancestor, was a Trojan who left after the destruction of the kingdom that the Hittites called Taruisha (Troy) and/or Wilusa (Ilion). During the Roman times, the Balkan Peninsula served mainly as a passageway between the Italian and the Anatolian peninsulas. During the Eastern Roman and the Ottoman empires, all important movements, like the Paulicians and the Bektashis, were diffused from Anatolia to the Balkans; and all critical historical developments started in Anatolia and impacted the Balkans and the islands located in the sea that separates Anatolia from the South Balkans.
Achaemenid Empire of Iran
——————————————————————-
So, you cannot call the sea west of Anatolia ‘Aegean’ (Ege); it is the Anatolian Sea par excellence. This term may be new, but it is historically truthful and academically defendable. Consequently, when you write about my approach that “while you advocate for a model where the history of Turkey absorbs all the residents of the Anatolian peninsula”, I have to respond that this is rather an oversight; I do advocate an entirely continental model of History, as per which Turkey absorbs all the residents of Anatolia and their peripheral lands and seas.
You cannot therefore have ‘strategic depth’ (stratejik derinlik) as the ignorant and uneducated Ahmet Davutoğlu pretended in his silly book; actually you don’t need it because it only brings disaster. What you need is historical identity and cultural integrity; you cannot possibly imagine that you are closer to the Algerian and the Somali Muslims, and not to the Aramaean Monophysitic Christians of Mardin, Midyat and Tur Abdin. Simply, it cannot be; it has calamitous results like Erdogan’s stupid involvement in the war that the criminal Western powers declared on Syria in 2011. So, with your either nonexistent (before 2002) or silly (2002-2022) methods, while willing to become again an imperial power, you miserably fell into the status of puppet of the English and the Americans. It is a shame for the state of Kemal Ataturk. Eliminate Erdogan and cancel all his paranoid policies at once and by all means!
E. Eastern Romans and Turkmen Nomads: History is the History of the Peoples, not of the Elites or the States
Fifth, at a certain point, you highlight what you perceive as a contradiction, stating the following: “For example, Ankara should take Justinian as its own emperor. Here then rises the challenge of how to explain the Byzantine-Ottoman wars. Are they civil wars”?
About the ethnic identity of the Anatolian population, the wholehearted acceptance of the Seljuk rule by the Eastern Roman Iconoclasts and Paulicians of Anatolia, and the ethnic amalgamation that ensued, I already spoke in Unit V A. Here I will only add that the topic that you mention (the ‘Byzantine-Ottoman wars’) is simply a fabricated myth owed to the colonial Orientalist bibliography (to which I already referred briefly in Unit V C). I will now attempt to concisely explain to you what happened and how you came up with this opinion about a factoid – not a fact.
Truthful and trustworthy historiography is basically a matter of accurate and lucid conceptualization and comprehensive contextualization. When this approach is not offered, when the focus is shifted on mere facts, and when the description involves preconceived schemes, abrasive innuendos, erroneous terms, and insipid clichés, the reality is drastically transformed; then readers go through texts, which -although they don’t contain factual mistakes- are entirely misleading. The end result is that, instead of proper historiography, the academic class generates fake myths that are believed as History, whereas they fully misrepresent the historical reality.
More specifically, one can very easily understand that the term ‘ Byzantine–Ottoman wars’ is a fake, i.e. the byproduct of fallacious Western bibliography geared only to continue the division and the enmity, the hatred and the racism that the colonial powers did instigate among the populations of early 19th c. Ottoman Empire. One can search for a comparable element, then establish a comparison, and last find the dissimilarities between the two items of comparison. An example could be what we now call ‘Iranian-Ottoman wars’. By astutely checking the presentation of both items (topics) in modern educational-academic propaganda outfits, you can get some interesting and revelatory points.
First, let me point out that both terms are very wrong and totally false; the term ‘Persian-Ottoman wars’ (as it often stands in Western bibliography) is deliberately fallacious, because the Safavid, Afshar and Qajar empires were all called ‘Iran’, not ‘Persia’. In addition, their territories were not confined to Fars (Persia) but comprised the entire, traditional land of Iran. Similarly, there was never a ‘Byzantine’ Empire; vicious Western forgers use this transvestite appellation in order to name what was historically called ‘Eastern Roman Empire’ or ‘Romania’ (Ρωμανία; unrelated to the modern Balkan state). So, we can speak about Eastern Roman-Ottoman wars, pretty much like we can speak about Eastern Roman-Seljuk wars; by the way, this can also serve as an interesting parallel.
What you can see in the latter is that the entry authors make available a table with wars, dates, emperors, treaties, results, etc. It is absolutely true that for more than 300 years the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid/Afshar/Qajar Empire of Iran entered in a sequence of more than 10 wars that lasted at times not years but decades. However, it must also be added that these wars were the clash of opposite rulers and elites, not peoples.
Quite contrarily, the former Wikipedia entry is a lengthy but vague text without any table; this did not happen just by coincidence. It is related to the very perplex reality of the Eastern Roman-Ottoman relationship, which encountered many ups and downs; in many wars, the two states helped one another. The same is valid for the wars between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Rum Sultanate of the Seljuks, i.e. two states that had exactly the same name. Here is the English Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Seljuk_wars
By the way, can you imagine what would happen today, if two states bore the same name?
Quite contrarily to present circumstances, this fact was considered normal at the time and the Eastern Roman – Seljuk wars were not due to their claims to the same name. This was due to the undisputed reality that the outright majority of the population in both states was indeed Eastern Roman. So, to put it correctly, at those days, the Eastern Romans had two states: one Christian and another Muslim. And in both states, the outright majority was initially Christian; but the Christian population of the Rum Sultanate disagreed with the beliefs and the practices of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There were no ethnic-linguistic differences among the rulers and the people; they were able to communicate because people were multilingual in the Orient, and they used to learn languages fast and easily. More importantly, the two states had also the same flag: a double-headed eagle! Only the colors were different: yellow and black for the Eastern Romans, light blue and white for the Seljuks.
When you have a complex relationship, you can eventually speak of battles, but they are not the same historical development as the ‘wars’. And the bilateral relationships between the Eastern Romans, the Seljuks, and the Ottomans, were very perplexed. Of course, one can write many books about the topic, but to give you the essence in few paragraphs, I would highlight the following points that almost all the people fail to take into consideration:
a- it would be very wrong to consider the first ‘wars’ between the Rum Sultanate and the Eastern Roman Empire as undertaken by armies manned by ethnically different soldiers; whereas this is certainly valid for the Battle of Malazgirt (Manzikert; 1071), we have to take into account that the said battle was only a very early event. Later, in various battles between the Sultanate and the Empire, there were Seljuk Turkmen and Eastern Romans, who had just become Muslims, fighting together against the imperial army and the Christian Eastern Romans. This reality was repeated dozens of times during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th c. (with Eastern Romans and Seljuks and later with Ottomans).
b- the previous point pales compared to this one: only seven (7) years after the Battle of Malazgirt, the young Eastern Roman Emperor Michael VII Doukas (reigned: 1071-1078) asked the help of Suleiman ibn Qutalmish (reigned: 1077-1086; سلیمان بن قتلمش) against the 76-year old, but very influential administrator of a major Eastern Roman ‘theme’ {(administrative division), namely the theme ‘Anatolikon’ (around Ikonion / Konya)}, Nicephorus Botaneiates (1002-1081; reigned after 1078), who had launched an attempt to overthrow the emperor. When Suleiman encountered the small army of Nicephorus, he could win over them, but finally accepted the old man’s proposal and supported him against the emperor. This marked a critical change in the governance of the Anatolian provinces, because Nicephorus’ rise to the throne of Constantinople was a real victory for the Seljuks, who were allowed to settle in the region around Nicaea/Iznik, and a consolidation for the Sultanate of Rum that was established only three years earlier.
Suleiman ibn Qutalmish, Konya
—————————————————————–
c- contrarily to what many may think, Suleiman was not an enemy but a friend of the Eastern Romans; he treated Christianity and Islam on an equal footing. His concern was to expand against the Haleb (Aleppo) Turkmen Muslim rulers; this shows that people and states in Anatolia were not organized around sectarian lines, in striking opposition to what modern pseudo-historians pretend in order to adjust History to their filthy interests. Unfortunately, when the emir of Haleb asked urgently the help of the Seljuk emir of Damascus Tutush I (Abu Sa’id Taj al-Dawla Tutush; reigned as emir: 1078- 1092 and as sultan: 1092-1094; أبو سعيد تاج الدولة تتش السلجوقي), Suleiman ibn Qutalmish was abandoned by his soldiers and killed in the battle of Ayn Salm (1086) – by a Seljuk, not an Eastern Roman hand. Similar events took place repeatedly in Anatolia.
d- reversely, Suleiman ibn Qutalmish’s son Kilij Arslan I, held captive in Isfahan after the battle of Ayn Salm, was released after the death of the Great Seljuk Malik Shah I in 1092, returned to Iznik, struck an alliance with Alexios I Komnenos (1057-1118; reigned after 1081; Αλέξιος Κομνηνός), and to please the Eastern Romans, joyfully slaughtered his father-in-law Çaka Bey (reigned: 1081-1093; Tzachas/Τζαχάς), who had ruled Smyrna/Izmir, after having first had good relations with Constantinople, up to the point of being promoted to protonobilissimus (Eastern Roman dignitary)!
This means that after the arrival of the Seljuks in Anatolia, there is no Seljuk History and there is no Eastern Roman History; there is Anatolian History and it has nothing to do with either ethnic origin or religion.
e- the aforementioned few points describe an undeniable reality: there is no ethnic difference and there is no religious difference; Eastern Romans, Turkmen, Muslims and Christians viewed one another at those days very differently from the way today’s stupidly fanaticized Turks and ‘Greeks’ view each other now through the distorting lenses of the ‘political islam’, chauvinism, and other Western ideologies produced by the colonial powers and projected onto numerous targeted nations. The differences were mainly of spiritual nature, and that is why it was normal that some Muslims and some Christians allied with one another against other Muslims and other Christians.
f- you are right calling the various battles between some Eastern Romans and some Ottomans a ‘civil war’, but the reality is far deeper than that. Almost half of all the mothers of the Ottoman sultans were of Eastern Roman origin; but you should not view this historical fact through modern ‘nationalistic’ lenses! Being Eastern Roman does not mean agreeing with one emperor; even more so, because many times, the Seljuk and the Ottoman armies had numerous Eastern Roman soldiers among their ranks. Who is therefore entitled to point out who the ‘traitor’ is? The Eastern Roman soldier, who fought with Mehmet II, or Constantine XI Palaiologos?
There are no responses to questions like this; History is never unilateral, except for sectarian idiots who want to adjust with their stupid beliefs. Actually, theoretical questions similar to the previous one can be formulated about hundreds of analogous events that took place during no less than 400 years (1071-1461: the Fall of Trabzon). There is no Ottoman History without continuous references to the Eastern Roman History; this is so for a very simple and good reason. The Ottoman Sultanate undeniably contained sizeable populations of Eastern Roman origin, who used to view their acceptance of Islam as the correct option for all the Eastern Romans. The Ottoman sultans did not function as either Turkmen chieftains or Muslim lunatics; after a certain point, without understanding it, they viewed themselves as the proper continuation of the Eastern Roman Emperors. And after 1453, they were all named Qaysar-i Rum.
g- there is no ethnic/national dimension in all the fights and the battles that occurred from the late 11th until the late 15th c. in Anatolia and Balkans. In many cases, several young men from the same Anatolian city or town were fighting with the Eastern Roman army and other young men were among the ranks of the Seljuk (and later Ottoman) army. More importantly, the 11th–15th c. Anatolian beyliks were so many that the Ottomans fought more often against other Turkmen than with the Eastern Roman armies. And there is no religious aspect in those clashes and wars, except first, the explicit denunciation of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate by the Anatolian Eastern Romans (11th–12th c.) and second, the post-1204 division of the Eastern Romans into two, Anti-Union (Anthenotikoi) and Unionists (Enotikoi), factions. The Anti-Union (or ‘Anthenotikoi’) Eastern Romans were all those, who rejected the union of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate with the pseudo-Christian papacy of Rome; they willingly supported the Seljuks and the Ottomans, although they were Christian Orthodox.
h- until as late as 1925, in villages of the province Aksaray-Gelveri (Cappadocia), the same building was used as mosque on Fridays and as church on Sundays. Today’s Turks are in reality an amalgamation of Eastern Romans and Turkmen. And Modern Greeks are fake Greeks, totally unrelated to the so-called Ancient Greeks, who were disparate tribes (Achaeans, Ionians, Aeolians, Danaans, Cadmeans, etc.) constantly fighting one upon the other; all the inhabitants of Greece are Eastern Romans (Rumlar/Ρωμιοί), who lost their identity and were ridiculously named ‘Hellenes’, which consisted in a derogatory, filthy and disreputable appellation according to the standards of the Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans, because ‘Hellenes’ meant simply ‘corrupted idolatrous and polytheistic pedophiles, prostitutes, homosexuals, and anomalous disbelievers indulging in sexual orgies in their filthy temples’.
i- the historical falsifications and the nationalistic distortions that are carried out in modern historiography produce a real paroxysm among uneducated masses and ignorant people. The famous battle of Manzikert (1071) is a good example in this regard. In today’s Turkey with its misplaced historical narrative, this event is viewed as a Turkish victory over the Greeks and as a Muslim triumph over the Orthodox Christians. And in today’s Greece with its sick anti-Turkish racism and chauvinism, the same event is considered as a heinous defeat of the Greeks and a serious setback of Orthodox Christianity.
All these views and considerations are totally wrong;
1- Manzikert was not a Turkish victory but an Iranian victory;
2- Manzikert was not a Muslim triumph over Orthodox Christians, because Muslims and Orthodox Christians coexisted peacefully in Anatolia; more importantly, the Orthodox Christians did not consist in just one group; had been divided among themselves because of Iconoclasm and Paulicianism for hundreds of years; that is why many of them willingly sided with the Muslim Seljuks;
3- Manzikert was not Greek defeat, because no Greek soldiers fought there; the armies of Romanos IV Diogenes (1030-1071; reigned after 1067) consisted of Eastern Romans and their king was known to all as ‘King of Romans’ (Βασιλεύς Ρωμαίων / Imperator Romanorum – a title that belongs exclusively to Constantinopolitan rulers). There were no Greeks anymore in the 11th c.; and
4- Manzikert was not a serious setback of Orthodox Christianity, because the true setbacks of Orthodox Christianity were mainly the following six events:
-752 CE: Roman rejection of the need for Eastern Roman emperor’s approval for the consecration of the popes of Rome (instituted by Justinian in 537 CE);
-800 CE: Blasphemous Roman recognition of the pseudo-Christian chieftain Charlemagne as ‘holy Roman emperor’;
-869 CE: First Schism (following the excommunication of pope Nicholas I;
-1054 CE: Great Schism (culmination of the Antichristian papal deviation);
-1095 CE: Launching of the Crusades – a long prepared papal project against mainly the Eastern Roman Empire; in fact, the pope of Rome wanted to prevent the Eastern Roman emperor from reconquering Jerusalem from the ailing Abbasid Caliphate; and
-1204 CE: Sack of Constantinople by the Antichristian soldiers of the Fourth Crusade.
As you see, there is no real setback suffered by Orthodox Christianity to be credited to Muslims; the really Antichristian force that destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire was the pope of Rome.
In fact, Alp Arslan’s victory in Manzikert was not a Turkish victory, because Alp Arslan’s mentor, educational master, spiritual guide, and royal counselor was Nizam al Mulk (1018-1092; نظامالملک/known with his regular name in his early age: Abu Ali Hasan ibn Ali Tusi), the most important socio-educational reformer, Muslim theorist of Governance, and statesman of the Islamic times. Iranian of noble descent, Nizam al Mulk was not only an erudite scholar but also a brave fighter, who accompanied Alp Arslan in almost all his battles. He had even scheduled to be present in the battle of Manzikert, but he had to supervise the transportation of valuable items to Isfahan. Not only Alp Arslan owed his position to Nizam al Mulk (who helped him win over his cousin Kutalmish for the succession of Tughril in 1064), but all the Seljuks were culturally, educationally and intellectually Iranized. In fact, to describe it in its most accurate dimensions, the battle of Manzikert was the most decisive or, if you want, the terminal Iranian victory over the Roman Empire. It was the final Iranian revenge over Emperor Heraclius’ victory over the Sassanid Emperor Khusraw (Chosroes) II Parviz in 628 CE.
The assassination of Nizam al Mulk from an Isma’ili manuscript of the 14th c.
—————————————————
So, who takes a benefit from today’s Turks’ and Greeks’ inability to see this event without the distorting lenses of the modern Western historiography? Certainly those who want to keep them always divided and plunged in misunderstanding, conflicts, and useless competition in arms.
Another typical example of misinterpreted fact by both parts (Turks and Greeks) of the same nation is the Conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Last year, I published this article about the topic, rectifying the associated misperceptions and silly narratives: https://www.academia.edu/43199538/29_May_1453_The_most_Useless_Ottoman_Victory
j- beyond the aforementioned points, there is one more reason you find it difficult to accept that Modern Turkey’s historical narrative has to encompass Justinian and the Eastern Roman Empire. This is a methodological trouble of generalized dimensions; it concerns all fields of modern historiography. It is associated with politics and the prevailing socio-educational trends. It is not particular to Turkology, Medieval and Modern History, Orientalism or Classics. It is a vast issue and I can only mention it here. Quite unfortunately, modern scholars write a history of states and elites, and not a history of peoples and cultures. This generates enormous confusion among the readers, as it consists in a monstrous distortion in and by itself. One can attest it on many occasions. This affects enormously the selection of basic points and elements for the establishment of the historical narrative in every country, thus triggering an enormous historical misconception.
To give you an example, the misrepresentation of the Roman Empire in the early imperial times is disastrous; whereas the entire empire was flooded with Oriental cults and religions, mysteries and philosophies, today’s colonial historians still write a totally fake narrative, detailing the deeds and the texts of the Roman elite, senators, philosophers and poets, instead of revealing in public the entirely Oriental beliefs of the average people of the empire. The same style impacts scholars focusing on the relationships between the Eastern Romans, the Seljuks and the Ottomans; their texts revolve around persons, elites, and institutions. The Eastern Romans and the Turkmen as people, culture and popular religion are left aside. That’s why their narrative is unrepresentative and misleading.
F. Why Kemal Ataturk wisely shut the door of Turkey on the Ugly Face of Enver Pasha
Sixth, there is now only one point to further discuss; you asked me the following question: “why do you renounce pan-Turkish in full when the union with Azerbaijan would be fairly feasible”? Thank you for your comment, which helped me further clarify my position and present my approach to the topic!
I believe that today there is an enormous confusion made around this topic; Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism are not ideologies or theories that lead people to simply cooperate at an international level; they mainly involve a false, nationalistic reading of Turanian History whereby politics eliminates sound argumentation and objective conclusion. This causes a serious trouble because the true conclusions of History are disregarded.
When it comes to bilateral partnership, regional coordination, and international cooperation, every objective observer would certainly agree with these options, under conditions of good governance, reciprocal respect, under multilateral sincerity.
Unfortunately, the above approach is not good enough for the Pan-Turkists and the Pan-Turanianists; these two movements have been known historically for their support for a definite fusion of all Turkic or Turanian populations into one state. During the 19th and the early 20th c., there were many activists, officers, scholars, intellectuals, theoreticians, historians, and even sheikhs, who fought incessantly and bravely, encountered numerous obstacles, and faced terrible persecution, while trying to promote one of these two movements. I wrote about them in two relatively recent publications of mine:
Many among the Jadid intellectuals in Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union were all-committed to the noble but naïve cause of Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism; this led them at times to extreme reactions, which were quite futile. Personally, I believe that they would be more realistic and they would mark greater success, if they attempted the establishment of one national state, following the example of Kemal Ataturk. In any case, there are major arguments that function as stumbling blocks in front of your eyes:
a- Turkic or Turanian peoples, tribes and clans always fought one upon another.
This omnipresent and ubiquitous trait constitutes a major historical argument, which truly obliterates all the pleas and all the appeals of those who are fervently (but thoughtlessly) in favor of just one Pan-Turkic or Pan-Turanian state; throughout History there has never been a moment (let alone period) in which all the Turkic or Turanian people lived together in one realm. Even more crucially, there has never been the desire for it! Certainly the vast empire of Genghis Khan (Temüjin; 1162-1227) encompassed most of the world’s Turkic or Turanian nations, but still there were several Turkic or Turanian states, peoples or elites that were left out. At those days, the northern part of what is now called India, along with most of today’s Pakistan’s territory, belonged to the Mamluk dynasty of Delhi Sultanate (1206-1290); being Muslim, they did not want to belong to a Buddhist-Tengrist realm.
But who were these Mamluks and who were the inhabitants of that Muslim state? They were Turanians, who dissolved the Ghurid Sultanate (879-1215) that had supplanted the Ghaznavid Sultanate (977-1186); the Ghurids were of Iranian origin, but the Ghaznavids were also Turanians.
The Mamluks of the Delhi Sultanate were unrelated to those who ruled Egypt (1250-1517), but as you know well, all of them were the product of the same historical development; Turkic or Turanian soldiers who accepted Islam, pledged an oath to the caliph of Baghdad and then ruled an entire land in his name, being however absolute rulers of their territories. In fact, Mamluk soldiers were the force that truly controlled Egypt (: Masr) at the times of the Ayyubid dynasty (1171-1260), the Fatimid Caliphate (909-1171; the Fatimids invaded Egypt in 969), the Ikhshidid dynasty (935-969), the Abbasid interregnum in Egypt (905-935), and the Tulunid dynasty (868-905). Ibn Tulun was a valiant Turkic or Turanian soldier.
All these Mamluk soldiers and emirs, pretty much like the Zengid dynasty of Damascus (1127-1250), the Rum Seljuks, the Buddhist and Nestorian Qara Khitai (1124-1218; 喀喇契丹) of Balasagun (in today’s Kyrgyzstan), the Kara-Khanid (قراخانیان/喀喇汗國) Khanate (840-1212) of Afrasiab (Samarqand), and more significantly the Khwarazmian (خوارزمشاهیان) Empire (1077-1231) of Konye-Urgench (in today’s Turkmenistan; the site is unrelated to Urgench in Uzbekistan) were of Turkic and/or Turanian origin. The same is also valid for the Kimek–Kipchak confederation (880-1200) and the Volga-Bulgaria (630-1240). And all of them were in constant fight among themselves before being attacked and destroyed by Genghis Khan. Then, what do these famous, so-called Mongol (in reality: Turanian), invasions consist in and how do we interpret them?
The Battle of Vâliyân (1221) and the collapse of the Khwarazmian Empire (from a manuscript of Rashid al-Din’s Jami’ al-Tawarikh) at the hands of the Mongols
—————————————————-
In reality, all these hostilities were Turanian civil wars and we have to admit that the most constant phenomenon in the History of Asia has been a war between Turkic or Turanian nations. The ferocity of an attack undertaken by a Turanian against another Turanian surpasses every brutality recorded in cases of civil war worldwide. With the few last paragraphs, I attempted to make a brief sketch of intra-Turanian conflicts before the Ottomans and to highlight the fact that historically, prior to the notorious 19th c. Great Game, there had never been recorded any attempt to gather all Turks or Turanians within the same state or empire. As you know, from Eastern Siberia Turks migrated either to the West (Central Asia, Europe, Iran, India, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt and North Africa) or to the South (China); the reasons for the intestine wars of the Turanians may vary and can be discussed in congresses, lectures, periodicals, books and encyclopedias, but they constitute an undeniable fact and a heavy heritage that has cast a long shadow over all modern Turanian nations. And Kemal Ataturk saw this shadow!
I guess that the last six centuries are better known to you; shall we really discuss the topic further? Who was right and who was wrong? Timur or Sultan Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud Shah Tughluq, in the battle of Delhi (1398) – when Timur’s flaming camels spread panic among Tughluq’s elephants and secured a victory for the greatest offspring of Genghis Khan? Timur (Tamerlane) or Bayezid I, in Ankara (1402)? Ismail Safevi or Muhammad Shaybani, in the battle of Marv (1510)? Babur (the founder of the Mughal dynasty) or the Uzbeks of the Bukhara Khanate, in the battle of Ab Darrah Pass? Selim I or Ismail Safevi, in Chaldiran (1514)? Suleiman the Magnificent or Shah Tahmasp, in the war of 1532–1555? Nader Shah Afshar or Mahmud I, in the war of 1743–1746?
Selim I (above); Ismail Safevi (below)
————————————————————
If I insist on this, it is because I understand that, when you will put Uzbeks, Turks, Turkmen and others within the same state, it will explode in a disastrous manner, because all these nations, despite their undeniable common origin, have followed different paths throughout History. Consequently, they cherish different values, varied traditions, and diverse legends, heroes and historical paradigms. There are even situations of animosity; Kazakhs dislike Uighurs, Turkmen dislike Kazakhs, Uzbeks dislike Turkmen, and so on; if I continue on this style, I can fill an entire page. Here, you will find some interesting points: https://stanugeniem.ru/en/physical-culture/shtat-tehas-chimkentskie-eto-chto-osobyi-subetnos-i-pochemu-ih-ne/
That’s why I believe that Kemal Ataturk was wise enough to shut the door of Turkey on the ugly face of Enver Pasha. So, a first point is the very divergent past that will inevitably trigger discord among all these nations, if one day their governments become foolish enough to merge them in one country / state.
b- Countries with unresolved problems gain nothing when merging with others.
There is a second point; it is clear enough to show that a union of even (or only) two Turkic states may appear as an oxymoron. Actually, your suggestion offered me this perspective; you believe that a union between Turkey and Azerbaijan is “fairly feasible”. Great! Then, let us assume that this union is effectuated next year! I am therefore led to believe that the wonderful state that starts in Izmir or Edirne and ends in Baku is an exemplary structure. Perfect! Then, you certainly suggest that, in this merged state or confederation, Turkish will be the language of primary and secondary education in one part of the territory and Azeri will be used in the rest of the country. Superb! Then, why will Kurmanji, Zaza, Arabic, and Suryani (Syriac Aramaic) not be used in the primary and secondary education of provinces where these languages are the native tongue of the local populations? Why do we have to believe that Azeri is more of a language than the other aforementioned languages?
I don’t open this vast discussion and I don’t have the intention to herewith explain why something that was not a problem at the time of Kemal Ataturk became a trouble after 1938; it is certainly a major issue that concerns the entire country. But the problem is neither linguistic nor educational; it is governmental, as it pertains to the system of governance. Turkey is perfect only with the Constitution of 1924. With the changes made after Kemal Ataturk’s death, all the problems appeared – only as a result of those idiotic and catastrophic changes that were subtly suggested by the worst enemies of the mankind, i.e. England, France, America and their allies. As I said, the entire linguistic/educational issue cannot be discussed within the scope of the present article; however, at this point, I have to shed more light on this second troublesome dimension of your suggestion, by asking the following:
– How a country that apparently has unsolved issues can possibly intend to ‘export’ its model to others and incorporate other nations?
A country with a misplaced historical narrative will only lose if it merges with another country, even if the outright majority of both countries enthusiastically support the confederation in a referendum.
– Why?
– Because two blind people on the slope of a mountain, when making an alliance, will fall together in the precipice!
It goes without saying: a ‘union of ignorance’ does not make a national strength. And I can give you an example: it is not only Turkey that has a misplaced historical narrative. Azerbaijan too has a very poor, weak and incomplete historical narrative. At times, Baku gives the impression that it exists only as ‘the anti-Armenian country in Caucasus’. This unidimensional portrait can turn out to be a disaster. Back in 2009, I wrote about that, demonstrating from where the National History of Azerbaijan must start: from Ancient Atropatene, which was the holiest province of Ancient Iran and the land of the earliest settled Turanians in the region.
Ismail Safevi fighting in 1508 against the last remnants of the Akkoyunlu
———————————————————
In fact, the correct historical narrative of Azerbaijan would not be either a Pan-Turkic or Pan-Turanian absurdity or an Islamist idiocy. It would also be catastrophic for Baku to turn to a modern nationalist version and attempt merely the ‘liberation’ of South Azerbaijan. This would be tantamount to full compliance with the vicious Western European – North American ideological garbage which was geared only to fool Third World idiots. To creatively assess its historical heritage, inventively apply its cultural integrity, and actively invigorate its national identity, Azerbaijan must reappear as it has always been: the spiritual high place and holy land of the Iranian plateau. This would make of the Azeris the standard-bearers of Iran.
Consequently, all the Azeris will have to view the entire historical Iran as their land – exactly in the way Ismail Safevi saw Iran from Tabriz, his capital. This means that the Azeris have to challenge both fake versions of Modern Iran that the English and the French Orientalists fabricated in order to maliciously turn a marvelous empire into a world pariah useful to manipulate according to their own interests: the anti-imperial, nationalistic monarchy of the Pahlavi and the anti-Iranian, pseudo-Shia fallacy of the Wilayat-e Faqih and the pathetic Ayatollahs. The only true victory for the Azeris will be to go beyond the colonial tricks and reconstitute the Safavid state. Then, certainly, along with the Turks of Anatolia, they will be able to start the quest for the Qizilbash Anatolian-Iranian spirituality, moral, popular religion, moral and legends. But this quest will be totally deprived of politics and theology – exactly as Kemal Ataturk demonstrated before one century.
c- Trying to unite few small countries, you lose the greater picture and the best chance!
Last, your question offers me one more opportunity to demonstrate the impossibility or rather the destructiveness of your approach, namely what you call “the union with Azerbaijan”, which “would be fairly feasible”. I am afraid that, trying to achieve the minimal, you lose the maximal.
Previously, I spoke about Azerbaijan and the Azeris of South Azerbaijan, in Iran. But then, what do all these brilliant Pan-Turkist and Pan-Turanian minds think about the South Turkmenistan (i.e. NE Iran), which is also known widely as Turkmen Sahra (ترکمن صحرا / Türkmen Sahra)? I guess that they think nothing else except for trivial deals, useless secessions, and destructive wars; of course, if Iranians and Turanians were two truly different nations, this approach would certainly make sense; but are they? Or is it rather a matter of great historical distortion carried out by the evil colonial powers and projected everywhere onto the unsuspecting victims?
And if we further assume that South Azeris and South Turkmen inhabit the northern part of Iran and make the majority of the local population and if we deduce that territorial continuity can be possibly established among Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, why should we then leave out of the borders of the multinational state the Turkic nation of the Qashqais, who live in Fars, the imperial center of Iran?
This situation should rather ring the bell to us, showing clearly that we have engaged in the wrong path. It would be meaningless to continue on the same path (secession). And it would be equally senseless, heinous and disastrous to devise the division of Iran. Such an attempt would immediately turn the entire project from benevolent to malevolent and from ‘historical rectification’ to historical distortion. So, where is the mistake in all this? Apparently, every form of nationalism, as a vicious modern Western political invention, leads only to wars due to the deliberate historical distortions and the subsequent misrepresentations of the past. The initial mistake would therefore be an erroneous reading of History through distorting nationalistic (i.e. political) lenses. There cannot be one truthful point in politics; everything contained in or emanating from politics is devilish and disastrous. You cannot be moral and you cannot be faithful (in any religion), when your mind and heart are contaminated with politics.
Iran is perfect, when it is the true, historical Iran, as it has been from the Achaemenid era to the Sassanid period and further on, through the Islamic times, involving the Buyids, the Samanids, the Great Seljuks, the Ilkhanids, the Safavids, as well as the Afshar and the Qajar dynasties. Before and after the arrival of Islam, Iran constituted the best vision and the noblest implementation of the Universal Empire; there were always Turanians and Iranians in Iran. They lived together in peace, and they were all bilingual or rather multilingual; this is the historical truth, which makes the evil and uncivilized cannibals of England, France, Israel and America feel how inferior they are when compared to a civilized nation. This detrimental comparison incites them to show their evil and criminal face, while also instigating in them the need to devise tricks and forgeries in order to plunge all these highly civilized peoples into divisions, strives and wars.
Every word written by an Anglo-Saxon scholar about Iran and Turan is a poisonous lie; people must get liberated from the Western academic cholera and rediscover the historical truth. In reality, since the Achaemenid times and even before, Turanians and Iranians have been one nation with the Turanian languages being mainly used for spiritual and military purposes, whereas the Iranian languages were spoken and written for religious, literary and imperial purposes. During the Islamic times in Iran, almost all the scientists, the historians and the theologians wrote in Arabic, the poets composed epics and other types of poetry in Farsi, whereas the military officers and the soldiers communicated in Turanian languages, notably Chagatai, Turkmen or Azeri.
This situation gradually changed to some extent, thanks to illustrious people like Mahmud al Kashgari (1005-1102), Ahmed Yasavi (1093-1166), and Yunus Emre (1238-1328). All the same, Nizami Ganjavi (1141-1209), the national poet of the Azeris, laughed at the idea of writing poetry in a Turkic language, i.e. his own mother tongue; and this reflects very well the reality about the topic. Three centuries later, Zaher ud-Din Muhammad (ظهير الدين محمد), known mainly as Babur (1483-1530), the great military adventurer, superb strategist, and excellent tactician in the battle field, great-great grandson of Timur, and founder of the Mughal dynasty of South Asia, wrote his famous Babur-nameh (بابر نامہ /Book of Babur; a historical text written in the form of autobiography) in Chagatai Turkic.
Reversely, his grandson, Emperor Akbar the Great (1542-1605; reigned after 1556 / Jalal ud-Din abu’l Fath Muhammad; جلال الدين أبو الفتح محمد أكبر), found it propitious to have the historical text translated into Farsi. This attitude shows clearly that the true Turanians, those who were not affected by the Satanic Anglo-Saxon propaganda like today’s idiotic Pan-Turkists and Pan-Turanianists, cherished very much Farsi and felt it as theirs; Akbar’s attitude reflects very well the bilingual nature of all Turanians, and their genuine love of Farsi.
And, as you know very well, all Ottoman sultans, as genuinely multilingual rulers, were fluent in Farsi, which was the cultural language of the Ottoman Empire. And Mehmet II uttered verses (not of the Quran but) of the great Iranian poet Saadi (1210-1292; سعدی; his full name was: ابومحمّد مصلحالدین بن عبدالله شیرازی / Abu Muhammad Mosleh ud-Din bin Abdullah Shirazi) in Farsi, when entering the palace of the Eastern Roman emperors in Constantinople on 29th May 1453:
The spider weaves the curtains in the palace of the Caesars;
the owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab.
Saadi
So, you can now understand that all the historical narratives of Iran and all the Turkic or Turanian states are wrong. Iran and Turan are one. I have written a book on the topic and I need to elaborate the last chapters before publishing it; however, I have already pre-published three chapters. You can find them here:
Now, the complex historical relationship between Iran and Turan is not a unique case in Asia; neither is it a matter or an issue confined only to the member-states of the Organization of Turkic States (Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı) and Iran. A similar situation exists also between these states and Russia. You may perhaps imagine that, by saying this, I mean the Turkic nations that are currently living in the Russian Federation. But that is wrong, although I certainly don’t deny the fact that the Tatars of Kazan, the Tatars of Crimea, the Chuvash, the Kymyks, the Kalmyks, the Nogais, the Bashkirs (of Bashkortostan), the Tuvans, the Yakuts, the Altaians, the Balkars, and the Khakas are all Turkic-Turanian people with great traditions, literature, culture, and history.
However, I believe that it would be catastrophic for any supporter of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism to imagine that it would be effective, correct and reasonable to demand the national independence or the secession of these nations from Russia; this has nothing to do with the military strength of Russia. First of all, let me point out that, thanks to the balanced system of governance in Russia, the central control in Moscow is fully able to guarantee the survival, the national dignity, the cultural integrity, the progress and the prosperity of all these nations within their traditional cultural and socio-behavioral, spiritual and moral, educational and religious context that they have maintained as part of their ancestral heritage. Every naïve apologist of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism, who would stupidly call for ‘independence’ and ‘secession’ of any of these nations, would in reality expose them to terrible adversities and malignant persecution. He would truly be their enemy.
In such a case, the silly political pretext of a delusional ‘national sovereignty’ would become the alibi for these nations’ enslavement to the perfidious, criminal, and terrorist countries of the West; it is in exactly the same manner that Slovenia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia and many other small Eastern European nations have been held captive of the inhuman gangsters who rule the colonial countries of Western Europe and North America. If by misfortune they happen to follow this disastrous and nefarious example, all the Tatars, the Bashkirs, the Chuvash, the Altaians and the other Turkic nations of the Russian Federation will be forced to accept the monstrous, tyrannical and absolutely lawless laws of the Western countries and thus shamelessly legalize fornication, adultery, homosexual marriages, transgenderism, gender-free education, and every sort of pan-sexist contamination and evilness. This means clearly that, by gaining a fake independence, these nations will be enslaved in a most shameful manner, and then this calamitous development will end up with their irreversible, spiritual and cultural, genocide.
For any Pan-Turkist and Pan-Turanianist theorist or activist, the aforementioned procedure constitutes a disastrous sectarian approach; in other words, it is a non-option. However, at this point, things do not end, but become the spark of a new start. Similarly with many other sectors of modern historiography, Russian History has been tampered with by Western colonial academics and diplomats, intellectuals and agents, who incessantly attempted to drag Imperial Russia into the Western evilness, inhumanity and sin. For many long centuries, the villainous Freemasons of England and France, the fanatic Protestants of Germany, and the egregious Jesuits of Rome attempted to systematically infiltrate Russia, heinously corrupt Orthodox Christianity, morally – socio-behaviorally contaminate the average Russian people, and systematically distort the Russian historical narrative. The multifaceted effort started already before the reign of Peter the Great, and it was only accentuated over the past three centuries. The end result is that most of the Russians have today a fully distorted idea about their past; down to our days, Russians consider the so-called Mongol invasions as a period unrelated to their past. This is not only very wrong, but also nationally and regionally disastrous.
However, there were always Turkic and Turanian nations that existed in the territory of today’s Russia; Turanians antedate Slavs and Islam was diffused in the present territory of Russia before Christianity. Volga Bulgaria accepted Islam several decades before Kievan Rus embraced Christianity. In fact, Russian History is Turanian History, and Russians are a Turanian nation; Moscow was a Muslim city and there was a mosque inside the Kremlin. The divisions of the Golden Horde created the collapse of the Turanian Muslim rule across the territory of Russia and Ukraine. Under Ivan III (1440-1505; ruled after 1462), Vasili III (1479-1533; ruled after 1505), and Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584; ruled after 1533, being tutored and mentored until 1547), the tiny Muscovite state started expanding; during this process, people were forced to accept Christianity, whereas linguistic-educational Russification was systematically and forcefully undertaken for many centuries.
Then, the state historical dogma of Russian continuity from Kiev to Moscow was proclaimed, only to become later the sacrosanct foundation of the Romanov dynasty; but it is meaningless. The majority of today’s Russian natives descend from Turanian Muslims, who -in different moments- accepted Christianity and were subsequently russified at the linguistic level; but the different religion does not reflect a cultural difference. Today, identifying the Russians as the ethnic and religious descendants of Kievan Rus is a racist distortion of the true historical past of the Russian nation. This approach was already advanced by the Soviet-Russian Orientalist historian Lev Gumilyov (Лев Николаевич Гумилёв; 1912-1992), who disturbed enormously the insidiously fallacious Anglo-Saxon view, approach and narrative; that is why he was deliberately accused for his ‘pan-Asiatic’ viewpoint and his supposedly ‘anti-Semitic’ conclusions {notably as regards the Radhanites (Рахдониты/ الرذنية)}.
It goes without saying that if, in the light of the aforementioned, one develops a racist perception and formulates an absurd demand for the re-Turkification and the re-Islamization of the Russians, the results will be disastrous. This insane approach would surely play into the game of the worst enemies of all the Asiatic nations. On the contrary, really beneficial approaches to all would be the following: historical conceptualization, educational cooperation, governmental coordination, and mutual knowledge and understanding. Russia should be cordially invited as an observer state in the Organization of Turkic States (https://www.turkkon.org/). Russian must become first foreign language in Turkey and Iran; many departments of Slavic Studies and Siberian Archaeology must open in Turkish and Iranian universities.
Similar approach should apply to the relations of Turkey and the other Turkic states with Pakistan and India, as well as with China. It will be for the national security of India and Pakistan to better assess and clearly highlight the Turanian dimension of their historical narrative. However, after Bülent Ecevit studied Sanskrit, how many Turks moved to Pakistan and India to study and explore the historical past, while establishing an academic, intellectual and cultural bridge between the subcontinent and Anatolia? The same is valid for China; the sound Turkic and Turanian approach is not to stupidly protest about the fate of some old Uighur mosques in Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang/新疆). The really difficult task is to extensively study and properly interpret the traditional identification of Turan with China within the Iranian Epic Poetry, which constitutes the best key to understanding the Asiatic historical and cultural unity.
There is nothing Islamic in the Islamic Republic of Iran except the popular religion (attested in non-Westernized people) and the historical monuments. In Iranian provinces, the Muslim faith is alive, although this is not tantamount to direct support of the Qom / Tehran-based, absurd theological regime, which wastes the national resources in counter-productive manners.
The supporters of the Ayatollahs are mainly concentrated in major cities whereby the advanced technological Westernization produces a terrible ideological clash at the detriment of all Muslims. In the same social environment live also the ‘pro-Western’ opponents of the Ayatollahs.
Among these three categories of people, the cultural differences are enormous, the diverse purposes are centrifugal, and the socio-behavioral systems are opposite.
I. Traditional believers in Iranian provinces
The majority of the people in the provinces, living either in the villages, the towns and the cities or as nomads, live Islam as a popular religion; they cherish the related moral values, respect their traditions, and experience spirituality as traditional component of their culture. As they are distant from the capital, governance is not their concern. They may well observe the various wrongdoings of the government, but politics is not their affair, and they cannot see a trustworthy opponent anywhere in the horizon. Their attitude is therefore clearly neutral, anything between passive acceptance and passive resistance. I would also add that they are too innocent, too naïve and too benevolent to possibly fathom how their government and regime have been maneuvered by evil foreign forces without even knowing or sensing it. All the same, these people are the true, average Iranians. I would say that they represent ca. 50% of the population.
Simple Iranians in the streets of TabrizSimple Iranians in the Bazaar of Urumiyeh (Urmia)In the streets of Tekab, in the Zagros Mountains, Western IranPopular religion of the Iranians: slaughtering a lamb for the Eid al AdhaThe daily life of the Qashqai Turanian nomads in Fars, South IranThis is how the Qashqai Iranians get married.Qashqai women do not need the stupid washing machines of the useless Western world. They know better!There are no homosexual marriages among the Qashqais, because there are no homosexuals at all. And no one needs them.
II. ‘Religious’ supporters of the Ayatollahs
The people in the cities and the big cities live in great tension; the supporters of the government are very fervent, but they confuse ‘theology’ with ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ with ‘governance’. They have lost much of the Iranian culture to the benefit of the technological modernization. They cannot experience the popular religion in the way people customarily do in villages; to them ‘religion’ means ‘rejection of the West’ and celebrating the Mawlid un-Nabi today is for them an opportunity to reject the true, existing, evil plans of several Western countries against Iran. This is absurd. Religion is all about a person’s contact with God; evil governments, regimes and secret organizations have no place in Faith. You cannot possibly believe a religion only to reject somebody else – however evil he/they may truly be; such an attitude is by all means sheer madness and utter disbelief. But these people cannot see that the hate of the other cannot be possibly associated with one’s faith or with an entire nation’s religion. Losing their popular religion and traditional culture, they get radicalized, they mistake theology and political ideology for religion, and they become appalling to the ‘Westernized’ Iranians. These people make big noise, but they do not constitute more than 25% of the entire population. Their success is that they appear to have the support of the silent majority (see previous unit) and they control the totality of the dictatorial mechanisms of the state (this is not typically Iranian: anywhere the state mechanisms are dictatorial).
‘Religious’ supporters of the Ayatollahs in manifestation against the ‘Pro-Western’ or ‘Westernized’ Iranians‘Religious’ Iranians support the government.Iranians in support of the Islamic republic’s government
III. ‘Pro-Western’ or ‘Westernized’ Iranians
This population, contrarily to the aforementioned two groups, is not homogeneous. This is critically calamitous to all foreign schemes and plans of utilizing them. This very fact consists also in a major stumbling block in their path to power. However, this situation is nothing new; it became crystal clear in the last years of Reza Pahlavi’s reign and in the first years of the Khomeini oligarchical rule. At the time, a sizeable part of this population allied themselves with the supporters of Khomeini. Now they don’t make the same mistake again! Leftist Iranians, who studied in Paris only to become Marxist-Leninist or social democrat of ideology, royalists who wish Reza Pahlavi’s son to come back and reign, Iranians who lived abroad only to be impacted enough to become anything An-Iranian (the non-Iran is a historical term that goes back to pre-Islamic times), conservative people of the old upper middle class who desire to simply look like Westerners without truly being so, and few truly marginal groups of homosexuals and atheists, materialists and nationalists can be categorized as anti-Ayatollah opposition.
When it comes to this segment of Iranian society, their only chance is to sensitize the silent majority (see Unit I) in case the radicalization of the ‘religious’ supporters of the regime turns out to appear like brutalization of the rest. This can bring results and this is known to all the enemies of Iran: those who appear ‘friendly’ nowadays (England) and those who hate the Iranian Civilization that shaped the Western world against their will (Israel) and up to the point that they need to hide it (Vatican, France).
Cheraghan Restaurant, Tehran: a favorite place for those among the Iranians who think that Westernization is only the removal of hijab.Lamiz Cafe: a Western environment for ‘Pro-Western’ Iranians who do not know what the true face of the abnormal West is.Malek (‘Angel’) Cafe: ‘Pro-Western’ Iranians fail to understand that Westernization is nothing else except the transformation of an Angel into an evil demon. ‘Westernized’ Iranians would reject the contents of 9 out of every 10 Western ‘laws’ that are valid in the criminal tyrannies of the Western world.‘Westernized’ Iranians have no idea what the Western is and they would reject it if they knew.
To close this brief introduction, I must say that the fragmentation of this part of the Iranian society is not the major problem that they have. There is a very serious issue, which is not known to most of these people, and still affects them terribly. This fact has to do with their own self-identification and description as ‘Pro-Western’ or ‘Westernized’. Although these people think that they are so, in reality they are not.
Certainly they want to remove their hijab, but they don’t want homosexual marriages in Iran.
Iranians participating in anti-governmental protests have a completely wrong idea about the Western world. Deceived anti-governmental protesters in Tehran have fallen victims of the lies, the fake promises, and the hidden, true face of their Western friends and supporters. Their riots offered useful material to Western mass media that give no damn whether 30, 300 or 3000 Iranians die.
Certainly they want to have a parliamentarian political system, which looks like that of a European country; but they don’t want to pass lawless laws according to which the school teachers will demand from a ‘court of Justice’ to separate the children from their parents because the latter did not ‘explain’ to them at the age of 7 that they can change their gender.
Certainly they want to have free alcohol in Iran, but they don’t want prostitution, fornication, and adultery, as well as premarital and extramarital relations to be considered as ‘legal’ activities in Iran.
Certainly they don’t want a sectarian decision-making in Iran; but this is only due to their ignorance and lack of understanding of the Western world. What difference at this point would it make to abolish a pseudo-Islamist sectarian decision-making in Iran only to replace it by a Zionist sectarian decision-making?
Who said that Iran must be governed by filthy and criminal dictators, who would ‘conclude’ (only because they were heavily bribed) that “Iran does not need nuclear weapons”, “Russia and China are a threat”, “NATO is necessary for regional security” and “UK, France, Canada, Australia, US, New Zealand, and Israel” are ‘normal’ states?
No one needs beasts like that in Iran!
My simple and straightforward conclusion is that, in spite of all drawbacks and serious mistakes, oversights, and wrongdoings, Iranians do not need, do not want, do not deserve, and will not approve of a regime change geared -not out of love for the (deliberately misrepresented in, and concealed from, the Western world) Iranian nation and civilization but- because of an inhuman, vicious hatred for the holy land of Iran, which proved throughout the ages to be definitely more important than the Roman Empire, let alone South Canaan (fake Israel) and South Balkans (fake Greece).
I have an advice for all Iranian protestors: go to China!
Forget UK and US! These countries are impermissible to exist and they will cease to exist.
It is on this background that I received a comment about one of my articles on Iran, which was first published in 2007. I herewith publish the comment and my response. The old article concerned the Ayatollah regime of Iran and how it functioned to the benefit of Western colonial powers; it can be found here:
IV. A reader’s comment on Western foreign involvement in Iran
Dear Shamsaddin,
With the ongoing social revolution in Iran, I also discovered the historic links between Freemasons and the Shiite clergy. I shall read your document with keen interest.
Best regards
————————————
V. Response about the manifestations in Iran and evil agendas
Thank you for your interest and comment! Unfortunately, this article is an old publication which was first published in the American Chronicle, Buzzle and AfroArticles back in 2007, immediately reproduced in Fravahr, and later republished here. Of course, I did not change my mind over the past 15 years, but the presentation is very brief.
People did/do not understand the nature of Western colonialism and that is why great empires have been decomposed by the Western criminals. The Western world is a composite tyrannical regime ruled by elites that, while expanding worldwide and exploiting the rest of the world, fight against one another: Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists utilize every resource (i.e. every state) available, and in the process, other countries get destroyed, dismembered and ruined.
What various establishments, empires and kingdoms outside the Western world failed to understand is the following observation. When France became the ally of the Ottoman Empire and England supported Iran, the French and the English interests were protected, whereas Iran and the Ottoman Empire got dissolved. Why? Because both alliances were a scheme and a lie!
When a secret organization like the CIA places an ignorant and worthless soldier atop of a country (like Gamal Abdel Nasser), they also manage to put next to him a driver and a cook who are their own pawns (but the worthless soldier does not know it) and they can kill the ‘important person’ any time they receive the order to do this.
When Napoleon sent a special envoy to the Qajar Shah to ask permission that French soldiers cross Iran to attack the English criminals in India (and prevent the then forthcoming collapse of the Mughal), the English sent their own agent who managed to poison the French envoy in a public restaurant in Esfahan.
After the English made of a soldier (Reza Khan) the king of Iran (to turn an Oriental Empire into a weak and worthless nationalistic kingdom), they
– first, gave him his … name (the poor guy did not have a clue what Pahlevi meant),
– second, prepared the opponent of his son {Khomeini was guided by English stooges as to what to study, what to write in his thesis, and what vision of possible ‘Islamic’ state to compose (the ridiculous Wilayat al Faqih serves only English interests in Islamic countries)}, and
– third, corrupted his son (when he was ‘studying’ in Switzerland in the 1930s) so that finally he deposed the idiotic Reza Khan, and he ruled until he was deposed too.
Look at this picture! Notice the position of the legs of both persons! It is quite telling – about who the teacher/master and who the pupil/student are!
So, what you call ‘social revolution in Iran’ is not a social revolution, but a well-prepared (by the Zionists) operation against the pathetic gang of the Ayatollahs who operated (without knowing it) as local stooges of the English Freemasonry. In other words, it is a proxy war between the secret services of England from one side (the silly Iranian government) and from the other side (fake manifestations organized by tele-guided protestors) the secret services of Israel (anti-Netanyahu side) and one part of the US establishment (anti-Trump side).
Today’s stupid Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia fail to understand that, after the abolition of the caliphate, there is no Islam. To set up an empire, Muslims do not need the Hadith and the various Madhhab. They need the Art of the Empire. Timur (Tamerlane) is far more important than prophet Muhammad today. Not in order to start fighting stupidly and idiotically (like the idiotic Islamists here and there), but to make sense of Timur’s mental skills, faculties, perceptual powers and instantaneous reflexes / reactions. That’s why Sharaf al Din Ali Yazdi and his Zafarnameh are more important than the Quran – not as just a reading, but to first study and understand Timur’s unmatched strategic capacities and later to reproduce them within the present context against all the enemies of the Islamic world.
The war is imperial, not religious. The Western enemies of the Muslims want to
a) divert all Muslims to fake theologies that have been deliberately and systematically presented to them as ‘religion’ (i.e. Islam),
b) engulf them in this idiocy, and
c) utilize them for their calamitous agendas.
A fake Mahdi and a fake prophet Jesus have been produced (with microchips in their stupid heads and without knowing it) and they may ‘appear’ in public, if some evil agendas are successfully advanced.
Who are today’s best Muslims?
Putin and Xi Jinping!
The only who block the advance of the evil Western agendas.
Few days ago, I sent to a friend in Turkey a link to the Times of Israel; the feature presents new archaeological discoveries dating back to the time of Ramses II (who reigned from 1304 to 1235/or as per the lower chronological system, which is less probable, from 1279 to 1213). The article can be found here:
Frozen in time: 3,300-year-old burial cave from Ramses II era found at popular beach
I- The Calamitous Structure of Cultural Colonialism
My friend replied asking me to what extent we can trust Israeli scholars. His few words revealed an enormous ignorance, which -quite unfortunately- was personal and particular to him but prevails worldwide. This ignorance has to do with a very crucial issue, namely the fact that between the layer of Western (Israeli included) scholars and that of the average public, there are -across the Earth- several other layers through which the discoveries, data, explorations, info, investigations and conclusions of the various scholars are being distorted, altered and totally disfigured in order to keep the general readership in confusion, wrong conceptualization of the facts, and mistaken contextualization of the data. Of course, many scholars are known for carrying out biased research and for deliberately distorting the historical truth in order to promote preconceived schemes, fake ideologies, and personal misperceptions, but this layer is not always the main part of the problem.
Due to the aforementioned layers, the same original piece of info ends up multiply transfigured and ultimately misunderstood among various readers all over the world. These layers of catastrophic disinformation and premeditated misinformation have to do with the educational system of each and every country, the contents of the historical manuals, the publishing houses, the books published or not published, the effectuation or omission of translations (of books written in other languages), the press and the mass media in general, the different topics featured or avoided, the various issues discussed or not discussed, the frequency with which themes are presented, the circle of the Art and notably Cinematography, the movies and the documentaries released or not released, the local academic establishment in general, the religious establishment and the extent to which it influences (or it is allowed to influence) the entire nation, and -last but not the least- the political-governmental-administrative establishment.
At this point, it is essential to clarify that the political-governmental-administrative establishment in most of the countries of the world is not at all as powerful and as omnipotent as people erroneously think it is. This is so because of the fact that in most of the countries the ruling class is merely the product of the local ‘system’ (all the previous layers that I mentioned and viewed in historical perspective) and they therefore have tragically failed to even imagine that, in order to be real rulers, they have to first reject everything that they know, then examine, crosscheck, criticize and re-evaluate everything they had been taught, every single point that they had learned as hypothetically correct, and every single issue in life that they accepted thoughtlessly. Without an overwhelming, ongoing self-criticism, everyone can be mistaken at any possible moment. Permanent reassessment of everything is the clear condition that distinguishes the living from the dead.
Now, the above statement takes an even more nefarious turn if we take into consideration that in most of the cases a colonial interference took place locally involving extensive practices of educational, academic, intellectual, cultural, spiritual, ideological, political, economic and military intrusion, guidance and dictatorial decision-making in total opposition with the indigenous nation’s spiritual integrity, moral decency, cultural integrity, and national coherence.
Quite unfortunately, the very maleficent reality is that at the origin of every political-governmental-administrative establishment that is virtually unable to ceaselessly perform austere self-criticism and reassessment are hidden the immutable successors of a colonially imposed administration, which had caused terrible bloodshed because it was (at least initially) rejected. These colonial pawns that were dictatorially placed atop of the local government implemented colonial choices against local traditions, options and concepts at all levels: governmental, political, military, intellectual, academic, religious, spiritual, educational, artistic, cultural, behavioral and economic.
The colonial powers of England, France and America did not implement the same policies and did not seek to get the same results everywhere; from place to place, they tried to produce a fake, colonial, reality that suits the eschatological agendas of the different parts (Jesuit, Freemasonic, Zionist) of their establishment and backstage.
Here, they gathered 4-5 different nations and they tried to build a new state (this is called ‘Afghanistan’); there, they tried to divide a united nation (which has merely linguistic particularities from place to place, as it happens everywhere) and they created a fake nation out of thin air (this is named ‘Ukraine’). Every single detail of the colonial policies and practices hinges on eschatological details of the different agendas of the-powers-that-be.
What follows is my response to my friend’s question about the veracity of Israeli scholars’ findings and conclusions.
—————————————–
Dear Hakan,
Hope you are fine!
When it comes to the modern state of Fake Israel, I can tell you very easily that, in reality, today’s fake Muslims, due to their ignorance and stupidity, created that state. They contributed to its success only due to their darkness. I will only give you few examples of what these Muslims did not know.
II- Southern Canaan: an Egyptian Territory
The entire southern Canaan was part of Egypt for many centuries. Few people (even in Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan) know that most of today’s Lebanon, the southern confines of Syria, the western part of Jordan, and all the land of Palestine belonged to Egypt for several hundreds of years in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE.
Of course, these lands were not inhabited by Egyptians but Canaanites, i.e. Semitic populations who were the ancestors of the Phoenicians. However, they were heavily Egyptianized culturally and in every major city there was a good scribe specialized in Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Egyptians allowed local chieftains and small kings to stay in and rule place, and they collected annual tribute. But Egyptian army was patrolling there, pretty much like throughout North Sudan (i.e. Ancient Cush) for more than 1000 km south of Wadi Halfa alongside the Nile (up to Abu Hamed).
Asiatic and Cushitic territories were in reality colonial provinces. That is why it is correct to divide Ancient Egyptian History into Ancient Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and New Empire (1580-1080 BCE), because the 18th-20th dynasties constituted an imperial force.
In the northern confines of their Asiatic territories, the Egyptians were constantly clashing with the North Mesopotamian Mitanni kingdom of the Hurrians and with the Anatolian Hittites in order to maintain their presence in Southern Canaan.
The most famous of those battles was at Kadesh (Ancient Canaanite term from which originates the Arabic word Quds), which was located 25 km SW of Homs (Emessa). The battle of Kadesh (nearby the Orontes River-Asi Nehri; the same river that crosses Antioch/Antakya) is the earliest war to be documented from two different historical sources (Cuneiform Hittite and Egyptian hieroglyphics) and, although Ramses II (fighting at very old age) risked being encircled, the battle ended with no real outcome. The two emperors realized that they were in a status of military parity and expressed a certain degree of reciprocal respect; they then concluded the World History’s earliest saved treaty: the Treaty of Kadesh (between Hattushili III and Ramses II) — of which a copy is present in the premises of UN in New York.
Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh, as depicted on the walls of his temple at Abu SimbelRamses II at the Battle of Kadesh; Ramesseum
Cuneiform version of the Treaty of Kadesh; Archaeological Museum of IstanbulAnother cuneiform version of the Treaty of Kadesh, Neues Museum BerlinEgyptian hieroglyphic version of the Treaty of Kadesh on the western outer wall of the Cachette farm at the Amun temple of Karnak
III. Wrong Education & Ignorance of Historical Identity can destroy entire countries
All this and much more should be on all historical manuals of the schoolchildren of Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. Publishing houses should translate to Turkish, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, Kurmanji, Zazaki, and Sorani books written by foreign scholars about these topics.
These topics should also be extensively and repeatedly discussed in the press and the TV, while great historical films and many documentaries should have been shot on similar historical events too. For a Turk today, Hattushili III and the Battle of Kadesh are more important than Mehmet II’s conquest of the tiny city-state of Constantinople in 1453. Any stupid guy, who disagrees with my statement, will lose his stupid country that he -provenly- does not deserve.
Unfortunately, the local, ignorant and uneducated masses of these countries destroy themselves and compromise (or even endanger) their future with their false religion (on which they so excessively but so erratically, so purposelessly and so mistakenly focus). This is so, because their so-called religion has nothing to do with the historical faith preached by prophet Muhammad, but consists in an evil and execrable political ideology that keeps all the masses idiotic enough for England, France, America, Canada, Australia, Israel, Belgium, New Zealand and Holland to use them as they want. Why is this so? Because their fake religion prevents a proper nation building!
All the ignorant and idiotic sheikhs of today’s fake Islam are the best tools of Israel, UK, US, France and the Western World in general. You will see that Israel will sooner or later will expand its borders — not for any other reason but because all these idiots, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Iraqis and others never became real nations able to duly evaluate their own History and extract the correct conclusions as regards their political decision-making. For the time being, only Russia prevents Israel from occupying all lands between Euphrates and Nile.
People, who do not know their History, will therefore be erased by the criminal Zionists, Jesuits and Freemasons. These evil gangsters, who controlled the real power of the Western countries, imposed on the colonized populations of the detached provinces of the Ottoman Empire the existing, fake religious and political leaderships in order to deliberately make these populations permanently unable to become proper nations and fight for their lands.
IV. National History, not Religion, makes today’s Nations Strong
The only, who understood the reality and imposed the correct measures and the suitable educational programs, was Kemal Ataturk; for today’s Turks, the History of the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Urartu, the Phrygians, the Ionians, the Romans, the Eastern Romans, the Aramaeans. the Iranians, the Turkmen and the Mongols is more important than the life of prophet Muhammad, the early Caliphates, and the failed Ottoman family rulers.
Ataturk visiting findings at the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul1930: Ataturk visiting Aspendos to inspect the excavations of the local theater of the Roman periodKemal Ataturk examining Hittite findings from Alaca Höyük
National History, National Education, National Identity and National Integrity have nothing to do with religion, but have much to do with culture. That is why at the level of the correct educational curriculum, there must not be a course of Religion, but a course of History of Religion. Consequently, for the National History of the Turks today, the Hittite religion, the Attalid religion (as documented on so many monuments of Pergamum/Bergama), Iranian Mithraism (as revealed in Nemrut Dagh, the illustrious peak sanctuary and tumulus of Commagene, and elsewhere), Manichaeism and Nestorian / Monophysitic Christianity are more important than the early History of Islam, which did not occur on Anatolian soil.
Either you like it or not, it is like this or ….. you then have
– Greeks asking Smyrna, Ikonion, Constantinople and Trabzon,
– Armenians demanding NE Anatolia (by using the Armenian names of the different locations),
– Syrians saying that Hatay province belongs to Damascus, and
– Kurmanji aspiring to their own «state»!
The only possible response to the racism, the irredentism and the revisionism that are promoted by the so-called ‘Megali Idea’ of the fake Greek state is the full public demonstration of the fact that today’s Turks reflect the historical continuity of all nations and civilizations that existed in Anatolia. But this must be shown. The historical documentation must be evident in various festivals, special feasts, public spectacles, historical manuals, documentaries, movies, books, the press, the TV channels and the political discourses of the politicians and the statesmen. In other words, Turks must appear as representing the full historical continuity of Anatolia, Istanbul and Thrace. The only possible opposition to the racist version of History, which is supported by fake states fabricated by the West, is History of Cultural and National Continuity.
In a society of nations, there cannot be religious education or religion in Education; there has to be History of Religions. Not a fake version of History of Religions as it happens in the corrupt states of European Union, UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where the manuals include chapters about Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions that are totally unrelated to those lands! On the contrary, a true and pertinent manual of History of Religions for Turkey’s secondary education will have to include chapters for
a) Manichaeism, which -preached from Mesopotamia- became the first religion in the World History to have adepts from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
Manichaeism – part of Turkey’s national heritageManichaeism as integral part of the Iranian-Turanian world
b) Nestorian Christianity, which -preached by Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople- was diffused by the Aramaean merchants of Northern Mesopotamia as far as India, Central Asia, China and Siberia, becoming an important religion among Mongols as well, and making cities like Nusaybin, Urhoy (Urfa), and Mardin known to the easternmost confines of Asia,
The diffusion of Nestorianism
c) Tengrism, which was the traditional monotheistic religion of all Turanian nations in Eastern Siberia, and
d) all the religions of nations that developed civilizations on Anatolian soil.
If you don’t develop your National History in a way that reconfirms the continuity that you represent, you simply don’t stand on your territory. Others will demand it. And this is the scope of the foreign involvement (I mean that of the colonial powers); they attempt to revive ancient conditions, situations and kingdoms.
V. What means National History for today’s Turks?
Today’s Turks are an amalgamation of several Anatolian nations from the Hittites down to the Eastern Romans, with a minor component of various Turkmen tribes (Seljuk, Dânişmendliler, Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu, Ottomans, etc.), who arrived and settled in Anatolia over the past 1000 years. At the times of Kemal Ataturk, true and correct National History was developed and imposed; then the Greeks did not have to demand anything anymore.
The ominous «Megali Idea» was abolished because of the rise of Kemal Ataturk.
Why?
Because it had a certain value only when opposite the stupid Ottomans!
Why were the Ottomans stupid?
Because they wanted to live in an era of modern nations without developing their National History (if they ever could)!
The idiots thought that their fake religion was enough!
That’s why they became a most ridiculed and ultimately windswept kiosk!!
When stupid politicians started coloring Turkey’s cultural heritage as markedly Turkic / Turanian, the Greeks (guided by the French and other Westerners) started saying: «let’s go back to Central Asia» or «prophecies announced our return to ‘our’ Constantinople»! They are technically right, although they were saying evident lies, because the stupid Pan-Turanians of Alparslan Türkeş are the mere fabrication of the English secret services.
Who is Alparslan Türkeş?
A Cypriot!
This means automatically «an agent of the English, who was sent to Turkey in order to destroy the state of Kemal Ataturk».
Türkeş’ stupid face is that of a Mediterranean; same for Bahçeli; if he walks in the streets of Ashgabat, Almaty or Bishkek they will take him for a European, a Pole or a Czech!!
And as you know, Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism were strictly prohibited in Turkey at the time of Kemal Ataturk.
Why?
Because they are a form of Trotskyism and false internationalism!
Why do I say that the Greeks, willing to return to Constantinople, are technically right, although they were saying evident lies?
This is so for the following reasons; a monument is a dead item. It becomes alive in the hearts and the minds of people, who are conscious of their association with this monument, feel what it represents to them as cultural heritage, and have a proper perception of the monument’s value.
If for Turks Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia) Museum is more related to Mehmet II (1432-1481; reigned from 1444 to 1446 and from 1451 to 1481) than to Justinian I (482-565; reigned after 527), this means that they do not want to represent the Eastern Roman element or component of their identity. So, the Greeks are technically right, when saying that they feel attached to the value of the monument as a church. This situation generates apparently a clash (with one country reflecting one cultural-historical component of the monument, and the other expressing another component) that the Western powers will do their ingenious best to exploit.
Emperor Justinian and …. …. his empire900 years after Justinian, Mehmet II was declared Roman Emperor (Qaysar-i Rum) in 1453, but …… his empire was much smaller.
The statu quo ante (when Ayasofya was exclusively a Museum) was a well-thought and balanced situation; it explicitly represented Modern Turkish equidistant stance towards the Eastern Roman and the Ottoman past (and cultural components of the monument); the only possible correct step beyond Kemal Ataturk’s wise decision would be to open the monument to both cults of parity basis; 60 days (1/6 of the year) for each cult would be a realistic and well-considered approach. It would also reflect the historical reality as per which the ancestors of many of today’s Turks were Eastern Roman Orthodox at the time of the conquest of Constantinople (1453).
What are the evident lies that the Greeks say?
This is simple to answer. In reality, they are very hypocritical about their claims on Hagia Sophia and Constantinople; this is so because of the lawless laws that they passed in order to be in harmony with those of the evil European Parliament and the biased pro-homosexual, pro-fornication and pro-Sodomy policies that the corrupt Western countries pursue.
You cannot evoke the last Eastern Roman king when you disreputably, criminally and inhumanly accept homosexual marriages; homosexuals and lesbians have no right to speak about Christian churches because by so doing, they desecrate them.
VI. Between Turkey and Greece, there can only be a Clash between Two Opposite Historical Models.
There cannot be opposition of the type «Islam vs. Christianity» or «Islam vs. West» in the clash between Turkey and Greece. This is what the Western colonial countries attempt to achieve via their local stooges; but it will be mutually calamitous. The only possible clash has to be that between two opposite historical models. This demands from the Turks a high level of national historical consciousness in order to demolish the bogus-historical dogma of the modern fake Greek state.
The only chance for any modern state to constitute a real modern nation is to consolidate its National History, National Education, National Identity and National Integrity; Turks do not need stupid and fake movies about the Ottoman family. They need movies about the Hittites, their enemy Troy, and their allies, i.e. the Achaeans of Mycenae. They need movies about the Attalids; they need movies about the Ionians of Smyrna who were very different from the Dorians of Sparta. They need movies about the kings of Pontus who were entirely Iranian Mithraic of culture. They need movies about the wars between the Eastern Romans and the Sassanid Iranians. They need movies about the Eastern Roman religious movements of Iconoclasm and Paulicianism.
iconoclastic art Hagia Irene Church (Aya İrini)The two sides of the religious dispute (Icon-fighters and iconolaters) present their arguments to the Emperor.
The most important point in all the above is this: in these proposed movies that have to be released by Turkish Cinematography, the various Greek positions about these topics must be opposed and rejected. In all these proposed projects, the truth must be emphatically supported and propagated, and the lies of the Greek education, books, press, mass media, and documentary movies rejected.
In other words, the true opposition between today’s Turkey and today’s Greece cannot be a silly polarization of the type «Ottoman Empire» vs. «Eastern Roman Empire». It has to take another form; when releasing a documentary, writing a book, including a chapter in the manuals or arranging a seminar and an open lecture about the «Eastern Roman Empire» (for which today’s Greeks blindly support Iconolatry and Iconodulism), the Turkish authors, speakers, intellectuals or film directors must defend (in the manuals of National History, in the press and the mass media, in the publishing houses, and in the documentary movies) Iconoclasm and Iconomachy.
In Greece where there is no freedom to establish private universities, the various pseudo-professors of the state universities, the racist bogus-journalists, and the clownish diplomats, who are indoctrinated with the state’s fake historical dogma, say thousands of lies about Ancient Ionians, Aeolians, Asia Minor, Troy, Pontus, Cappadocia, and the Eastern Roman Empire.
Either Turkey will oppose all this filthy material point by point or Ankara will play stupidly the game of the French and the English with Erdogan’s silly Political Islam and then the country will be destroyed, because this is the existing English-French-American plan. Turkey will then look like another Palestine or Afghanistan.
This is the supreme reality in today’s world:
– if you don’t fully and comprehensively express the historical past and the cultural heritage of your land in the National History manuals of your high schools, others do not accept that your lands belong to you. This is common for all: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Yemen, etc.
VII. Muslim Countries without National History will disappear in the Forthcoming Reconquista
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Egypt the school children should study Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Coptic.
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan the school children should study Phoenician, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hurrian, Aramaic and Syriac (Suryani).
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Iraq the school children should study Assyrian-Babylonian and Sumerian.
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Turkey the school children should study Hittite, Assyrian-Babylonian, Ancient Greek and Latin.
Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Iran the school children should study Old Achaemenid Cuneiform and Middle Persian (of the Sassanid times).
What you fail to understand that what is being undertaken by the Western colonial countries and the forces behind them (in addition to several other projects) consists in reality in another Reconquista.
What happened in 15th c. Spain (when the Catholic forces eradicated the local Muslim states), what took place in 16th c. Russia and Siberia (when the Orthodox forces gradually eliminated the local Muslim states), and what occurred in 19th c. Balkans (when the colonially fabricated fake states of Greece, Montenegro, Serbia and Romania terminated the Ottoman presence there) is now being attempted in several fronts from Morocco to Indonesia.
VIII. Religion does not liberate Nations! National History and Identity do!
In fact, all the fake professors of universities, fake sheikhs, fake politicians, fake journalists and even fake film directors in all the aforementioned countries worked in order to generate the Greater Israel, and when it will become a reality, all the people will stupidly ask «oh! How did it happen?»
I am not a fake historian, who got a position by saying «yes» to silly politicians, to trashy sheikhs and to fake (: crypto-homosexual) priests, who have been put in place by the English, the French and the Americans in order to destroy their own country.
I am a historian who learned and said always the truth.
You will soon see the terrible disaster that these ignorant, idiotic and cursed sheikhs of Hamas and Hezbollah, of Al Azhar and Medina proved to be able to bring on their peoples!
When did I come to know about it? In 2004! At the time, I was working in Cairo, but wanted to find a position in a university in another country. So, I checked online, found Birzeit University in Ramallah (later I understood that it was a CIA nest), noticed that they did not have a proper National History of the Palestinian Nation (from the Peleset of Crete and the Aegean to the Philistines to the Aramaization of the Roman times), and I wrote to them an email, attaching a long proposal and my curriculum.
After all, what is a nation without National History? A non-entity gone with the wind!
Result? No response! It was a very useful and rewarding experience for me! I then realized that all these fake professors of Palestinian (and other) universities are in fact on the payroll of the English and the American secret services (or merely depend on those who are), and they will consequently die like dogs before finally going to the bottom of the Hell where a position has been reserved for them.
This is the only truth: Israel was in reality created by all the stupid, uneducated and ignorant leaders of surrounding nations and by equally ignorant tribal chieftains of the Palestinians who did not know how to properly act and pertinently react.
All these stupid people did not have National History (: did not know their own National History) in order to effectively oppose and reject the lies of the Khazarians who were never Jewish but played a theater that not one Muslim mufti, qadi or sheikh was able to ever detect — let alone denounce and decry, proving the Khazarians’ claims on Palestine as entirely and definitely false.
Now, all the wars, which will soon explode, will be useful only to the various plans and agendas of the Zionist Khazarians, the Fake Freemasons of England, the other Fake Freemasons of France and America, and the Jesuits of Vatican.
Real faith has nothing to do with prayer or fasting; these are optional tools to consolidate the faith. Faith means -above all- pertinent use of every person’s intellect. This is God’s greatest present to Man.
Men have to use their intellect or they will face the consequences!
The present article consists in a brief outlook of the nature of the diverse educational systems either in the rising and falling imperial realms or in the chaotic and worthless republics that lack sanctity, legitimacy, and humanity. Here you will find its first part.
I. Education, Social Unity, and Transcendence in the Ancient Oriental Empires
In ancient times, Education was at the hands of the spiritual-sacerdotal-imperial savants and the instructors did their ingenious best to educate their pupils by making them fully aware of the Laws of the spiritual and the material universes, which were also reflected in the average culture of all the inhabitants of the ideal, paradisiacal empire that mirrored the celestial world on the surface of the Earth. There was absolutely no disconnection between the educated and the uneducated, because the latter comprehended in general -via mythical, cultural, education- what the former mastered in detail through systematic scientific exploration, archiving and education.
This was how the emerged great kingdoms and formidable empires were structured in Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Assyria-Babylonia, Hurrians, and Elam), Kemet (Egypt), Hittite Anatolia, Cush (Ancient Sudan), Phoenicia-Carthage, Iran and Turan, China, and Indus Valley and the Deccan. There was Unity in Education, as all the people understood the supreme language of the Myth and the Symbols that exist between the spiritual and the material universes, and as a consequence, they all had the same world view, the same spirituality and culture, and the same moral standards, which defined the sanctity of their empire.
Tuthmose III of EgyptHattusili III of Hittite AnatoliaTiglathpileser III of AssyriaNabuna’id of BabyloniaDarius I of Achaemenid Iran
II. Lack of Sacerdotal and Imperial Authority in the Low Educational Systems of the Ancient Greek and Roman Barbarians
Ancient Greece and Rome, as small, divided and unsophisticated local societies, were ignorant, barbaric and marginal lands as regards the Ancient Oriental empires; there was no spirituality, no imperial tradition, no sacerdotal scholarship, and no unity of Education. There was division in society, disunity among the various tribes, and clash among the various philosophers who were educated not locally but in the great temples of Egypt, Phoenicia, Babylonia, and Iran. Ancient Greek religion was a petty version, a miserable imitation, and a pale reflection of the Ancient Oriental religions.
There was no transcendence, no contemplation, no meditation, and no sanctity in Ancient Greece; the gods of the Ancient Greeks were mere human projections onto the spiritual world, and as such they were inferior to the aspects of the Divine World, which formed the fundamental truths of the archetypal Oriental myths. Lacking spiritual authority, scientific knowledge, and moral wisdom, the Ancient Greeks became mere ‘friends of the wisdom’, which is the real meaning of the Ancient Greek word ‘philosopher’. In their otherwise worthless education, they replaced the transcendental truth with useless verbosity, the mythical symbolism with puerile anthropomorphism, the sacrosanct theatrical events with their debased public theater, and the Imperial Paradise with their Civil War.
Pericles of AthensJulius Caesar of RomeCicero
III. Education and Culture in Imperial Rome: Result of an Overwhelming Orientalization
Rome became an Empire very late, and achieved a level of Orientalization too late. As a matter of fact, there was no unity in education, and consequently, there was a total disconnection between the educated and the uneducated. This is said with respect to the Romans themselves, the citizens of Rome during the times of the Res Publica (‘Republic’: 510-27 BCE). This phenomenon was the result of the formation of an elite/elitist class with increased focus on material interests, lower degree of piety, and total lack of imperial world view and tradition.
When people deliberate in public, the focus is shifted away from spirituality, moral standards, and culture to petty personal interests and elite privileges. Then, few representatives can take decisions on common issues, discord and disunity appear only to prevail across the society, while social class divisions become the reason of endless strife; the ensuing social stratification destroys or prevents unity in culture and education.
This situation became very ostensible in the early Roman imperial times, when the elite continued living influenced by the Ancient Greek social lifestyle, involving theater, philosophy, and public debates (as the Senatus had still some power), but the Romans, i.e. the average people in their outright majority, had already accepted different Oriental cults, mysteries, religions, schools of spirituality, oracles, mythical symbolisms, and dogmas of cosmogony, cosmology, apocalyptic eschatology and soteriology.
It was only normal for the old republican traditions and the useless public debates to be soon swept away by the mysteries of Mithras, Zurvan-Saturn, Isis, Horus, Osiris, Sarapis, Anubis, Sabazios, Elagabalus, Cybele, Attis, and other Oriental cults and mystical systems (Chaldeanism, Ostanism, Gnosticisms, Hermetism) to which almost all the Romans gradually adhered, abandoning their impotent ancestral divinities and seeking salvation in the dogmas of the Chaldean Aramaeans, the Egyptians, the Cushites, the Anatolians, and the Iranians.
Romans abandoned the nonsense of the political discourses, and started carrying about the mysteries of Isis, an Egyptian mythical symbol and central figure of the Ancient Egyptian Heliopolitan eschatology and soteriology.The Coffin of Osiris was understood by the Ancient Romans as far more important (as element of contemplation and meditation) than the trivial, material debates of the Senatus. Salvation could never be offered in the useless sphere of politics, but it could be achieved within the circle of Isiac initiates.Mithras could save a soul – but the useless politicians of Rome could not. That’s why the Ancient Greeks and Romans disregarded the nonsensical theories of the ignorant pseudo-philosopher Aristotle and abandoned the public debates of their worthless republics in order to seek salvation in the mysteries of Mithras.The fact that Ancient Greece and Rome were flooded by Oriental religions, cults, schools of spirituality and mysticism proves the inferiority of these ancient cities-states and the primitivism of these nations vis-à-vis the Ancient Oriental civilizations.Zervan, the Iranian god of Time, identified by the Romans of the imperial times with Saturn. Elagabalus: the Roman Emperor who before his coronation was the high priest of the Aramaean god Elagabal, a solar divinity and hypostasis of Mithra.
There was a major difference between Trajan’s Rome from one side and from the other side Darius I the Great’s Iran, Sargon II’s Assyria, Thutmose III’s Egypt, Mursilis I’s Hittite Anatolia, Hammurapi’s Babylonia, Urukagina’s Sumer (Lagash and Girsu), and Sargon I’s Akkad: different cultural and educational systems existed across the Roman Empire at the time of its greatest expansion. I don’t mean this in terms of regional differentiation in culture and education among the various nations that lived in Anatolia, Egypt, Carthage, Numidia, Gaul and other provinces. I refer to the still existing differentiation between Roman elite culture, world view, and education from one side and from the other side the popular culture, world view, and education across the empire.
However, it was only a matter of time, and finally, the culture, the world view, and the education of the average people prevailed; they were finally imposed on the Roman elite; during the 3rd c. CE, Rome looked very much like an Oriental Empire, as the path from barbarism to civilization had been crossed. It was the time when a Roman Emperor named after the Aramaean god Elagabalus ruled the vast empire. Little time afterwards, Mithra, an Iranian god, became the supreme god of the -thus markedly Iranized- Roman Empire, as Sol Invictus.
IV. Christian Roman Empire: Doctrinal Culture for all and Doctrinal Education for few
In fact, the Christianization of the Roman Empire constituted only the last layer of its Orientalization. Divided along Christological doctrines, the Christian Roman Empire reflected Oriental empires in times of division; it looked like Egypt at the times of Akhenaten, Mesopotamia (Assyria and Babylonia) at the times of Sennacherib or Iran at the times of Cambyses. Due to the juxtaposition and the polarization around the nature and the qualities of Jesus, Christianity produced an enormous amount of theological treatises, endeavors and concerns; compared to the Ancient Oriental religions, the official version of Christianity, as practiced in the Eastern Roman Empire, looked like a merely theological system – not a ‘religion’.
Gradually but steadily, spirituality turned out to become an absurdity, ‘miracles’ became simply a matter of narrative and not of demonstration, belief was reduced to mere acceptance of doctrines interpreting the sacred texts, and people were kept far from education. It was a time of indoctrination and doctrinal culture. There was indeed unity in culture and education, pretty much like in the Ancient Oriental empires, but it hinged on theological doctrine, because official Christianity was not a religion preached by Jesus. All the same, New Rome (Nova Roma) at the times of Justinian I (527-565) looked far closer to Xerxes’ Persepolis, to Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, to Esarhaddon’s Assyria, and to Ramses III’s Thebes of Egypt than to Caesar’s Rome.
Early Christian Roman Art is full of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian symbolsEarly Christian Roman Art is an Oriental Art.Justinian I represented in the mosaic of San Vitale in Ravenna
V. Islamic Civilization: an entirely non-Arab Phenomenon
When prophet Muhammad preached Islam among an uneducated, uncultured, barbaric, and marginal tribe, namely the Arabs of Hejaz, he raised the stakes exponentially. Suffice it that you read the (written by an anonymous Alexandrian Egyptian captain and merchant of the middle of the 1st c. CE) “Periplus of the Red (or Erythraean) Sea” (par. 20) and you understand how all the civilized nations of the wider region viewed the Arabs of Hejaz. With the acceptance of Islam by the Ancient Yemenites, who were a Semitic nation totally different from and unrelated to the Arabs of Hejaz, already two years before the death of prophet Muhammad (630 CE), an important change occurred: the majority of the followers of Islam were non-Arabs.
With the early Islamic invasions, many Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, many nations of the Sassanid Iranian Empire, many Copts (Egyptians), and many Berbers (from Libya and the African Atlas) accepted Islam, dramatically intensifying the fact that the Arabs constituted a minimal and unimportant part among the Muslims of the Omayyad and the Abbasid Caliphates. This generated a new socio-cultural environment from the Atlantic Ocean to the borders of China and the middle of the Subcontinent.
VI. Islamic Caliphate: Aramaean & Iranian Education, Sciences, Art, Culture, Intellectual life, and Spirituality under Arab rulers
The Islamic Civilization is an entirely non-Arab phenomenon, as it basically consists in an Aramaean & Iranian civilization with greatly diversified local traits. Within 150 years, after prophet Muhammad’s death, Aramaeans of Mesopotamia and Syria and Iranians transferred the corpus of the scientific, academic, intellectual, artistic and educational genius of the Sassanid Empire of Iran within the Islamic Caliphate.
In fact, Arabic is an Aramaean dialect written with Syriac Aramaic characters slightly deformed as cursive writing; without vocalization, almost the entire Quran can be read in Aramaic. So, Aramaeans (liberated from the yoke of the Eastern Roman Empire and unrestrained from the Constantinopolitan theological doctrine) and Iranian Mazdeists learned and used Arabic for the aforementioned purpose. In fact, the great Aramaean centers of learning, libraries and theological schools of Edessa of Osrhoene (Urfa), Nisibis (Nusaybin), Antioch (Antakya) and Seleucia-Ctesiphon (Al Mada’in) and the famous Sassanid Iranian imperial academy, university, research center, library and museum of Gundishapur, which was the world’s greatest center of learning and wisdom of the 6th c., were merged and continued in the legendary Bayt al Hikmah in Baghdad.
Aramaic Art on the walls of the Great Mosque of DamascusEarly Islamic Art is typically Aramaean.The Great Mosque of Damascus: a masterpiece of Aramaean Art
At the beginning, Islam appeared to be one more Christological heresy, eventually a more acute form of Nestorianism. With Late Antiquity Gnostics accepting Islam, it is not bizarre why Fathers of the Christian Church, like John Damascenus, a leading Aramaean scholar, poet, and theologian from Damascus, viewed Islam as a counterfeit version of Christianity. On the other hand, this fact explains fully why the Islamic Civilization was always (until its end in 1580) the realm of Learning and Education.
John Damascenus, an Aramaean scholar and monk, Father of the Christian Church, and personal acquaintance of the Omayyad caliphs of Damascus
This fact has little to do with Quranic verses; it is mainly due to the constituent elements of the early Islamic society. When schools of faith and science, like that of the sagacious Ikhwan al-Safa (إخوان الصفا) created the dynamics they did, thanks to their mystical-intellectual endeavors, scientific explorations, and educational system, it would be impossible for the Islamic Civilization not to be at the antipodes of the Christian world: a domain of Learning.
VII. Islamic Spirituality, Religion and Culture vs. Governance and Theology
As spirituality was initially limited in the circle of the descendants (Ahl al Bayt) of prophet Muhammad, notably Ali ibn abi Taleb (who was the son-in law of prophet Muhammad and the prominent figure of the Ahl al Bayt), but governance was at the hands of the enemies of Ali ibn abi Taleb, a very strange situation arose. In the deeply and irreversibly divided (Omayyad and Abbasid) caliphate, education was soon controlled by the Aramaeans and the Iranians, whereas the military started being increasingly dominated by the incoming Turanian soldiers; at the same time, spirituality and religious orthodoxy and orthopraxy remained the exclusive domain of Ahl al Bayt, notably Ja’far al-Sadiq.
The caliphs wanted to justify their unjust and illegitimate rule, while various learners and pundits decided to make distinguished careers by justifying the unjustifiable; they were therefore hired by the caliphs and appointed as religious authorities in order to ‘explain’ as ‘Islamic’ the un-Islamic or anti-Islamic deeds of those caliphs. This attitude constituted an enormous schism between the spiritual endeavors of the early Islamic community and the religious practices of the disbelieving and unfaithful rulers, thus opening the path for a fake religion adapted to immoral, illegal and evil governance. This situation was utterly rejected by many spiritual mystics and erudite Muslims, and the ensuing polarization triggered an enormous literature of jurisprudential and theological contents. So, soon Islam started being turned from a religion to a theology.
VIII. The Secular Nature of the Islamic Society, Education, Culture and Civilization
Islam preaches a secular society, and for many hundreds of years the Islamic caliphates, sultanates, khanates and emirates were prominently secular of nature. The secular nature of Islamic education, spiritual and material research, literature, sciences, intellectual life, artistic inventiveness, and mysticism is underscored by the burgeoning character of the early Islamic society in which -for many long centuries- there was absolutely no ‘sunnah’ in the way this word is used nowadays by the ignorant ‘sheikhs’ and the uneducated ‘imams’ of Madinah, Istanbul, Mekkah, Al-Azhar, Qum, etc.
The fact that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Quran, chapter al-Baqara, verse 256) implied that Shariah law was not compulsory. Actually, there was no Shariah (in the sense this word is meant now) at all in the beginning, for the very simple reason that the historical prerequisite for Shariah is a school of Islamic jurisprudence. The Divine Law demanded from humans a ‘deep understanding’ (fiqh) of the Quran and the Hadith, and this is the real word for Islamic Law even today (as concept); to implement the Divine Law in the human society, the various jurisprudential schools accepted four sources: the Quran, the Hadith (prophet Muhammad’s sermons), qiyas (analogical reasoning),and ijma (juridical consensus). This automatically terminated Islam as religion, turning it to a theology.
The secular nature of the education in the Islamic caliphates and other kingdoms was the result of the well-diversified nature of the Islamic society, which incorporated many different cultures. Prophet Muhammad’s preaching was accepted differently in various locations in Asia, Africa and Europe, as it incorporated numerous diverse local cultures and traditions; this phenomenon generated a multitude of forms of worship, schools of spirituality and mystical tradition, and perceptions of (and approaches to) the spiritual and the material worlds, which were -all- called ‘Islamic’.
Islamic science of the Abbasid timesAbbasid courtAbbasid dynastyBayt al HikmahAbbasid medicineAhmad ibn Musa ibn Shakir: design of a self trimming lampKalila wa Dimna: an Iranian story as foundation of the Islamic Culture
This dynamic spiritual, academic, intellectual, educational, socio-behavioral, and cultural process created an unprecedentedly decentralized phenomenon of faith, life, art, intellect and genius. It was the total opposite of the very centralized Christian churches, societies, states and educational systems. In fact, Islamic education, science and intellectual life reduced Islamic theology to small and marginal circles of dogmatic and indoctrinated imams, who could not impact the advance of Islamic Civilization and sciences.
Basically, Islamic education and culture were characterized by cohesion at the local level, only when viewed independently in the different parts of the Islamic world. However, in reality, an unprecedentedly wide number of different cults, positions, practices and beliefs could effectively be labeled ‘Islamic’, because for someone to be accepted as Muslim it is actually enough to confess that there is no god except God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God (which is the Shahada, i.e. the testimony, of faith / La ilaha illallah muhammadur rasulullah – لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله). Islamic education revolved around the basics of the religion, before orienting students toward the two main directions: spirituality and science.
IX. Islamic Education divided between Spirituality/Sciences/Arts and Theology
The only reactionary group of theologians, who wanted to limit education to the sphere of a dark, pseudo-Islamic theology, was the pseudo-school (madhhab) of Ahmed ibn Hanbal. However, this did not influence anyone and either in his days (mainly 9th c. CE) or later, it was not accepted as proper school of jurisprudence, but as a type of barbaric and ignorant heretics (Ahmed ibn Hanbal was also imprisoned). Notably, ibn Hanbal was rejected by Tabari, the Islamic world’s greatest historian and most erudite scholar of those days.
Only after the Crusades and due to the devastating impact that they had on the Muslims of the Eastern Mediterranean, a backward theological system demanded the end of Islamic sciences, the subordination of spirituality, genius and intellect to the villainous theological doctrine that these ignorant and idiotic people considered as ‘Islam’. This theological system is the baseless and anti-Islamic teaching of Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah, who was viewed as a heretic during his time and he was also imprisoned as impostor. His nonsensical theories ostensibly constitute a form of Christianization of Islam.
Ferdowsi: the greatest Islamic poet, intellectual and spiritual authority of all timesA page from Ferdowsi’s epic poem Shahnameh (Book of the Kings), from the copy created and majestically decorated with miniatures for Prince Baysunqur, the grandson of Timur (Tamerlane)Mohyieldin ibn Arabi: the greatest Islamic mystic, philosopher and transcendental author of all timesThe supreme opus of transcendental wisdom of all times: Mohyieldin ibn Arabi’s Al Futuhat al Makkiyah, the Meccan IlluminationsNasir el din al Tusi: the greatest Islamic scholar, mathematician, founder of Observatory, and astronomer of all timesOne page from Nasir el din al Tusi’s Zij-i ilkhani (زیجِ ایلخانی), i.e. the Ilkhanid astronomical table of starsTimur (Tamerlane): the greatest Islamic Emperor of all timesTimur’s tomb in SamarqandTimur’s modern statue in Tashkent
With the progression, the diffusion and the prevalence of this pathetic system, an enormous damage was caused to the Islamic Civilization; due to the erroneous education, which was impregnated by the evilness of Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah’s ideas, the Islamic sciences started being abandoned, the Islamic arts were disregarded or reduced to basic and meaningless forms, and the Islamic intellectual life was disintegrated. Even worse, Islamic spirituality was slandered as ‘black magic’, Islamic wisdom was obliterated and forgotten, and Islamic education was decreased to the level needed for imbeciles, who could not anymore comprehend the Quran in the way Muslims were able to understand their holy book two centuries earlier.
X. The divide between Islamic Spirituality/Sciences/Arts and pseudo-Islamic Theology disfigured as Shia vs. Sunni Schism
The reason for this development is the fact that Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah, following the line of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, preached that for Muslims’ education only theology mattered. This evil impostor generated a terrible divide between Islamic spirituality and theology, which lasted down to our days, but was mistakenly and viciously known as difference between ‘Shia’ and ‘Sunni’. However, this is an evil colonial lie and an Orientalist falsehood imposed on the colonial slaves of France, England and America, namely the ignorant sheikhs and pathetic imams of Islam.
In fact, there was never a historical division between ‘Shia’ and ‘Sunni’ throughout the History of Islam. The fake divide is an entirely modern, colonial fabrication, which was constructed, when ignorant and idiotic sheikhs, following the remote guidance and the evil orders of their Western masters, started presenting themselves as self-styled ‘Sunnis’. Western forgers and ignorant imams may today describe a historical war, let’s say the battle of Chaldiran (1514) between the Ottomans and the Safavid Iranians, as a fight between ‘Shia’ and ‘Sunni’, but this is entirely false.
Ottoman armySelim I Selim I: a great soldier, a poor strategist, and a naïve pupil of evil pseudo-Islamic theologians The Battle of Chaldiran (1514)Shah Isma’il Safavi, founder of the Safavid dynasty of Iran that Western colonials distortedly called ‘Persia’Isma’il Safavi, painting by the illustrious 16th c. Italian artist Cristofano dell’Altissimo (whose works are exposed at the Galleria degli Uffizi in Florence)
Neither Selim I nor Ismail Safavi, the Ottoman sultan and the Iranian shah, who exchanged written insults before the battle, called one another ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shia’. Neither was their difference a theological dispute. In reality, Selim I caused a terrible bloodshed (squelching the Shahqulu/Şahkulu movement) in order to impose a theological dogmatic tyranny in his pseudo-Islamic Ottoman realm, whereas Ismail Safavi established in Iran a secular education that allowed people to free pursue any walk of intellectual life that they wished, either in spirituality or in sciences, thus eliminating the tyranny of theological ignorance. The fact that these events are not portrayed in this manner in today’s educational systems of Turkey and Iran only shows how mistaken, misguided and self-disastrous these systems are. Of course, this is also true for the educational systems of all the other Muslim countries.
From my correspondence with an African American who intends to study Egyptology and learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics in order to explore issues related to African Originality, Identity, Integrity and Spirituality. Although I am Muslim, I am convinced that Ancient Egypt, Egyptian History, Religions & Divine Sciences, if sought after in an unbiased and non-colonial academic manner, constitute – for any African – a more direct path to Truth than today’s decayed Islam.
After all, the monotheistic aspects of Ancient Egypt were tantamount to real and true Islam for millennia before Prophet Muhammad was born, and this was the quintessence of his preaching. Ancient Egyptians’ Sacred Texts revealed the same spiritual and material reality as the Holy Quran. And this truth was concealed by both, the Jesuit – Freemasonic – Zionist elites and today’s ignorant, idiotic, fake Islamic, and Satanic sheikhs, who are the globalist elite’s most dangerous tools.
The Triple Anubis: the Divine Aspect of Justice in the Nether World
Dear friend,
Thank you for your interest, consideration and patience!
There are still unanswered points in your letter about Pharaoh Narmer. You said: “I have many questions about this Great Man and his successors. I want to learn where did they draw upon knowledge from?”
This is a subject related to Cognitive Science; in fact, it is as if you ask how the Ancient Egyptians of the first half of the third millennium BCE knew the right method to efficiently build the great pyramid, the correct procedure to transform the body of a deceased into a mummy, the best technique to illuminate cavities hewn deeply inside the rock, and plenty of other similar exploits.
Modern Academic Scholarship’s Ignorance and Widespread Confusion
Modern Egyptologists solemnly declare that they have no answers to questions about similar topics. I still remember that my former professor in Sorbonne and the College de France, the late Jean Leclant, a leading Egyptologist and Permanent Secretary of the French Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, once in a rather recent interview said that the technique used for the construction of the great pyramids was “a secret of the Ancient Egyptian state”. This says much and nothing at the same time.
In fact, the constituent elements of the Modern Western Science do not allow anyone to respond to the above questions and to many other similar queries. This is irrevocable; you can be sure that there will never be an answer to those topics, without an overwhelming rejection of the foundations of the Modern Western Science.
No modern scholar can describe the magnificent use of Djed, because of the prevailing materialistic fallacy.
When I refer to this system (‘modern western science’), I don’t hint at Humanities alone; I involve all disciplines: Natural Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Music, Mathematics, etc. I also include very important sciences of which the modern academic establishment does not accept their reality, ingenuity and identity. As example, I offer you the entire aggregation of Spiritual Sciences (‘Divina Studia’ in Latin) that the modern materialistic academic establishment obstinately denies to accept.
Of course, the limited scope and the inherent fallacy of the Modern Western Science are basically due to the fact that it is the product of a simplistic, materialistic viewpoint that not only considers the separation of the material universe from the spiritual universe as possible, but also denies the existence of the spiritual world.
Venerating the magnificent Djed
Inseparability of the material and the spiritual universes
There are two points that you must take always into consideration:
First, all major ancient civilizations down to the Islamic Golden Era (8th – 12th c. CE) accepted as indispensable element of science, knowledge and wisdom the inseparability of the material and the spiritual universes, and identified as supreme enquiry for humans the exploration of the existing parallels between the two universes.
For the Ancient Egyptians and for all other civilizations’ leading explorers, wise elders, and spiritual mystics, the modern western science is indeed a villainous antihuman deception. I don’t say ‘would be’ but ‘is’, because this is a fact and not an eventuality; the remaining evidence of the ancient civilizations, in and by itself, denies the purpose, the scope, the approaches, the methods and the essence of the modern Western scientific establishment, definitely viewing it as the useless result of a low level fallacy.
In other words, the great pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) in itself is a proof that modern scholarship is devious, self-deceiving and deceptive. It is not a matter of quantitative but qualitative difference; the modern scientific establishment is lower, went adrift, and will never be able to deliver the great masterpieces that the Oriental Antiquity did.
Balancing electromagnetic fluids by means of Ankh
Not only today’s scientific establishment cannot achieve what ancient scholars did, but in its totality it is genuinely unable to understand how the great mystics and the erudite priests of the Oriental Antiquity managed to deliver the masterpieces that they did. The impediment of the devious modern establishment is the disregard of the spiritual universe and the erroneous, calamitous assumption that it does not exist.
Representation of the celestial part of the universe perceived in its analogies with the respective part of the spiritual universe
Deviate Modern Science opens the Way to Confusion
Second, because of the mistaken nature of the modern scientific establishment, many real questions are left unanswered, as you already know, and this contributes to an enormous confusion that brings forth only disaster to all humans. We know very well that any time in History confusion prevailed, the civilization collapsed and disaster hit the land in confusion. In fact, confusion is sick and evil; however, confusion is overwhelming in our days.
The celestial part of the universe in its vitality
There is an incredible amount of confusion about the ‘knowledge’ of the Ancient Oriental scholars, wise men, and high priests. Due to this disorientation, various men exposed to negative spiritual activities come up with evil and inhuman theories, which further damage our collapsing societies. I cannot herewith provide a list of fake interpretations concerning the pyramids and their constructors, but I am sure that you have an idea about the theory of the extraterrestrials which appeared only in the last century; according to this evil and nonsensical theory, non-humans are accredited with the construction of the pyramids.
Given that for many long millennia of civilization and spirituality not one man advanced this aberration, but when the corrupted Mankind entered the final stage of its collapse (20th c.), everyone started writing absurd and silly novels or fake academic work to possibly ‘prove’ that the extraterrestrials built the pyramids, created the humans by means of DNA manipulation in monkeys, and similar nonsense, I conclude that a gigantic fraud is underway and that these inhuman theories are promoted by vicious circles implementing antihuman plans and the extinction of the Mankind.
Your question still remains unanswered and I have now to first illuminate the major stumbling block that prevents you and others from clearly assessing how the spiritual, priestly, academic and intellectual establishment of Narmer’s Egypt knew what they knew and whether they needed to literarily learn what they knew.
Late Antiquity Egyptian Study and Interpretation of the Heliopolitan and the Hermupolitan religious – theological systems
Today’s Mankind: Sunken & Drowned in an Ocean of Evil Evolutionism
Darwinism has indeed affected far more sectors than Natural Sciences and Anthropology. It affected History and History of Religions; it reduced Mythology and Metaphysics (Philosophy) to low level fairytales for children. Even worse, it produced a fallacious diagram about the historical evolution. This is a major trouble.
According to this fallacious diagram, which is accepted by Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists alike, man knew few things in the Neolithic (and even fewer in the Mesolithic and the Paleolithic). I must now say that these three terms are fake and they originate in the vicious desire of materialists, evolutionists and atheists to impose the sick theories of their perverted minds and their historical forgeries as a worldwide accepted dogma. I don’t expand on this, as it is vast and irrelevant to your question. Subsequently, these academics interpret Ancient History as a scheme whereby man progressed from lower civilizations to higher throughout the last five – six millennia. For the needs of their forgery, ‘earlier’ meant ‘lower’.
Revealing the spiritual power to the initiates, the Hierophant acted as a vessel of transmission.
This is the most monstrous distortion of the Ancient Oriental History, because we know very well that the Egyptians of the times of Akhenaten (ca. 1350) were not in a position to construct a pyramid as great as that of Khufu (Cheops). And this is one example out of many possible. So, there was an evident decline, a fall, and a decadence in Egypt from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE and this continued onwards to the 1st millennium BCE. Vicious materialistic pseudo-historians are not ashamed in taking fake measures, when establishing their theories according to which there was progress and not decay in Egypt (or Mesopotamia) from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE; they argue that for instance Thutmose III developed a strong army and was able to acquire vast lands in both, the Sudan and Canaan, i.e. territories that were out of the ‘smaller’ kingdom of Khufu and Khafra (Chephren). Same for Ramses II! But they fail to explain why no pharaoh dared to choose again Khafra (‘His Radiation is Ra’) as his name in the 2nd or the 1st millennium BCE!
On the other hand, when it comes to Senwosret (Sesostris) III, Egyptologists reject Egyptian and later sources describing in detail the military campaigns of the Pharaoh who reached deep in Sudan’s South and also campaigned far beyond Canaan in Anatolia (Turkey) and Scythia (southern Ukraine). How do they proceed? When it comes to genuine (: contemporaneous) historical sources in Egyptian hieroglyphics, they misinterpret them, playing with toponyms. When it comes to posterior historical sources in Ancient Greek and Latin, they pretend that those texts are mythological and not historical of character. Shameful but regular for colonial academia: they don’t want to accept the reality that numerous Oriental monarchs occupied large territories or campaigned in Europe.
Even worse, they link the fallacious diagram of constant progress and rise across three millennia of Oriental History with another, colossal falsehood, the so-called Greco-Roman world, which they describe as ‘Classical’ (from Latin ‘classicus’ meaning ‘of higher class’). Classics is a fallacy that antedates the formative years of Orientalism; it goes back to the Renaissance, when heinous and Anti-Christian intellectuals shaped the erratic idea that the pre-Christian Antiquity of the Greeks and the Romans was ‘superior’ to the Christian civilization. This is another vast topic, but I will not expand, because it is unrelated to your question.
Positive (right) and negative (left) electromagnetic fluids
Linking the evolutionist diagram of the Ancient Oriental History to the distorted presentation of the Greco-Roman civilization and then adding to the diagram the Christian times’ period, the Renaissance, and the Modern times is the way modern scholarship composed a monstrous, bogus-historical dogma only to serve the purpose of preconceived evolutionism. Hidden behind all lies, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, concealments, and forgeries elaborated within all branches of Humanities, and more particularly History and History of Religions, lies the supreme target: the imposition of the evolutionist theory on the entire mankind. That’s why History looks so inconsistent to many. For this reason people don’t find the whole diagram as trustworthy, and scholars fail to respond to simple questions.
The Undeniable Truth: the Lost Great Past – ‘Earlier’ means ‘Higher’!
Even worse, all authentic historical sources directly contradict and categorically reject the modern academic establishment’s false representation of facts and mistaken interpretation of textual and archaeological evidence. And this is systematically concealed by all historians and historians of religions.
Channeling or containing the energy
Ancient Greek and Roman poets, philosophers, historians, and writers considered the Ancient Orient as the origin par excellence of all valuable forms of Knowledge, Science, Erudition, Wisdom, Spirituality and Potency. And they were very right in their conviction, because the ancient Greek and Roman temples were mere kiosks, if compared to the immense temples of Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt.
The Oriental temples were at the same time high places of cult and faith, universities; monasteries for theological disputes; seminars in Symbolism, Mythology, Eschatology, Messianism and Transcendental Wisdom; research centers; laboratories; observatories; libraries; museums; oracles and centers for divination studies; administration centers for agricultural and urban planning; artistic ateliers; philosophical schools; conservatories; meditation venues; and spirituality circles whereby – and in absolute contradiction with lesser and later edifices of posterior civilizations – the Great Hierophant used to make full revelation of the Sacred Spiritual Power (‘the mysteries’) in front of the selected apprentices who had passed their initiation with success.
Analyzing the spiritual matrix and the five elements
Contrarily, ancient Greek and Roman temples were tiny buildings dedicated to cult, with no spirituality, no mysteries, no knowledge, and no hierophants. That’s why the first Greek philosophers went all to the Oriental temples to study: in order to return back to their cities and oppose the ignorant, uneducated, dark and evil clergy of their low, small and useless temples.
In either Mesopotamia or Egypt, the identification of the site where a new temple had to be erected was the result of extensive research in geographical determinism (in order to understand the particular nature and traits of the place) and the outcome of high level spiritual studies and investigations that specified the exact correspondence between the topographical location and its spiritual counterpart. Nothing of the sort occurred in the case of the Greek and Roman temples, because those priesthoods did not have a clue about the sciences and the knowledge of the Oriental priesthoods.
And yet, when we study Ancient Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian texts of the first half of the first millennium BCE, we are immediately confronted with the veneration and the respect with which the then authors spoke about their past that they always identified as higher, better, more powerful, more luminous, and utterly golden. The great grandfather of Assurbanipal became Emperor of Assyria in 722 BCE, after overthrowing Shalmanaser V, and selected as his own imperial name that of Sarrukinu (Sargon) of Akkad, who had reigned 1600 years earlier. In fact, all Assyrian Emperors and Babylonian Kings in their rivalry attempted to reconstruct the ideal, superior and perfect Empire of Sargon of Akkad.
Sargon of Akkad & Sargon of Assyria (below right)
Throughout all the sacred texts in either Mesopotamia or Egypt we get the impression that the antediluvian times were a period of greater strength, intuition and prosperity. The distinction made by modern Western scholarship between mythological and historical texts is overwhelmingly annulled by all the historical texts of the Ancient Oriental nations that make it very clear that their authors viewed as also historical the texts that modern Western scholarship categorizes as ‘mythological’ and that they considered the spiritual and divine realm as inextricably inherent to the material world.
The greatest of the Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian Emperors compared themselves with the Epic hero Gilgamesh and tried to duly train themselves to stand as strong opponents of the maledicted hero, who in turn failed forever to reach the paradisiacal level of Ut-Napishtim, the archetypal figure of Noah, the vanquisher of the Flood.
Gilgamesh as represented in Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs and Cuneiform tablet with the Flood Epic Atrahasis (another name for Utnapishtim)
The search for the ideal, higher, sublime past marked not only the first but also the second millennium BCE. The Narrative of the Shipwrecked is a great mythical text of the Ancient Egyptians, written at the times of the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2100 – 1750 BCE), that consists in the first worldwide mention of the mythical Atlantis. The term ‘Atlantis’ is used by Plato almost 1500 years after the Ancient Egyptian text was first composed, but the concept of Atlantis (the Utopia before the Deluge) is identical and its origin is found in the Narrative of the Shipwrecked. The text sets the story at the times of the antediluvian Old Kingdom (ca. 2750 – 2250 BCE); the description concerns the ideal, perfect and infallible world before the Flood, which ended abruptly.
Hieratic text & Hieroglyphic transliteration: The Narration of the Shipwrecked
The Reconstitution of the Oriental Myth: the Semiotics of the Spiritual Truth
With the above introduction, I intended to show that, if we try to read original ancient texts, without projecting onto them our world’s preconceived aberrations, mistakes and deceptions, we will discover clearly the reality that I shared with you in my earlier emails: the History of the Mankind is a History of Falls.
This automatically answers your question about the knowledge that Narmer and his times’ wise elders had and how they acquired it. Earlier means higher, better and stronger. Advancing backwards, we will reach the Assyrian – Babylonian Adapa, the first Man. The name itself is at the origin of the Biblical – Islamic Adam. Adapa was created by Ea, the divine aspect of Wisdom and Love (among the five elements, this aspect corresponds to the Soft Waters).
The Assyrian – Babylonian Epic of Adapa (Adam)
In Egypt, as I said in a recently published correspondence, there was never one religion but many different religions that only misleadingly are presented by modern Egyptologists as just one religion; this is due to the fact that the spiritual, cosmological and theoretical differences among these systems were definitely greater than the divergences between Christianity and Islam (https://www.academia.edu/34439637/In_Ancient_Egypt_at_any_given_moment_there_was_never_one_Egyptian_Religion). However, none of the main Ancient Egyptian religions (the Heliopolitan, Hermupolitan, Memphtic and Theban systems) expanded much on the Creation of Man, and quite rightfully. Even within the Biblical context, the Creation of the World matters; the creation of the Man is a secondary episode. The religious – theological system that gives greater focus on the Creation of Man in Ancient Egypt is that of Khnum, the ram-headed god of Elephantine island at Aswan. For the Creation of the Man, it involves clay and the potter’s wheel. To help you understand what this means, I only state that it clearly shows that in reality the potter’s wheel antedates the first physical man!
Khnum creates the First Man
However, irrespective of the spiritual and theoretical background related to the myths about the Creation of the Man, it was always clear to the Ancient Oriental peoples that the early life in the Garden of God(s) was the supreme stage of the Mankind, which was lost when the early humans were forced out (the first fall). The vicinity of the Holy Tree (the Tree of Life) was a condition that always characterized the ancient Oriental nations’ effort to recapture and reconstitute the early, ideal stage.
We can therefore fully understand that both the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians viewed the Creation of the Man and the Mankind’s early stage as the supreme condition that humans ever experienced. And this is how it truly happened.
Scene around the Holy Tree
God did not create a silly and scared humanoid who (or that?) had to incessantly be on the run in order to avoid the leopard and the lion, the wolf and the jackal. As created, Man had supreme spiritual power and ability to live at a totally different level. Indicatively, although animals were created before Adam, it is he who was asked by God to name them! Giving the name to an already created being is tantamount to having absolute power over it; the early man did not need to study about the trees and the plants that surrounded him, because absolute knowledge of everything was inherent to him as per the code of the Creation.
Full knowledge of, and absolute power over, natural phenomena and meteorological conditions were only some of the early man’s capacities. Complete understanding of the structure of the universe and of the Earth, communication with all the spiritual hierarchies and the material beings, and impeccable moral conscience were some of his characteristics. The early man was able to live without eating, sleeping and having sexual intercourse. His spiritual and material power was formidable, and this was exactly what great mystics, high priests, and wise elders of later periods tried to recapture after the series of early setbacks (as symbolized by the expulsion from the Paradise, the Flood, the Babel Tower, etc). Every setback and fall meant always a direct loss of spiritual potency, knowledge, and intuition, and this brought about loss of intellectual accuracy and confusion.
Not only the man was different at that stage, but also the animals, and they did not eat one another – at all. In Kom Ombo, they managed to keep domesticated crocodiles until very late. We can safely infer the aforementioned, because it is known that, after the End of Times and the anticipated re-constitution of the early ideal world by Etana – Ninurta – Horus – Tasmisu – Shosyant – Maitreya – Messiah – Christ – Mahdi (and any other mythologized or theologized figure of Ultimate Savior), the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together; and a little child will lead them. 7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. 9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah XI, 6-9). If the re-constituted ideal society after the elimination of the Evil comprises of this description’s details, we can assume that this was also the ordinary life before the falls started.
The Assyrian – Babylonian Eschatological – Messianic Myth (:Prophecy) of Etana
The fight between the Messiah (Horus) and the Antichrist (Seth) as depicted …
on the walls of Horus’ Temple at Edfu: The Antichrist is depicted as crocodile …
or hippopotamus.
Please notice the excerpt’s last sentence! Isaiah’s reference to waters (: soft waters) covering the sea makes surely no sense to you. But it would definitely make sense to Pharaoh Narmer and his times’ wise elders, high priests, and average people. This is due to the fact that the world was very different before the Flood. That’s why it makes sense that you ask me about the stars playing a role in Narmer’s decision making process. This will be the topic of my next response.
megalommatiscomments 
