Occult Massacres…..

Palermo (Punta Raisi). Sicilia. Video credit: pillole.di.sicilia

Welcome to Sicily.

Mortuary temple of Hatshepshut at Deir el-Bahari.

Nubianization of the Cushites, Linguistic Denigration of Berbers, Denial of Hamitic Identity

Nubianization of the Cushites, Linguistic Denigration of Berbers, Denial of Hamitic Identity: the Next Genocide in Africa   

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Speaking at the 5th Annual Conference of the Network of Oromo Studies (NOS), which took place on 27th February 2021 on Visual Technology, I exposed one more Western colonial distortion, falsification and machination; the title of my speech was: "Fake Nubia: a Colonial Forgery to deprive Cushitic Nations from National Independence, Historical Identity and Cultural Heritage".

The text of my contribution was published without the notes here:

academia.edu

Fake Nubia: a Colonial Forgery to deprive Cushitic Nations from National Independence, Historical Identity and Cultural Heritage

The text below is my speech at the 5th Annual Conference of the Network of Oromo Studies (NOS), which took place on 27th February 2021 on Vi

I herewith publish the first two notes of my speech; they constitute a brief but direct denunciation of the major Western anti-African forgeries, namely

- the Nubianization of the East African Cushites and of their historical past and heritage,

- the disparagement of the Berbers, and

- the denial of the existence of the Hamites.

Although short, this text provides readers with a comprehensive insight into the evil, racist and systematic efforts of distortion of the African past by the Anglo-French and the American criminal fraudsters and biased pseudo-academics.

-----------------------------------------    

Read and download the 3000-word text here:

Continental Empires

Nubianization of the Cushites, Linguistic Denigration of Berbers, Denial of Hamitic Identity: the Next Genocide in Africa

History, Ancient History, Silk-, Spice- Perfume Roads, Spirituality, Faith,

and

historikon.substack.com

Nubianization of the Cushites, Linguistic Denigration of Berbers, Denial of Hamitic Identity: the Next Genocide in Africa

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989

Кузьма Мегаломматис, Син (или Нанна): мировая мифология, Греческая педагогическая энциклопедия, 1989

Kosmas Megalommatis, Sin: Weltmythologie, Griechische Pädagogische Enzyklopädie, 1989

Kosmas Gözübüyükoğlu, Sin: Dünya Mitolojisi, Yunan Pedagoji Ansiklopedisi, 1989

قزمان ميغالوماتيس، سین : اساطیر جهانی، دایره المعارف آموزشی یونانی، 1989

Côme Megalommatis, Sîn: Mythologie mondiale, Encyclopédie pédagogique grecque, 1989

1989 قزمان ميغالوماتيس، سين : الأساطير العالمية، الموسوعة التربوية اليونانية،

Cosimo Megalommatis, Sin (o Nanna): mitologia mondiale, Enciclopedia pedagogica greca, 1989

Cosimo Megalommatis, Sin (Sinai, Nanna, Nannar, Suen o Zuen): mitología mundial, Enciclopedia pedagógica griega, 1989

Cosmas Megalommatis, Sin (or Suen): World Mythology, Greek Pedagogical Encyclopedia, 1989

=================

Скачать PDF-файл: / PDF-Datei herunterladen: / Télécharger le fichier PDF : / PDF dosyasını indirin: / :PDF قم بتنزيل ملف / Download PDF file: / : یک فایل دانلود کنید / Κατεβάστε το PDF:

https://osf.io/wys79

calameo.com

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία-1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989 Кузьма Мегаломматис, Син (или Нанна): мировая мифо

docdroid.net

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν - Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία.pdf

El8nvorrg I poK{lpr6rK6 oxeri4Erot ue rn uoiod rou i6rou rou ooouptoKotiloo!, o ofloigq Clel e vo 6too<opmdei. A116our6 ro onuEio o ltv ouv6

figshare

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία-1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989Кузьма Мегаломматис, Син (или Нанна): мировая мифол

slideshare.net

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν - Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, 1989

Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σιν - Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, 1989 - Download as a PDF or view online for free

A satirical papyrus showing a lady mouse being served wine by a cat while another cat dresses her hair, a third cares for her baby, and a fourth fans her. The mice have hilarious huge, round ears.

Where: Egyptian Museum Cairo

When: New Kingdom

Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims 

When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Church's sole Pope Emeritus…

Table of Contents

I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI

II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope

III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars

IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies

V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored

VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'

VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture

VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations

IX. The lecture's most controversial point

X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states

Of all the Roman popes who resigned the only to be called 'Pope Emeritus' was Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI (also known in German as Prof. Dr. Papst), who passed away on 31st December 2022, thus sealing the circle of world figures and heads of states whose life ended last year. As a matter of fact, although being a head state, a pope does not abdicate; he renounces to his ministry (renuntiatio).

Due to lack of documentation, conflicting sources or confusing circumstances, we do not have conclusive evidence as regards the purported resignations of the popes St. Pontian (235), Marcellinus (304), Liberius (366), John XVIII (1009) and Sylvester (105). That is why historical certainty exists only with respect to the 'papal renunciation' of six pontiffs; three of them bore the papal name of 'Benedict'. The brief list includes therefore the following bishops of Rome: Benedict V (964), Benedict IX (deposed in 1044, bribed to resign in 1045, and resigned in 1048), Gregory VI (1046), St Celestine (1294), Gregory XII (1415) and Benedict XVI (2013).

I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI

Benedict XVI (18 April 1927 – 31 December 2022) was seven (7) years younger than his predecessor John Paul II (1920-2005), but passed away seventeen (17) years after the Polish pope's death; already on the 4th September 2020, Benedict XVI would have been declared as the oldest pope in history, had he not resigned seven (7) years earlier. Only Leo XIII died 93, back in 1903. As a matter of fact, Benedict XVI outlived all the people who were elected to the Roman See.

Benedict XVI's papacy lasted slightly less than eight (8) years (19 April 2005 – 28 February 2013). Before being elected as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was for almost a quarter century (1981-2005) the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was the formal continuation of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, and therefore one of the most important sections ('dicasteries'; from the Ancient Greek term 'dikasterion', i.e. 'court of law') of the Roman administration ('Curia').

A major step toward this position was his appointment as archbishop of Munich for four years (1977-1981); Bavaria has always been a Catholic heavyweight, and in this regard, it is easy to recall the earlier example of Eugenio Pacelli (the later pope Pius XII), who was nuncio to Bavaria (and therefore to the German Empire), in Munich, from 1917 to 1920, and then to Germany, before being elected to the Roman See (in 1939). Before having a meteoric rise in the Catholic hierarchy, Ratzinger made an excellent scholar and a distinct professor of dogmatic theology, while also being a priest. His philosophical dissertation was about St. Augustine and his habilitation concerned Bonaventure, a Franciscan scholastic theologian and cardinal of the 13th c.

II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope

During his ministry, very early, Benedict XVI stood up and showed his teeth; when I noticed his formidable outburst against the 'dictatorship of relativism', I realized that the German pope would be essentially superior to his Polish predecessor. Only in June 2005, so just two months after his election, he defined relativism as "the main obstacle to the task of education", directing a tremendous attack against the evilness of ego and portraying selfishness as a "self-limitation of reason".

In fact, there cannot be more devastating attack from a supreme religious authority against the evilness of Anglo-Zionism and the rotten, putrefied society that these criminals diffuse worldwide by means of infiltration, corruption, mendacity, and simulation. Soon afterwards, while speaking in Marienfeld (Cologne), Benedict XVI attacked ferociously all the pathetic ideologies which indiscriminately enslave humans from all spiritual and cultural backgrounds. He said: "absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism". This is a detrimental rejection of Talmudic Judaism, Zohar Kabbalah, and Anglo-Zionism.

It was in the summer 2005 that I first realized that I should study closer the pre-papal past of the Roman Pontiff whom St Malachy's illustrious Prophecy of the Popes (12th c.) described as 'Gloria olivae' (the Glory of the olive). I contacted several friends in Germany, who extensively updated me as regards his academic publications, also dispatching to me some of them. At the time, I noticed that my Christian friends already used to question a certain number of Cardinal Ratzinger's positions.

But, contrarily to them, I personally found his prediction about the eventuality of Buddhism becoming the principal 'enemy' of the Catholic Church as quite plausible. My friends were absolutely astounded, and then I had to narrate and explain to them the deliberately concealed story of the Christian-Islamic-Confucian alliance against the Buddhist terrorism of the Dzungar Khanate (1634-1755); actually, it took many Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756), successive wars between Qing China and the Dzungar Khanate (1687-1757), and even an alliance with the Russian Empire in order to successfully oppose the ferocious Buddhist extremist threat.

Finally, the extraordinary ordeal of North Asia {a vast area comprising lands of today's Eastern Kazakhstan, Russia (Central Siberia), Northwestern and Western China (Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang and Tibet) and Western Mongolia} ended up with the systematic genocide of the extremist Buddhist Dzungars (1755-1758) that the Chinese had to undertake because there was no other way to terminate once forever the most fanatic regime that ever existed in Asia.

Disoriented, ignorant, confused and gullible, most of the people today fail to clearly understand how easily Buddhism can turn a peaceful society into a fanatic realm of lunatic extremists. The hypothetically innocent adhesion of several fake Freemasonic lodges of the West to Buddhism and the seemingly harmless acceptance of Buddhist principles and values by these ignorant fools can end up in the formation of vicious and terrorist organizations that will give to their members and initiates the absurd order and task to indiscriminately kill all of their opponents. But Cardinal Ratzinger had prudently discerned the existence of a dangerous source of spiritual narcissism in Buddhism.

III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars

To me, this foresight was a convincing proof that Benedict XVI was truly 'Gloria olivae'; but this would be troublesome news! In a period of proxy wars, unrestrained iniquity, and outrageous inhumanity, a perspicacious, cordial, and benevolent pope in Rome would surely be an encumbering person to many villainous rascals, i.e. the likes of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, and many others so-called 'leaders'. The reason for this assessment of the situation is simple: no one wants a powerful pacifier at a time more wars are planned.

At the time, it was ostensible to all that a fake confrontation between the world's Muslims and Christians was underway (notably after the notorious 9/11 events); for this reason, I expected Benedict XVI to make a rather benevolent statement that evil forces would immediately misinterpret, while also falsely accusing the pacifist Pope and absurdly turning the uneducated and ignorant mob of many countries against the Catholic Church.

This is the foolish plan of the Anglo-Zionist lobby, which has long served as puppets of the Jesuits, corrupting the entire Muslim world over the past 250 years by means of intellectual, educational, academic, scientific, cultural, economic, military and political colonialism. These idiotic puppets, which have no idea who their true and real masters are, imagine that, by creating an unprecedented havoc in Europe, they harm the worldwide interests of the Jesuits; but they fail to properly realize that this evil society, which early turned against Benedict XVI, has already shifted its focus onto China. Why the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasonic lodge would act in this manner against Benedict XVI is easy to assess; the Roman pontiff whose episcopal motto was 'Cooperatores Veritatis' ('Co-workers of the Truth') would apparently try to prevent the long-prepared fake war between the Muslims and the Christians.

IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies

And this is what truly happened in the middle of September 2006; on the 12th September, Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany; the title was 'Glaube, Vernunft und Universität – Erinnerungen und Reflexionen' ('Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections'). In the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Dr. Ratzinger eclipsed Pope Benedict XVI, as the one-time professor persisted on his concept of 'faith', "which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole", as he said. In a most rationalistic approach (for which he had been known for several decades as a renowned Catholic theologian), in an argumentation reflecting views certainly typical of Francis of Assisi and of Aristotle but emphatically alien to Jesus, Benedict XVI attempted to portray an ahistorical Christianity and to describe the Catholic faith as the religion of the Reason.

At an early point of the lecture, Benedict XVI referred to a discussion that the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (or Palaiologos; Μανουήλ Παλαιολόγος; 1350-1425; reigned after 1391) had with an erudite Turkic scholar (indiscriminately but mistakenly called by all Eastern Roman authors at the time as 'Persian') most probably around the end of 1390 or the first months of 1391, when he was hostage at the Ottoman court of Bayezid I. In the historical text, it is stated that the location was 'Ancyra of Galatia' (i.e. Ankara).  

This Eastern Roman Emperor was indeed a very controversial historical figure; although undeniably an erudite ruler, a bold diplomat, and a reputable soldier, he first made agreements with the Ottomans and delivered to them the last Eastern Roman city in Anatolia (Philadelphia; today's Alaşehir, ca. 140 km east of Izmir / Smyrna) and then, after he took control of his ailing kingdom thanks to the sultan, he escaped the protracted siege of Constantinople (1391-1402) only to travel to various Western European kingdoms and ask the help of those rather reluctant monarchs (1399-1403).

At the time, all the Christian Orthodox populations, either living in the Ottoman sultanate or residing in the declined Eastern Roman Empire, were deeply divided into two groups, namely those who preferred to be ruled by Muslims (because they rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy, evilness and iniquity of the Roman pope) and the fervent supporters of a Latin (: Western European) control over Constantinople (viewed as the only way for them to prevent the Ottoman rule); the former formed the majority and were called Anthenotikoi, i.e. 'against the union' (: of the Orthodox Church with the Catholics), whereas the latter constituted a minority group and were named 'Enotikoi' ('those in favor of the union of the two churches').

V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored

Manuel II Palaeologus' text has little theological value in itself; however, its historical value is great. It reveals how weak both interlocutors were at the intellectual, cultural and spiritual levels, how little they knew one another, and how poorly informed they were about their own and their interlocutor's past, heritage, religion and spirituality. If we have even a brief look at it, we will immediately realize that the level is far lower than that attested during similar encounters in 8th- 9th c. Baghdad, 10th c. Umayyad Andalusia, Fatimid Cairo, 13th c. Maragheh (where the world's leading observatory was built) or 14th c. Samarqand, the Timurid capital.

It was absolutely clear at the time of Manuel II Palaeologus and Bayezid I that neither Constantinople nor Bursa (Προύσα / Prousa; not anymore the Ottoman capital after 1363, but still the most important city of the sultanate) could compete with the great centers of Islamic science civilization which were located in Iran and Central Asia. That's why Gregory Chioniades, the illustrious Eastern Roman bishop, astronomer, and erudite scholar who was the head of the Orthodox diocese of Tabriz, studied in Maragheh under the guidance of his tutor and mentor, Shamsaddin al Bukhari (one of the most illustrious students of Nasir el-Din al Tusi, who was the founder of the Maragheh Observatory), before building an observatory in Trabzon (Trebizond) and becoming the teacher of Manuel Bryennios, another famous Eastern Roman scholar.  

The text of the Dialogues must have been written several years after the conversation took place, most probably when the traveling emperor and diplomat spent four years in Western Europe. For reasons unknown to us, the erudite emperor did not mention the name of his interlocutor, although this was certainly known to him; if we take into consideration that he was traveling to other kingdoms, we can somehow guess a plausible reason. His courtiers and royal scribes may have translated the text partly into Latin and given copies of the 'dialogues' to various kings, marshals, chroniclers, and other dignitaries. If this was the case, the traveling emperor would not probably want to offer insights into the Ottoman court and the influential religious authorities around the sultan.

Alternatively, the 'unknown' interlocutor may well have been Amir Sultan (born as Mohamed bin Ali; also known as Shamsuddin Al-Bukhari; 1368-1429) himself, i.e. none else than an important Turanian mystic from Vobkent (near Bukhara in today's Uzbekistan), who got married with Bayezid I's daughter Hundi Fatema Sultan Hatun. Amir Sultan had advised the sultan not to turn against Timur; had the foolish sultan heeded to his son-in-law's wise advice, he would not have been defeated so shamefully.

Benedict XVI made a very biased use of the historical text; he selected an excerpt of Manuel II Palaeologus' response to his interlocutor in order to differentiate between Christianity as the religion of Reason and Islam as the religion of Violence. Even worse, he referred to a controversial, biased and rancorous historian of Lebanese origin, the notorious Prof. Theodore Khoury (born in 1930), who spent his useless life to write sophisticated diatribes, mildly formulated forgeries, and deliberate distortions of the historical truth in order to satisfy his rancor and depict the historical past according to his absurd political analysis. Almost every sentence written Prof. Khoury about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate is maliciously false.

All the same, it was certainly Benedict XVI's absolute right to be academically, intellectually and historically wrong. The main problem was that the paranoid reaction against him was not expressed at the academic and intellectual levels, but at the profane ground of international politics. Even worse, it was not started by Muslims but by the criminal Anglo-Zionist mafia and the disreputable mainstream mass media, the likes of the BBC, Al Jazeera (Qatari is only the façade of it), etc.

I will now republish (in bold and italics) a sizeable (600-word) excerpt of the papal lecture that contains the contentious excerpt, also adding the notes to the text. The link to the Vatican's website page is available below. I will comment first on the lecture and the selected part of Manuel II Palaeologus' text and then on the absurd Muslim reaction.

VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[7]

Notes 1 to 7 (out of 13)

[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition;  the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation:  “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman.  7e Controverse”,  Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966.  In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary:  “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996.  As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien.  I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.

[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29;  extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c:  Khoury, pp. 142-143;  Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241.  In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation.  I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.  In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason.  On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c:  Khoury, pp. 144-145;  Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor.  In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.

[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13;  cf. Khoury, p. 144.  The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.

VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture

It is my conviction that Benedict XVI fell victim to the quite typical theological assumptions that Prof. Dr. Ratzinger had studied and taught for decades. However, the problem is not limited to the circle of the faculties of Theology and to Christian Theology as a modern discipline; it is far wider. The same troublesome situation permeates all the disciplines of Humanities and, even worse, the quasi-totality of the modern sciences as they started in Renaissance. The problem goes well beyond the limits of academic research and intellectual consideration; it has to do with the degenerate, rotten and useless mental abilities and capacities of the Western so-called scholars, researchers and academics. The description of the problem is rather brief, but its nature is truly ominous.

Instead of perceiving, understanding, analyzing and representing the 'Other' in its own terms, conditions and essence and as per its own values, virtues and world conceptualization, the modern Western European scholars, researchers, explorers and specialists view, perceive, attempt to understand, and seek to analyze the 'Other' in their own terms, conditions and essence and as per their own values, virtues and world conceptualization. Due to this sick effort and unprecedented aberration, the Western so-called scholars and researchers view the 'Other' through their eyes, thus projecting onto the 'Other' their view of it. Consequently, they do not and actually they cannot learn it, let alone know, understand and represent it. Their attitude is inane, autistic and degenerate. It is however quite interesting and truly bizarre that the Western European natural scientists do not proceed in this manner, but fully assess the condition of the object of their study in a rather objective manner.

In fact, the Western disciplines of the Humanities, despite the enormous collection and publication of study materials, sources and overall documentation, are a useless distortion. Considered objectively, the Western scientific endeavor in its entirety is a monumental nothingness; it is not only a preconceived conclusion. It is a resolute determination not to 'see' the 'Other' as it truly exists, as its constituent parts obviously encapsulate its contents, and as the available documentation reveals it. In other words, it consists in a premeditated and resolute rejection of the Truth; it is intellectually barren, morally evil, and spiritually nihilist. The topic obviously exceeds by far the limits of the present obituary, but I had to mention it in order to offer the proper context.  

It is therefore difficult to identify the real reason for the magnitude of the Western scholarly endeavor, since the conclusions existed in the minds of the explorers and the academics already before the documentation was gathered, analyzed, studied, and represented. How important is it therefore to publish the unpublished material (totaling more than 100000 manuscripts of Islamic times and more than one million of cuneiform tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia, Iran, Canaan and Anatolia – only to give an idea to the non-specialized readers), if the evil Western scholars and the gullible foreign students enrolled in Western institutions (to the detriment of their own countries and nations) are going to repeat and reproduce the same absurd Western mentality of viewing an Ancient Sumerian, an Ancient Assyrian, an Ancient Egyptian or a Muslim author through their own eyes and of projecting onto the ancient author the invalid and useless measures, values, terms and world views of the modern Western world?

As it can be easily understood, the problem is not with Christian Theology, but with all the disciplines of the Humanities. So, the problem is not only that a great Muslim scholar and erudite mystic like Ibn Hazm was viewed by Benedict XVI and Western theologians through the distorting lenses of their 'science', being not evaluated as per the correct measures, values and terms of his own Islamic environment, background and civilization. The same problem appears in an even worse form, when Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Iranian and other high priests, spiritual masters, transcendental potentates, sacerdotal writers, and unequaled scientists are again evaluated as per the invalid and useless criteria of Benedict XVI, of all the Western theologians, and of all the modern European and American academics.

What post-Renaissance popes, theologians, academics, scholars and intellectuals fail to understand is very simple; their 'world' ( i.e. the world of the Western Intellect and Science, which was first fabricated in the 15th and the 16th c. and later enhanced progressively down to our days) in not Christian, is not human, and is not real. It is their own delusion, their own invalid abstraction, their abject paranoia, and their own sin for which first they will atrociously disappear from the surface of the Earth (like every anomalous entity) and then flagrantly perish in Hell.

Their dangling system does not hold; they produced it in blood and in blood it will end. Modern sciences constitute a counter-productive endeavor and an aberration that will terminally absorb the entire world into the absolute nothingness, because these evil systems were instituted out of arbitrary bogus-interpretations of the past, peremptory self-identification, deliberate and prejudicial ignorance, as well as an unprecedented ulcerous hatred of the 'Other', i.e. of every 'Other'.

The foolish Western European academic-intellectual establishment failed to realize that it is absolutely preposterous to extrapolate later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations; in fact, it is impossible. By trying to do it, you depart from the real world only to live in your delusion, which sooner or later will inevitably have a tragic end. Consequently, the Western European scholars' 'classics' are not classics; their reason is an obsession; their language and jargon are hallucinatory, whereas their notions are conjectural. Their abstract concepts are the manifestation of Non-Being.

VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations

Benedict XVI's understanding of the Eastern Roman Empire was fictional. When examining the sources, he retained what he liked, what pleased him, and what was beneficial to his preconceived ideas and thoughts. In fact, Prof. Dr. Papst did not truly understand what Manuel II Palaeologus said to his Turkic interlocutor, and even worse, he failed to assess the enormous distance that separated the early 15th c. Eastern Roman (not 'Byzantine': this is a fake appellation too) Emperor from his illustrious predecessors before 800 or 900 years (the likes of Heraclius and Justinian I) in terms of Christian Roman imperial ideology, theological acumen, jurisprudential perspicacity, intellectual resourcefulness, and spiritual forcefulness. Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Christian doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.

What was Ratzinger's mistake? First, he erroneously viewed Manuel II Palaeologus as 'his' (as identical with the papal doctrine), by projecting his modern Catholic mindset and convictions onto the Christian Orthodox Eastern Roman Emperor's mind, mentality and faith. He took the 'Dialogues' at face value whereas the text may have been written not as a declaration of faith but as a diplomatic document in order to convince the rather uneducated Western European monarchs that the traveling 'basileus' (βασιλεύς) visited during the period 1399-1403.

Second, he distorted the 'dialogue', presenting it in a polarized form. Benedict XVI actually depicted a fraternal conversation as a frontal opposition; unfortunately, there is nothing in the historical text to insinuate this possibility. As I already said, it is quite possible that the moderate, wise, but desperate Eastern Roman Emperor may have discussed with someone married to a female descendant of the great mystic Jalal al-Din Rumi (namely Bayezid's son-in-law, adviser and mystic Emir Sultan). Why on Earth did the renowned theologian Ratzinger attempt to stage manage a theological conflict in the place of a most peaceful, friendly and fraternal exchange of ideas?

This is easy to explain; it has to do with the absolutely Manichaean structure of thought that was first diffused among the Western Fathers of the Christian Church by St Augustine (in the early 5th c.). As method of theological argumentation, it was first effectively contained, and it remained rather marginal within the Roman Church as long as the practice introduced by Justinian I (537) lasted (until 752) and all the popes of Rome had to be selected and approved personally by the Eastern Roman Emperor. After this moment and, more particularly, after the two Schisms (867 and 1054), the Manichaean system of thinking prevailed in Rome; finally, it culminated after the Renaissance.

Third, Benedict XVI tried to depict the early 15th c. erudite interlocutor of the then hostage Manuel II Palaeologus as a modern Muslim and a Jihadist. This is the repetition of the same mistakes that he made as regards the intellectual Eastern Roman Emperor. In other words, he projected onto the 'unknown', 15th c. Muslim mystic his own personal view of an Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist. Similarly, by bulldozing time in order to impose his wrong perception of Islam, he fully misled the audience. As a matter of fact, Islam constitutes a vast universe that Prof. Dr. Papst never studied, never understood, and never fathomed in its true dimensions.

In fact, as it happened in the case of the Eastern Roman Emperor, his interlocutor was intellectually weaker and spiritually lower than the great figures of Islamic spirituality, science, wisdom, literature and intuition, the likes of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Al Qurtubi, Mohyi el-Din Ibn Arabi, Ahmed Yasawi, Al Biruni, Ferdowsi, Al Farabi, Tabari, etc., who preceded him by 150 to 500 years. But Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Islamic doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.

The reason for this distortion is easy to grasp; the Manichaean system of thinking needs terminal, crystallized forms of items that do not change; then, it is convenient for the Western European abusers of the Manichaean spirit to fully implement the deceitful setting of fake contrasts and false dilemmas. But the 15th c. decayed Eastern Roman Orthodoxy and decadent Islam are real historical entities that enable every explorer to encounter the multitude of forms, the ups and downs, the evolution of cults, the transformation of faiths, and the gradual loss of the initially genuine Moral and vibrant Spirituality. This reality is very embarrassing to those who want to teach their unfortunate students on a calamitous black & white background (or floor).

All the books and articles of his friend, Prof. Theodore Khoury, proved to be totally useless and worthless for the Catholic theologian Ratzinger, exactly because the Lebanese specialist never wrote a sentence in order to truly represent the historical truth about Islam, but he always elaborated his texts in a way to justify and confirm his preconceived ideas. Prof. Khoury's Islam is a delusional entity, something like the artificial humans of our times. Unfortunately, not one Western Islamologist realized that Islam, at the antipodes of the Roman Catholic doctrine, has an extremely limited dogmatic part, a minimal cult, and no heresies. Any opposite opinion belongs to liars, forgers and falsifiers. As a matter of fact, today's distorted representation of Islam is simply the result of Western colonialism. All over the world, whatever people hear or believe about the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad is not the true, historical, religion of Islam, but the colonially, academically-intellectually, produced Christianization of Islam.  

Fourth, in striking contrast to what the theologian Ratzinger pretended through use of this example or case study (i.e. the 'discussion'), if Benedict XVI shifted his focus to the East, he would find Maragheh in NW Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan) and Samarqand in Central Asia. In those locations (and always for the period concerned), he would certainly find great centers of learning, universities, vast libraries, and enormous observatories, which could make every 15th c. Western European astronomer and mathematician dream. But there he would also find, as I already said, many Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and other scholars working one next to the other without caring about their religious (theological) differences. This situation is very well known to modern Western scholarship, but they viciously and criminally try to permanently conceal it.

This situation was due to the cultural, intellectual, academic, mental and spiritual unity that prevailed among all those erudite scholars. Numerous Western European scholars have published much about Nasir el-Din al Tusi (about whom I already spoke briefly) and also about Ulugh Beg, the world's greatest astronomer of his time (middle of the 15th c.), who was the grandson of Timur (Tamerlane) and, at the same time, the World History's most erudite emperor of the last 2500 years. However, post-Renaissance Catholic sectarianism and Western European/North American racism prevented the German pope from being truthful at least once, and also from choosing the right paradigm.

IX. The lecture's most controversial point

Fifth, if we now go straight to the lecture's most controversial point and to the quotation's most fascinating sentence, we will find the question addressed by Manuel II Palaeologus to his erudite Turkic interlocutor; actually, it is rather an exclamation:

- «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached»!

This interesting excerpt provides indeed the complete confirmation of my earlier assessments as regards the intellectual decay of both, Christian Orthodoxy and Islam, at the time. Apparently, it was not theological acumen what both interlocutors were lacking at the time; it was historical knowledge. Furthermore, historical continuity, religious consciousness, and moral command were also absent in the discussion.

The first series of points that Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor could have made answering the aforementioned statement would be that Prophet Muhammad, before his death, summoned Ali ibn Abu Taleb and asked him to promise that he would never diffuse the true faith by undertaking wars; furthermore, Islam was diffused peacefully in many lands outside Arabia (Hejaz), notably Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and the Eastern Coast of Africa. In addition, there were many Muslims, who rejected the absurd idea of the Islamic conquests launched by Umar ibn al-Khattab and actually did not participate.

We have also to take into consideration the fact that, in spite of the undeniable reality of the early spread of Islam through invasions, there has always been well-known and sufficient documentation to clearly prove that the Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, the Copts of Egypt, and the Berbers of Africa, although fully preserving their Christian faith, preferred to live under the rule of the Caliphates and overwhelmingly rejected the Eastern Roman imperial administration, because they had been long persecuted by the Constantinopolitan guards due to their Miaphysite (Monophysitic) and/or Nestorian faiths.

On another note, the Eastern Roman Emperor's Muslim interlocutor could have questioned the overall approach of Manuel II Palaeologus to the topic. In other words, he could have expressed the following objection:

- «What is it good for someone to pretend that he is a follower of Jesus and evoke his mildness, while at the same time violently imposing by the sword the faith that Jesus preached? And what is it more evil and more inhuman than the imposition of a faith in Jesus' name within the Roman Empire, after so much bloodshed and persecution took place and so many wars were undertaken»? 

Last, one must admit that the sentence «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new!» would have been easily answered by an earlier Muslim mystic of the Golden Era of Islam. Actually, this statement is islamically correct and pertinent. The apparent absence of a spectacular response from the part of Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor rather generates doubts as regards the true nature of the text. This is so because he could have immediately replied to Bayezid I's hostage that not one prophet or messenger was sent by God with the purpose of 'bringing something new'; in fact, all the prophets from Noah to Jonah, from Abraham to Jonah, from Moses to Muhammad, and from Adam to Jesus were dispatched in order to deliver the same message to the humans, namely to return to the correct path and live according to the Will of God.

Related to this point is the following well-known verse of the Quran (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 67): "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists". It is therefore odd that a response in this regard is missing at this point.

It is also strange that, at a time of major divisions within Christianity and more particularly among the Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans, the 'unknown' imperial interlocutor did not mention the existing divisions among Christians as already stated very clearly, explicitly and repeatedly in the Quran. Examples:

"You are the best community ever raised for humanity—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious". (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 110)

"Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating in prayer".

(ch. 3 - Al Imran, 113):

To conclude I would add that elementary knowledge of Roman History, Late Antiquity, and Patristic Philology would be enough for Benedict XVI to know that

- in its effort to impose Christianity on the Roman Empire,

- in its determination to fully eradicate earlier religions, opposite religious sects like the Gnostics, and theological 'heresies' like Arianism,

- in its resolve to exterminate other Christian Churches such as the Nestorians and the Miaphysites (Monophysites),

- in its obsession to uproot Christian theological doctrines like Iconoclasm and Paulicianism, and

- in its witch hunt against Manichaeism, …

… the 'official' Roman and Constantinopolitan churches committed innumerable crimes and killed a far greater number of victims than those massacred by Muslim invaders on several occurrences during the early Islamic conquests.

So, when did the Christian Church encounter Reason and when did it cease to be 'unreasonable' according to the theologian Pope Ratzinger?

One must be very sarcastic to duly respond to those questions: most probably, the Roman Church discovered 'Reason' after having killed all of their opponents and the so-called 'heretics' whose sole sin was simply to consider and denounce the Roman Church as heretic!

If Benedict XVI forgot to find in the Quran the reason for the Turkic interlocutor's mild attitude toward the hostage Manuel II Palaeologus, this is a serious oversight for the professor of theology; he should have mentioned the excerpts. In the surah al-Ankabut ('the Spider'; ch. 29, verse 46), it is stated: "And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner".

Similarly, the German pope failed to delve in Assyriology and in Egyptology to better understand that the Hebrew Bible (just like the New Testament and the Quran) did not bring anything 'new' either; before Moses in Egypt and before Abraham in Mesopotamia, there were monotheistic and aniconic trends and traits in the respective religions. The concept of the Messiah is attested in Egypt, in Assyria, and among the Hittites many centuries or rather more than a millennium before Isaiah contextualized it within the small Hebrew kingdom. Both Egypt and Babylon were holy lands long before Moses promised South Canaan to the Ancient Hebrew tribes, whereas the Assyrians were the historically first Chosen People of the Only God and the Assyrian imperial ideology reflected this fact in detail. The Akkadian - Assyrian-Babylonian kings were 'emperors of the universe' and their rule reflected the 'kingdom of Heaven'.

If Etana and Ninurta reveal aspects of Assyrian eschatology, Horus was clearly the Egyptian Messiah, who would ultimately vanquish Seth (Satan/Antichrist) at the End of Time in an unprecedented cosmic battle that would usher the mankind into a new era which would be the reconstitution of the originally ideal world and Well-Being (Wser), i.e. Osiris. There is no Cosmogony without Eschatology or Soteriology, and nothing was invented and envisioned by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans that had not previously been better and more solemnly formulated among the Sumerians, the Akkadians - Assyrian-Babylonians, and the Egyptians. There is no such thing as 'Greco-Roman' or 'Greco-Christian' or' Greco-Judaic' civilization. Both, Islam and Christianity are the children of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

And this concludes the case of today's Catholic theologians, i.e. the likes of Pope Benedict XVI or Theodore Khoury; they have to restart from scratch in order to duly assess the origins and the nature of Christianity before the serpent casts "forth out of his mouth water as a river after the woman, that he may cause her to be carried away by the river". All the same, it was certainly Prof. Ratzinger's full right to make as many mistakes as he wanted and to distort any textual reference he happened to mention.

X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states

Quite contrarily, it was not the right of those who accused him of doing so, because they expanded rather at the political and not at the academic level; this was very hypocritical and shameful. If these politicians, statesmen and diplomats dared speak at the academic level, they would reveal their own ignorance, obscurantism, obsolete educational system, miserable universities, nonexistent intellectual life, and last but not least, disreputable scientific institutions.

The reason for this is simple: not one Muslim country has properly organized departments and faculties endowed with experts capable of reading historical sources in the original texts and specializing in the History of the Eastern Roman Empire, Orthodox Christianity, Christological disputes and Patristic Literature. If a Muslim country had an educational, academic and intellectual establishment similar to that of Spain or Poland, there would surely be serious academic-level objection to Benedict XVI's lecture. It would take a series of articles to reveal, refute and utterly denounce (not just the mistakes and the oversights but) the distorted approach which is not proper only to the defunct Pope Emeritus but to the entire Western academic establishment; these people would however be academics and intellectuals of a certain caliber. Unfortunately, such specialists do not exist in any Muslim country.

Then, the unrepresentative criminal crooks and gangsters, who rule all the countries of the Muslim world, reacted against Pope Benedict XVI at a very low, political level about a topic that was not political of nature and about which they knew absolutely nothing. In this manner, they humiliated all the Muslims, defamed Islam, ridiculed their own countries, and revealed that they rule failed states. Even worse, they made it very clear that they are the disreputable puppets of their colonial masters, who have systematically forced all the Muslim countries to exactly accept as theirs the fallacy that the Western Orientalists have produced and projected onto them (and in this case, the entirely fake representation of Islam that theologians like Ratzinger, Khoury and many others have fabricated).

If Ratzinger gave this lecture, this is also due to the fact that he knew that he would not face any academic or intellectual level opposition from the concerned countries. This is so because all the execrable puppets, who govern the Muslim world, were put in place by the representatives of the colonial powers. They do not defend their local interests but execute specific orders in order not to allow

- bold explorers, dynamic professors, and impulsive intellectuals to take the lead,

- proper secular education, unbiased scientific methodology, intellectual self-criticism, free judgment, and thinking out of the box to grow,

- faculties and research centers to be established as per the norms of educationally advanced states, and

- intellectual anti-colonial pioneers and anti-Western scholars to demolish the racist Greco-centric dogma that post-Renaissance European universities have intentionally diffused worldwide.

That is why for a Muslim today in Prof. Ratzinger's lecture the real problem is not his approach or his mistake, but the impermissible bogus academic life and pseudo-educational system of all the Muslim countries. In fact, before fully transforming and duly enhancing their educational and academic systems, Muslim heads of states, prime ministers, ministers and ambassadors have no right to speak. They must first go back to their countries and abolish the darkness of their ridiculous universities; their so-called professors are not professors.

Here you have all the articles that I published at the time in favor of Benedict XVI; the first article was published on the 16th September 2006, only four days after the notorious lecture and only one day after the notorious BBC report, which called the Muslim ambassadors to shout loud:

academia.edu

Benedictus XVI may not be right, but today's Muslims are islamically wrong! By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of a text initially published in Buzzle - 16 September 2006 The wrong question is: &quot;Did Benedictus XVI insult Islam and M

academia.edu

What Benedict XVI should say, admonishing Muslim Ambassadors - by Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of an article initially published in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pope-benedict-xvi-admonishing-muslim-ambassadors.html on 2

academia.edu

Can Benedict XVI bring Peace and Concord? - by Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Originally published in Buzzle on 2 October 2006 ..................... Around 1600, all the important intellectuals of the Ottoman Empire re

academia.edu

Lord Carey, Benedictus XVI, and today's decayed Islam - Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of an article initially published in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lord-carey-benedictus-xvi-decayed-islam.html on 23 Septemb

academia.edu

Benedict XVI between Constantinople and Istanbul, by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

When, within a few hours, the Pope will land in Istanbul, he will find himself for a few days outside Time; the evenly balanced gravitation

academia.edu

Benedictus XVI between Istanbul and Nova Roma - by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Walking for a brief span of time in the capital of Justinian, Heraclius and Manuel II Paleologus, Benedict XVI has the rare possibility to s

-----------------------------

Download the obituary in PDF:

megalommatiscomments

Benedict XVI and today’s Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims  When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic C

academia.edu

Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Ch

Bulgarians Mentioned in Egyptian Papyri from Fayoum

What was Ordinary in the Antiquity looks Odd today, due to the Greco-centric Fallacy of the Biased European Colonial 'Academics'

A while back, I received a brief email from a Bulgarian friend, who urgently asked me to watch a video and comment on the topic. The video offered links to a blog in Bulgarian and to an Austrian site of academic publications. The upsetting affair was the mention of a Bulgarian, or to put it rather correctly of a Bulgarian item or product which was imported in Coptic Egypt. As I understand Bulgarian to some extent, due to my Russian, I read the long presentation of the informative blog, and then replied to my friend. The video was actually a most abridged form of the article posted on the blog of a non-conventional Bulgarian blogger.

Contents

Introduction

I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri

II. Karl Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications

III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII 

IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)

V. Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks

VI. Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars  

VII. Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt  

VIII. Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History

i- the conceptualization of World History

ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there

iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years

iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity

v- and last but not least, several points of

a) governance of modern states

b) international alliances, and

c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it

Introduction

What follows is my response on the topic; although it concerns an undeniably very specific affair, it helps greatly in making general readership aware of how deeply interconnected the Ancient World was, of how different it was than it is presented in conventional publications, and of how many layers of fact distortion, source concealment, systematic forgery, academic misinterpretation, and intellectual falsification have been adjusted to what average people worldwide think of as 'World History'. In brief, the modern Western colonial presentation of World History, which was dictatorially imposed worldwide, is nothing more than a choice-supportive bias and a racist construct. You can also describe it as 'Hellenism', Greco-centrism or Euro-centrism.

----- Response to an inquisitive Bulgarian friend -----

My dear friend,  

Your question and the associated topic are quite complex. 

The video that you sent me is extremely brief and almost introductory.

Папирусът от Фаюм

However, in the description, it offers two links.

I read the article in the blog; I noticed that it was published before 12-13 years (13.10.2011). Папирусът (който щеше да бъде) с истинското име на българите?

d3bep.blog.bg

d3bep :: ( ) ?

The author seems to have been taken by surprise due to the Fayoum text, but as you will see, there is no reason for that.

The second link included in the video description offers access to Tyche, an academic annual (Fachzeitschrift) published by the Austrian Institut für Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Papyrologie und Epigraphik der Universität Wien. But this is an introductory web page (https://tyche.univie.ac.at/index.php/tyche) that has links to many publications, which you can download in PDF.

You must not be surprised by such findings; they are old and known to the specialists; there are many Bulgarian professors specializing in Ancient Greek. Some of them surely know about the text. But it is in the nature of the Western sciences that scholars do not write for the general public; it is very different from what happened in the Soviet Union and the other countries of the Socialist bloc. Reversely, all the average bloggers, who find every now and then a historical document known but not publicized, think that they discovered something incredible, but in most of the cases, we don't have anything to do with an extraordinary discovery. Simply, History has been very different from what average people have been left to believe.

I. Fayoum, Al Bahnasa (Oxyrhynchus), and Ancient Egyptian Papyri

Fayoum by the way is an enormous oasis. It has cities, towns and villages. In our times, it was one of the strongholds of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Former president Muhammad Morsi got ca. 90% of the votes locally. About:

en.wikipedia.org

Faiyum - Wikipedia

The discoveries of papyri in Egypt started mainly in the 19th c.; excavators unearthed tons of valuable documentation, unfortunately in fragmentary situation most of them; indicatively: 

Internet Archive

Fayûm towns and their papyri : Grenfell, Bernard P. (Bernard Pyne), 1869-1926 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

Internet Archive

Fayûm towns and their papyri : Grenfell, Bernard P. (Bernard Pyne), 1869-1926 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The present volume is a record of two years' excavations in the Fayûm, the first in 1895-96 conducted by D. G. Hogarth and B. P. Grenfell, w

Such is the vastness of the documentation that either Egyptologists or Coptologists or Hellenists, there are many scholars of those disciplines who specialize in papyri only: the Papyrologists. 

Fayoum map with Ancient Greek names

Fayoum Lake (above) - Wadi El Rayan waterfalls (below)

Temple of Soknopaios at Soknopaiou Nesos (Island), Fayoum (viewed from the SE)

Fayoum: a tourist destination

Another major site of papyri discovery is Oxyrhynchus (Ancient Greek name of the Egyptian site Per medjed / Oxyrhynchus is merely the Ancient Greek translation of Per medjed), i.e. the modern city of Al Bahnasa. Indicatively: 

en.wikipedia.org

Oxyrhynchus - Wikipedia

To get a minimal idea of the vastness of this field of research, go through the following introductory readings:

Cairo Fayum Papyri: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Fayum.html

sv.wikipedia.org

Fayoum papyri – Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of New Testament papyri - Wikipedia

II. Karl Wessely and his groundbreaking research and publications

The fragment of papyrus that mentions in Ancient Greek an adjective, which means «Bulgarian» in English, was found in the Fayoum (you can write the word with -u or -ou). It was first published by a great scholar C. (Carl or Karl) Wessely (1860-1931).

en.wikipedia.org

Karl Wessely - Wikipedia

He was one of the 10 most prominent scholars and philologists of the 2nd half of the 19th and the 1st half of the 20th c. He published a voluminous series of firsthand publications of discoveries, which was named Studien zur Paleographie und Papyruskunde (SPP). As you can guess, this took decades to be progressively materialized. Here you have an online list: 

Unfortunately, the volume VIII (Leipzig 1908), which is mentioned in the article of the blog, is missing in the wikisource list!

No problem! You can find the PDF in the Internet Archives site. Here is the link: 

You will find the text’s first publication on page 189 of the book; this is the page 63 of 186 of the PDF. This means that you will find this indication at the bottom of the PDF:  189 (63 / 186).

This volume, as stated on p. 7, contains «Griechische Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats», i.e. Greek papyri documents of smaller format. If you find it strange that on the first page of the main text (137 (11 / 186) as per the PDF), the first text has the number 702, please remember that this is an enormous documentation published in the series of volumes (SPP) published by Wessely between 1900 and 1920.

III. Papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII  

As you will see, the text slightly differs from what is shown in either the blog article or the video. It is indeed the 1224 papyrus fragment as per the enumeration of the publication. Similarly to many other cases, most of the text is lost; this is quite common. Few things are easy to assess, if you through the entire volume; apparently the background reflects Coptic Egypt, which means that all the texts date between the early 4th and 7th c. CE. This is clearly visible because the dating system is based on indiction, which was a Roman system of periodic taxation and then chronology. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiction 

This Latin word was accepted in Greek: ινδικτιών, 

We can also understand that the person, who wrote this specific document, was following (not the Julian calendar but) the Coptic calendar, because on the 8th line the remaining letters αρμουθί (armouthi) help us reconstitute the well-known Coptic month of Pharmouthi (or Parmouti) which corresponds to end March-beginning April (in the Julian calendar) or April and early May in the Gregorian calendar. In Arabic, it is pronounced 'Bermouda' (unrelated to the Bermuda islands).

About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmouti

It has to be noted that the pagan Greek calendar was abolished, and that the use of 'Greek' ('Alexandrine Koine, to be correct) in the Fayum papyri texts and elsewhere does not imply 'ethnic' membership but rather religious affiliation (in this case, in contrast to Coptic).

About the Coptic calendar: 

In addition, you can see the first letter of the word «indiction» ι (ι) after Pharmouthi. 

Apparently, this papyrus documented a transaction effectuated by a certain Cyril (Cyrillus / Κύριλλος). Only the letters «rill» (ριλλ) are saved, as you can see, but the high frequency of the name among the Copts makes of this word the first choice of any philologist. By the way, the name is still widely used among today’s Copts as «Krulos». 

I fully support Wessely’s reconstitution of the document on lines 7, 10 and 11.

Line 7 (εγράφη out of εγρα-), i.e. «it was written»

Line 10 (απείληφα out of -ειλ-), i.e. «I received from»

Line 11 (και παρών απέλυσα out of -αρω-), i.e. «I set free by paying a ransom or I disengaged or I released». Details:

Now comes a thorny issue, because on line 6, Wessely wrote «λαμιο(υ)» (: lamio reconstituted as lamiu), and went on suggesting a unique term «χαρτα-λαμίου» (charta-lamiou). This is not attested in any other source. Λάμιον (lamium) is a genus of several species of plants, whereas Lamios (Λάμιος) is a personal name. About:

Also: (ἡμι-λάμιον) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dh(mila%2Fmion 

But «χαρτα-λαμίου» (in Genitive declension) is a hapax. Still the opinion of the first explorer and publisher is always crucial; but as in many other cases, these people publish such an enormous volume of documentation that they do not have enough time to explain their suggestions and reason about their choices. To them, publishing hitherto unpublished material is undisputedly no 1 priority. 

Other scholars attempted a different approach; they hypothetically added «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son», before λαμίου (Lamiou)

Personally, I find it highly unlikely. First, I most of the times support the first explorer’s / publisher’s approach. 

Second, I believe that those, who add «υιός» (yios), i.e. «son» on line 6, are forced to reconstitute Βουλγαρικ̣[ὸς on line 5. This is most probably wrong.

But Wessely did not attempt something like that, preferring to leave the only saved word on line 5 as it is «Βουλγαρικ̣».

Now, what stands on lines 1 to 4 is really too minimal to allow any specialist to postulate or speculate anything. Perhaps there was something «big» mentioned on line 3 («-μεγ-»/«-meg-»), but this is only an assumption. Also, on line 4, we read that something (or someone) was (or was sent or was bought) from somewhere, because of the words «από της» (apo tis), i.e. «from the» (in this case, «the» being the feminine form of the article in Genitive declension). 

IV. Βουλγαρικ- (Vulgarik-)

Now, and this is the most important statement that can be made as regards this fragment of papyrus, the word that stands on line 5 is undoubtedly an adjective, not a substantive! This is very clear. This means that the word is not an ethnonym. In English, you use the word «Bulgarian», either you mean a Bulgarian man (in this case, it is a noun) or a Bulgarian wine (on this occasion, it is an adjective). Bulgarian is at the same time a proper noun and an adjective in English.

However, in Greek, there is a difference when it comes to names of countries and nations. When it is a proper noun (substantive), you say «Anglos» (Άγγλος), «Sikelos» (Σικελός), «Aigyptios» (Αιγύπτιος), etc. for Englishman, Sicilian man, Egyptian man, etc. But you say «anglikos» (αγγλικός), «sikelikos» (σικελικός), «aigyptiakos» (αιγυπτιακός), etc. for adjectives of masculine gender. 

Discussing the word attested on line 5 of the papyrus fragment 1224 of Karl Wessely's SPP VIII, I have to point out that in Ancient 'Greek' and in Alexandrine Koine, there is a vast difference between Βούλγαρος (Vulgaros) and βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos). 

The first denotes a Bulgarian national, someone belonging to the ethnic group / nation of Bulgars and/or Bulgarians. At this point, I have to also add that these two words in English are a modern academic convention to distinguish Proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars) from the Bulgarians, who settled in the Balkan Peninsula. However, this distinction did not exist in Late Antiquity Greek texts and in Eastern Roman texts. 

The second is merely an adjective: βουλγαρικός (vulgarikos), βουλγαρική (vulgariki), βουλγαρικόν (vulgarikon) are the three gender forms of the adjective: masculine, feminine and neutral. 

So, as the preserved part of the word being «βουλγαρικ-» (vulgarik-), we can be absolutely sure that the papyrus text mentioned a Bulgarian item (a product typical of Bulgars or an imported object manufactured by Bulgars) — not a Bulgarian man.

All the same, it makes sure the following points:

a. in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt, people imported products that were manufactured by Bulgars in their own land (Bulgaria).

b. since the products were known, imported and listed as «Bulgar/Bulgarian», people knew the nation, which manufactured them, and its location.

c. considering the magnitude of the documentation that went lost, we can safely claim that there was nothing extraordinary in the arrival of Bulgar/Bulgarian products in in 4th-7th c. CE Egypt.

d. the papyrus in question presents the transaction in terms of «business as usual». 

This is all that can be said about the papyrus text, but here ends the approach of the philologist and starts the viewpoint of the historian. However, before presenting the historical context of the transaction recorded in the fragmentarily saved papyrus from Fayoum, I have to also discuss another issue, which was mentioned in the blogger's interesting discussion.

V. Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice's Strategicon and the Bulgarian cloaks

Of course, as anyone could expect, several historians and philologists would try to find parallels to the mention of Bulgarian imports made in this papyrus fragment.

And they did. In his presentation, the blogger already mentioned several academic efforts. So, the following paragraphs, which are to be found almost in the middle of the article (immediately after the picture), refer to two scholarly efforts to establish parallels:

«Публикуван е за пръв път от SPP VIII 1124, Wessely, C., Leipzig 1908 и по - късно препубликуван от Diethart, в публикация с многозначителното заглавие  „Bulgaren“ und „Hunnen“, S. 11 - 1921. Въпреки това папирусът не стига много бързо до родна публика.

"По пътя" един учен, Моравчик, стига и по - далеч при превода. Той разчита в откъсите и думата "Пояс" и включва в теорията ново сведение(Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303) , където се казва, че пехотинците трябвало да носят "ζωναρία bм λιτά, xal βουλγαρική cay ία" - т.е. смята, че става дума за носен в Египет от военните "български пояс"(сведенията за публикациите дотук са по Иван Костадинов).

Вдясно виждате лична снимка. Коптска носия от 4-ти век н.е. Пази се в етнографския музей на александрийската библиотека. По необходимост за пустинния климат е от лен. Оттам вече аналогиите оставям изцяло на вас.

Папирусът "идва в България" късно. По спомени казвам ,че мисля, че първият публикувал го е доста уважаваният Иван Дуриданов, който с радост представя на българската публика вече 4 деситилетия предъвкваният от западната лингвистика български папирус. Той публикува радостна статия, с която приветства откритието».

Certainly, Gyula Moravcsik (1892-1972) and Johannes Diethart (born in 1942) proved to be great scholars indeed. About: 

The adjective Vulgarikos, -i, -on («Bulgarian» in three genders) is attested in a famous Eastern Roman text, which is rather known under the title «Maurice’s Strategicon»; this was a handbook of military sciences and a guide to techniques, methods and practices employed by the Eastern Roman army. It was written by Emperor Maurice (Μαυρίκιος- Mauricius /reigned: 582-602) or composed according to his orders. About:  

I did not read Moravcsik’s article, but I read the Strategicon; it does not speak of «Bulgarian belts», but of «Bulgarian cloaks». In this regard, the blogger mentions a very old edition of the text, namely Mauricii Artis mllltaris libri duodecim, Xll (ed. Scheffer), p. 303). This dates back to 1664:

At those days, all Western European editions of Ancient Greek texts involved Latin translations. Scheffer's edition of the Strategicon can be found here:    

https://books.google.ru/books?id=77NODQEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 303)

George T. Dennis' translation (1984) makes the text accessible to English readers:

In the 12th chapter, which is the last of the Strategicon, under the title "Mixed Formations, Infantry, Camps and Hunting", in part I (Clothing to be Worn by the Infantry), on page 138 (University of Pennsylvania Press), the word σαγίον (sagion) is very correctly translated as "cloak". The author refers to "βουλγαρικά σαγία" (Latin: sagia Bulgarica) in plural; this is rendered in English "Bulgarian cloaks", which are thought to be very heavy. Already, the word σαγίον (sagion) is of Latin etymology. About:

and https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100436640

Also: https://greek_greek.en-academic.com/151302/σαγίον 

In that period and for more than 1000 years, what people now erroneously call «Medieval Greek» or «Byzantine Greek» (which in reality is «Eastern Roman») was an amalgamation of Alexandrine Koine and Latin. There were an enormous number of Latin words written in Greek characters and in Alexandrine Koine form. Indicatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek

At this point, I complete my philological commentary on the topic. I read the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice when I was student in Athens in the middle 1970s. 

I did not remember the mention of Bulgarian cloaks, but I know however that the Bulgars, who founded the Old Great Bulgaria, appear in Eastern Roman texts at least 100 years before the purported establishment and growth of that state (632–668). The academic chronology for the First Bulgarian Empire may be correct (681–1018), but the dates given for the Old Great Bulgaria and the Volga Bulgaria (late 7th c.–1240s) are deliberately false. General info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria  and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria  and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Etymology_and_origin

VI. Historical context and the Ancient History of Bulgars  

It is now time for me to briefly discuss the historical context within which the aforementioned topics took place. Let’s first ask some questions: 

Is it strange that a Fayoum papyrus of the 3rd-7th c. CE mentions Bulgarian products that arrived in Egypt? 

Is it odd that in Emperor Maurice’s Strategicon we find a mention of Bulgarian cloaks used or not used by the Eastern Roman army?

In both cases, the response is «no»!

From where did these Bulgarian products come?

Where did Bulgars (or Bulgarians) live at the time?

My personal response is somehow vague: they came from some regions of today’s Russia’s European soil, either in the southern confines (the Azov Sea, the northern coast of the Black Sea, and the North Caucasus region) or in the area of today’s Tatarstan and other lands north-northeast of the Caspian Sea. 

It is not easy to designate one specific location in this regard, and this is so for one extra reason: it seems that there were several tribes named with the same name, and they were distinguished among themselves on the basis of earlier tribal affiliations, which may go back to the Rouran Khaganate (330-555 CE). There are actually plenty of names associated with the early Bulgars, notably the Onogurs, the Kutrigurs, etc. About:

Many readers may be taken by surprise because I go back easily from the time of the Old Great Bulgaria (630-668 CE) to that of the Rouran Khaganate and the Huns. All the same, there is no surprise involved in this regard. Western European historians deliberately, systematically and customarily underestimate across the board the value of Oral History and attempt to dissociate Ethnography from History; these approaches are wrong. It is quite possible that, from the very beginning of the establishment of Rouran Khaganate, many tribes, clans or families (which later became nations) started migrating. The very first Bulgars (Bulgarians) may have reached areas north of the Iranian borders in Central Asia or in Northern Caucasus much earlier than it is generally thought among Western scholars. See indicatively:

Now, the reasons for which I intentionally date the first potential interaction of Bulgars/Bulgarians with other tribes (or nations) in earlier periods are not a matter of personal preference or obstinacy. There is an important historical text named «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans». It has not been duly comprehended let alone interpreted thus far. About: 

Three Russian copies of the text have been saved (in Church Slavonic); they date back to the 15th and 16th c. They are generally viewed as later copies of a potential Old Bulgarian text of the 9th c. Other specialists also pretend that there may/might have been an even earlier text, in either Eastern Roman («Medieval Greek») or Bulgar, which was eventually a stone inscription. 

In this document, the highly honorific title «Knyaz» (Князь) is given to Asparuh (ca. 640-700) and to his five predecessors. I must add that the said document was always an intriguing historical source for me due to two bizarre particularities to which I don't think that any scholar or specialist gave due attention, deep investigation, and persuasive interpretation.

First, the antiquity of the document is underscored by the fact that the early Bulgar calendar, which is attested in this text, appears to be an adaptation of the Chinese calendar. This fact means that the primeval Bulgars, when located somewhere in Eastern Siberia or Mongolia, must have had dense contacts with the Chinese scribal and imperial establishment; perhaps this fact displeased other Turanian-Mongolian tribes of the Rouran Khaganate and contributed to the emigration of those «Ur-Bulgaren». The next point is however more impactful on our approach to the very early phase of the Bulgars.

Second, although for most of the rulers immortalized in the historical document, the duration of their lifetimes or tenures are of entirely historical nature (involving brief or long periods of 5 up to 60 years of reign or lifetime), the two first names of rulers are credited with incredibly long lifetimes. This is not common; actually, it does not look sensible; but it is meaningful.

More specifically, Avitohol is said to have lived 300 years, whereas Irnik is credited with 150 years. But we know who Irnik was! Irnik or Ernak was the 3rd son of Attila and he is said to have been his most beloved offspring. Scholars fix the beginning of his reign in 437 CE, but this is still not the important point. The crucial issue with the partly «mythical» and partly historical nature of the text «Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans» is the fact that the two early rulers, whom the Bulgarians considered as their original ancestors, are credited with extraordinarily long and physically impossible lives. General reading: 

This can therefore imply only one thing: at a later period, when the earlier memories were partly lost for various reasons, eventually because of the new environment namely the Balkan Peninsula, in which the then Bulgars were finding themselves, Avitohol and Irnik were retained as the leading figures of ruling families, and not as independent rulers. Consequently, the dates given for their lives were in fact those of their respective dynasties. It was then that the very early period of Bulgar History was mythicized for statecraft purposes, mystified to all, and sanctified in the national consciousness.

Many Western scholars attempted to identify Avitohol with Attila, but in vain; I don’t think that this attempt can be maintained. So, I believe that the Bulgars were one of the noble families of the Huns (evidently involving intermarriage with Attila himself), and that before Attila, the very earliest Bulgars were ruled by another dynasty which had lasted 300 years. But if it is so, we go back to the times of the Roman Emperor Trajan (reign: 98-117 CE), Vologases III of Arsacid Parthia (110–147 CE) and the illustrious Chinese general, explorer and diplomat Ban Chao (32-102 CE) of the Eastern Han dynasty. About:

The latter fought for 30 years against the Xiongnu (Hiung-nu/匈奴, i.e. the earliest tribes of the Huns, consolidated the Chinese control throughout the Tarim Basin region (today's Eastern Turkestan or Xinjiang), and was appointed Protector General of the Western Regions. He is very famous for having dispatched Gan Ying, an envoy, to the West in 97 CE. According to the Book of the Later Han (Hou Hanshu/後漢書), which was compiled in the 5th c. CE by Fan Ye, Gan Ying reached Parthia (Arsacid Iran; in Chinese: Anxi, 安息) and gave the first Chinese account of the Western confines of Asia and of the Roman Empire. About:

It is n this historical environment that we have to place the very early ancestors of the Bulgars.

VII. Historical context, the Silk Roads, and Bulgarian exports to Egypt  

Consequently, I believe that it is more probable that the Bulgarian products of those days were first appreciated by the Iranians and later sold to Aramaeans, Armenians, Iberians and other nations settled in the western confines of the Arsacid (250 BCE-224 CE) and the Sassanid (224-651 CE) empires, i.e. in Mesopotamia and Syria, and thence they became finally known in Egypt as well.  

The incessant migrations from NE Asia to Central Europe and to Africa, as a major historical event, were not separate from the 'Silk Roads'; they were part, consequence or side-effect of that, older and wider, phenomenon. Actually, the term 'Silk Roads' is at the same time inaccurate and partly; the magnificent phenomenon of commercial, cultural and spiritual inter-exchanges, which took place due to the establishment (by the Achaemenid Shah Darius I the Great) of a comprehensive network of numerous older regional trade routes, is to be properly described as 'silk-, spice-, and perfume-trade routes across lands, deserts and seas'. About: https://silkroadtexts.wordpress.com/

It has to be said that, after the Achaemenid Iranian invasion, annexation and occupation of Egypt, Sudan and NE Libya (525-404 BCE and 343-332 BCE), Iranian settlers remained in Egypt; they were known to and mentioned by the Macedonian settlers, who manned the Macedonian dynasty of Ptolemies (323-30 BCE). General info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Achaemenid_conquest_of_Egypt

Those Iranian settlers were called 'Persai (ek) tis epigonis' (Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς), lit. 'Iranian settlers' descendants'. About:

Pieter W. Pestman, A proposito dei documenti di Pathyris II Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς

Xin Dai, Ethnicity Designation in Ptolemaic Egypt https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329265278_Ethnicity_Designation_in_Ptolemaic_Egypt

See a text from the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian (reign: 81-96) here: https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.athen;;23

See another text from the time of the Roman Emperor Nerva (reign: 96-98) here:

There were also in Egypt Jewish Aramaean descendants of the early Iranian settlers: "οἱ τρ(ε)ῖς | Ἰουδαῖοι Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπιγονῆς τῶν [ἀ]πὸ Σύρων κώ- | μης" (lit. Jewish Iranians, who were the descendants of an Aramaean town) - From: Database of Military Inscriptions and Papyri of Early Roman Palestine https://armyofromanpalestine.com/0140-2

Please note in this regard that the title given to the web page and the document is very wrong and extremely biased: "§140 Loan between Jews and Lucius Vettius"; the three persons who received the loan were not ethnic Jews. Their religion was surely Judaism, as it was the case of the renowned Samaritan woman with whom Jesus spoke according to the Gospels. Several other nations accepted Judaism, notably Aramaeans in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia (they were called 'Syrians' by the Macedonians and the Romans). It is well known that there were many clashes and strives between them and the ethnic Jews. The latter were few and lived either in Jerusalem (and its suburbs) or in Egypt (in Alexandria and many other locations) or in the centers of Talmudic academies in Mesopotamia (namely Nehardea, Pumbedita and Mahoze / Ctesiphon). About:

If I expanded on this topic, it is precisely because the merchants, who were most active across the Silk Roads, were the Aramaeans, and that is why Aramaic became almost an official language in the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, whereas at the same time it turned out to be the lingua franca alongside the trade routes. Furthermore, a great number of writing systems in Central Asia, Iran, India, and Western Asia were developed on the basis of the Aramaic alphabet. Last but not least, Arabic originates from Syriac, which is a late form of Aramaic. About:

It is therefore essential to state that the Bulgarian products, which (either from North Caucasus and the northern coastlands of the Black Sea or from the regions around the north-northeastern shores of the Caspian Sea) reached Egypt (via most probably North Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine), were transported on camels owned by Aramaean merchants and due to caravans organized and directed by Aramaeans.

It is also noteworthy that, during the Arsacid times, several buffer-states were formed between the eastern borders of the Roman Empire and the western frontiers of Parthia: Osrhoene, Sophene, Zabdicene, Adiabene, Hatra, Characene, Elymais, Gerrha (the illustrious port of call and major trade center of the Persian Gulf that rivaled with Alexandria in the Mediterranean), the Nabataean kingdom, and the short-lived but most formidable Tadmor (Palmyra). This situation favored the world trade between East and West, as well as North and South. General info:

The great rivalry and ferocious antagonism between the Romans (and later the Eastern Romans) and the Iranians after the rise of the Sassanid dynasty (224 CE) did not affect in anything the good relations and the trade among Egyptians, Aramaeans, and Iranians; there were numerous Aramaean populations in both empires, so, we feel safe to conclude that any products from lands north of Caucasus mountains and north of Iran were transported by Aramaeans via Palestine or Nabataea to Egypt.

There have been additional reasons for the good feelings of the Egyptians toward the Iranians, and they were of religious nature. The Christological disputes generated enmity and great animosity between

a) the Copts (: Egyptians) and the Aramaeans, who adopted Miaphysitism (also known as Monophysitism), and

b) the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans, who thought they preserved the correct faith (Orthodoxy).

One has to bear always in mind, that in order to define themselves, the so-called Monophysites (also known more recently as 'Miaphysites') used exactly the same term (i.e. 'Orthodox'), which means that they considered the Eastern Romans and the Western Romans as heretics. The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were split. Atop of it, other Aramaeans (mostly in Mesopotamia and Iran) accepted the preaching of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was also deposed as a heretic (in August 431). For the aforementioned religious reasons, the Eastern Roman armies were most loathed in Syria, Palestine, North Mesopotamia (today's SE Turkey), and Egypt as oppressors. About:

In addition, one has to take into consideration the fact that the Jews, who inhabited the eastern provinces of the Roman (and later the Eastern Roman) Empire, were also pro-Iranian and they expected that the Iranians would liberate them one day from the Roman yoke pretty much like the Achaemenid Iranian Emperor Cyrus delivered their exiled ancestors from the tyranny of Nabonid Babylonia (539 BCE).

The Axumite Abyssinian invasion of Yemen (ca. 530 CE; in coordination with the Roman Emperor Justinian I), the ensued Iranian-Axumite wars, the Iranian invasion of Yemen (570 CE; known as the Year of the Elephant among the Arabs of Hejaz), and the incessant battles and wars between the Eastern Roman and the Sassanid Iranian armies were closely watched by all populations in Egypt. The third Iranian conquest of Egypt (618 CE) was a matter of great jubilation for Copts and Jews; Egypt was annexed to Iran for ten (10 years), before being under Eastern Roman control again for fourteen years (628-642 CE) and then invaded by the Islamic armies. General info:

Indicative of the good Egyptian feelings for the Sassanid emperors and Iran is a tapestry weave found by Albert Gayet in his 1908 excavations in Antinoe (also known as Antinoöpolis, i.e. the town of Sheikh Ibada in today's Egypt); this is a textile fragment of legging that dates back to the late 6th and early 7th c. (Musée des Tissus, in Lyon-France; MT 28928). It features the scene of an unequal battle that has been identified as one of the engagements between the Sassanid and the Axumite armies in Yemen; Iranian horse-archers are depicted at the moment of their triumph over Abyssinian infantry opponents, who appear to be armed with stones. In the very center of the scene, an enthroned figure was often identified with the great Iranian Emperor Khosrow (Chosroes) I Anushirvan (Middle Persian: Anoshag ruwan: 'with Immortal Soul'), who was for Sassanid Iran as historically important as Justinian I, his early rival and subsequent peace partner, for the Roman Empire. About:

This was the wider historical context at the time of the arrival of the first Bulgarian exports to the Sassanid Empire of Iran, the Eastern Roman Empire, and Egypt more specifically. And the Bulgarian cloaks, as mentioned in Maurice’s Strategicon, make every researcher rather think of heavy winter cloaks, which were apparently not necessary for the Eastern Roman soldiers, who had to usually fight in less harsh climatological conditions. It is possible that those heavy cloaks were eventually used by the Iranian army when engaged in the Caucasus region, and thence they were noticed by the Eastern Romans.

With these points, I complete my philological and historical comments on the topic. However, the entire issue has to be also contextualized at the academic-educational level, so that you don't find it bizarre that not one average Bulgarian knew about the topic before the inquisitive blogger wrote his article and the YouTuber uploaded his brief video. 

VIII. Academic context and the Western falsehood of a Euro-centric World History

This part does not concern the Fayoum papyri and the Strategicon of Emperor Maurice; it has to do with what non-specialists, the average public, and various unspecialized explorers do not know at all.

This issue pertains to

i- the conceptualization of World History;

ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there;

iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years;

iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity, and last but not least; and

v- several points of

a) governance of modern states,

b) international alliances, and

c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it.

As you can guess, one can write an encyclopedia on these topics, so I will be very brief. Attention: only at the end, you will understand that all these parameters fully precondition the topic that we already discussed, and any other that we have not yet discussed, because simply it does not exist as a standalone entity but as a fact entirely conditioned by what I herewith describe in short.

What I want to say is this: if tomorrow another Fayoum discovery brings to light a 3rd c. BCE papyrus with the mention of something Bulgarian (Voulgarikon), this will not affect in anything the prevailing conditions of the so-called academic scholarship. In other words, do not imagine that with tiny shreds of truth unveiled here and there, you are going to change anything in the excruciatingly false manner World History was written.

i- the conceptualization of World History

It may come as a nasty surprise to you, but what we know now about History is not the conclusion or the outcome of additional discoveries made one after the other over the past 400-500 years. Contrarily, it was first preconceived, when people had truly minimal knowledge of the past, and after they had forged thousands of documents and manuscripts for at least 500-600 years, long before the early historiographical efforts were undertaken during the Renaissance.

After they destroyed, concealed and rewrote tons of manuscripts of Ancient Greek and Roman historiography from ca. 750 CE until 1500 CE, Western European monks and editors, philosophers and intellectuals, popes, scientists and alchemists started propagating their world view about the assumingly glorious past of their supposedly Greek and Roman ancestors – a nonexistent past that the Renaissance people were deliberately fooled enough to believe that they had lost and they had to rediscover it. In fact, all the discoveries made afterwards, all the decipherments of numerous ancient writings, and all the studies of original material from Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, Caucasus, Central Asia, China and India was duly processed and adjusted in a way not to damage or challenge in anything the preconceived scheme which was named 'World History' by the vicious and criminal Western European forgers.

This means that you should never expect 'new discoveries' to challenge the officially established dogma of the Western academia; it is not about Bulgars and the past of today's Bulgarians, Thracians, Macedonians, etc., etc., etc. It is about all. What type of position the Bulgarians, the Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, the Egyptians and all the rest occupy in today's distorted historiography had been decided upon long before the establishment of the modern states that bear those names. 

ii- the contextualization of every single document newly found here and there

Any finding unearthed by anyone anytime anywhere means nothing in itself; this concerns every historiographer, truthful or dishonest. What truly matters for all is contextualization. It so did for the original forgers. Theirs was an arbitrary attempt; they contextualized the so-called 'Ancient Greece' in a way that would have been fully unacceptable, blasphemous and abominable for the outright majority of all the South Balkan populations during the 23 centuries prior to the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great.  

It was peremptory, partial and biased; according to the fallacious narratives of the forgers, centuries were shrunk and shortened in order to fit into few lines; moreover the schemers stretched geographical terms at will; they did not use various terms, which were widely employed in the Antiquity; they passed important persons under silence, while exaggerating the presentation of unimportant ones. This is what contextualization was for the forgers: they applied a Latin recapitulative name (Graeci) to a variety of nations, which never used this Latin term or any other recapitulative term for them; they applied a non-Ionian, non-Achaean, and non-Aeolian term (Hellenes) to them and to others; and after the decipherment of many Oriental languages, they did not rectify their preposterous mistakes, although they learned quite well that the two fake terms about those populations (Graecus and Hellene) did not exist in any other language of highly civilized nations (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, Hurrian, Canaanite, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Old Achaemenid Iranian).

Consequently, every other information, data and documentation pertaining to any elements of the said context was concealed, distorted or misinterpreted in order to be duly adjusted to the biased context that had been elaborated first.

iii- the stages of historical falsification that were undertaken over the past 500 years

Following the aforementioned situation, many dimensions of historical falsification were carried out and can actually be noticed by researchers, explorers, investigators and astute observers. The 'barbarian invasions' (or Migration Period) is only one of them; I mention it first because it concerns the Bulgars. Long before distorting the History of Great Old Bulgaria and that of Volga Bulgaria systematically, Western historical forgers portrayed Bulgars and many other highly civilized nations as barbarians. Why?

Because the historical forgers of the Western World hate nomads! This is an irrevocable trait of them; that's why they fabricated the fake term 'civilization' in their absurd manner: originating from the Latin word 'civitas', the worthless and racist term 'civilization' implies that you cannot be 'civilized' unless you are urban. This monstrous and unacceptable fact reveals the rotten roots of the hideous, vulgar, sick and villainous Western world and colonial academia.

In the Orient, there was never a cultural divide between urban populations and nomads; some nomadic tribes were considered as barbarians; that's true. But also settled populations and urban inhabitants were also considered as barbarians (like the Elamites, who were considered as inhuman by the Assyrians). The rule was that the settled nations were nomads in earlier periods. But the status of a society was irrelevant of the consideration and the esteem (or lack thereof) that others had about a certain nation. This started with the Romans and their interpretation of the South Balkan, Anatolian, and Cretan past. It was then re-utilized and modified by Western Europeans. To some extent, the papal approval was tantamount to acquisition of credentials and to promotion to 'civilized nation status'. Actually, this is today the nucleus of the whole problem concerning Ukraine.

That is why the so-called Migration Period was so terribly distorted by Western historians. Western historians deliberately preferred to stay blind and not to study the Ancient Mongol chronicles (notably the Secret History of The Mongols) in order to avoid assessing the Mongol-Turanian standards and principles of civilization. Had they proceeded in the opposite way, they would have discovered that, for the nomads, it is the settled people and the urban populations, who are barbarians, decayed and shameful.

The truth about the fallacious term 'Migration Period' is simple: there was never a migration period before 1500 CE (and certainly none afterwards), because every century was actually a migration period. Human History is a history of migrations.

The distorted linguistic-ethnographic division of the migrant nations helped forgers to dramatically increase the confusion level; as a matter of fact, there was no proper ethnic division (in the modern sense of the term) among Mongols, Turanians, Slavs and several other migrant nations. The languages change when people migrate and settle, resettle, move again, and end up in faraway places. For Muslim historians, the khan of the Saqaliba (: Slavs) was the strongest of all Turanian rulers. The arbitrary distinction of the migrant nations into two groups, namely Indo-European and Ural-Altaic/Turco-Mongolian nations was done deliberately in order to intentionally transform the face of the world and adjust it to the so-called Table of Nations, a forged text that made its way into the biblical book of Genesis in later periods (6th–4th c. BCE). General reading:

The Western academic tyranny is so deeply rooted that, irrespective of your political, ideological or philosophical affiliation (fascist, Nazi, communist, conservative, social-democrat, liberal, atheist, evolutionist, creationist, anarchist, etc.), you always have to adjust your seminars, courses, lectures, contributions, books and publications to the fallacy of Genesis chapter 10. The absurd logic of this system is the following: "since no Bulgars are mentioned in the Table of Nations, they must be a later tribe". Then, believe it or not, whatever documentation may be found in Aramaic, Middle Persian, Pahlavi, Brahmi, Kharosthi, Avestan, Sogdian, Tocharian, Chinese or other texts about the Bulgars will be deliberately presented as irrelevant to Bulgars. If a new Sogdian document is found in Central Asia (dating back to the middle Arsacid times: 1st c. CE) and there is a certain mention of Bulgars in the text, the criminal gangsters and the systematic fraudsters of the Western universities and museums will write an enormous amount of articles to stupidly discredit the document or attribute the word to anything or anyone else.

iv- the forgers themselves and their antiquity

The above makes it clear that the foundations of today's Western academic life, historiographical research, sector of Humanities, and all the associated fields of study were laid by the Western European Catholic monks and only after the end of the Eastern Roman imperial control, appointment and approval of the Roman popes (752 CE).

This changes totally the idea that you and the entire world have of the History of Mankind because it means that the Benedictine-Papal-Roman opposition to and clash with the Eastern Roman Empire (and the subsequent schisms of 867 and 1054) were entirely due to the resolute papal attempt to forge the World History, to substitute it with a fake History, and to diffuse all the Anti-Christian schemes that brought the world to today's chaos. As the Muslims were totally unaware of the confrontation, the Crusades were undertaken against (not the Caliphate but) Constantinople. All the Christian Orthodox monasteries and libraries were controlled by Catholic monks, scribes, copyists and priests who had the time (from 1204 until 1261) to rob whatever manuscripts they had to rob, destroy whatever manuscripts they had to destroy, and leave all the rest as 'useless' to their enterprise.  

That is why modern scholars are ordered to jubilate every time a papyrus fragment is found in Egypt with few lines of verses from Homer, Hesiod and the Ancient 'Greek' tragedians, historians or philosophers! They publicize these discoveries in order to make every naïve guy believe that the bulk of their forged documentation is genuine. But it is not.

v- and last but not least, several points of

a) governance of modern states

The consolidation of the historical forgery was top concern for the colonial puppets of the Western European powers and for the powers hidden behind the scenes. I still remember the blogger's comments about the late 19th and early 20th c. Bulgarian statesmen, politicians and academics, who were not so enthusiastic about the Fayoum papyrus! He made me laugh at; of course, he was very correct in writing what he did. Absolutely pertinent! But also very naïve!

He failed to remember that the top Ottoman military officer in Salonica during the First Balkan War, lieutenant general Hasan Tahsin Pasha (also known as Hasan Tahsin Mesarea; 1845-1918), as soon as he learned that the 7th Bulgarian Division was coming from the northeast, decided on his own to surrender the Salonica fortress and 26000 men to the Greek crown prince Constantine, being thus deemed a traitor and sentenced to death by a martial court.  

No Bulgarian (or other) official had ever the authority to go beyond the limits specified as regards either borderlines or historical approaches and conclusions.

b) international alliances, and

The same is valid today; it would be bizarre for Bulgarian professors of universities and academics to teach, diffuse, publish and propagate ideas, concepts and interpretations that contravene the worldwide norm that the Western colonials imposed across the Earth. It is as simple as that: Bulgaria, as EU member state, participates in many academic projects like Erasmus, etc. The professor, who would challenge the lies and the falsehood, which are at the basis of the so-called European values, principles and standards, would automatically become a problem for his rector, who would be receiving most unpleasant if not threatening calls from every corner of the Earth, as well as demands to fire the uncooperative, 'controversial' professor.

c) the ensuing captivity of all the targeted nations, each one well-adjusted into the preconceived role that the forgers invented for it

Actually, it is not a matter of Bulgaria and how the true History of Bulgaria is hidden from the Bulgarians; the same is valid in Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Israel, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, etc. As I lived in all these countries, I have personal experience and deep knowledge as regards their pedagogical systems and the contents of their manuals. In Egypt, schoolchildren study the History of Ancient Egypt down to Ramses III only (ca. 1200 BCE) and next year, they start with the beginning of Islam (642 CE). Why?

Because during the falsely called Roman times, Egyptian mysticisms, religions, spirituality, cults, sciences, arts, wisdom, cosmogony, cosmology, and eschatology flooded Greece, Rome, the Roman Empire, and even Europe beyond the Roman borders. The Egyptian pupil must not learn that the Greeks, the Romans, and the Europeans were dramatically inferior to his own cultural heritage. That's why stupid and illiterate sheikhs, ignorant imams, and evil theologians intoxicate the average Egyptians with today's fake Islam, which is not a religion anymore but a theological-ideological-political system at the antipodes of the true historical Islam. It cuts the average Egyptian from his own cultural heritage, thus making him stupidly care about the wives and the prematurely dead children of prophet Muhammad, as well as other matters of no importance for the spiritual-cultural-intellectual phenomenon of Islam.

Best regards,

Shamsaddin

Κορωναϊός: Καταστροφικός για Μασώνους και Σιωνιστές, αλλά Ευεργετικός για τον Μέσο Άνθρωπο

Έχω δεχθεί πληθώρα από emails σχετικά με τον κορωναϊό και τις συνέπειές του. Φίλοι, γνωστοί και άγνωστοι αναγνώστες μου γράφουν για να με ρωτήσουν τα πιο πιθανά και απίθανα αναφορικά με το θέμα.

Ένας πολύ καλός φίλος από την Δράμα με ρώτησε αν θα είναι λογικό να φύγουν από αυτήν την πρωτεύουσα νομού που ζουν αυτός και η μητέρα του και να πάνε να ζήσουν σε ένα χωριό όπου φυσικά και θα συναντούν πολύ λιγώτερους ανθρώπους και θα έχουν ως εκ τούτου λιγώτερες πιθανότητες από το να εκτεθούν στο παρασκεύασμα αυτό του βιολογικού πολέμου.

Γέλασα όταν διάβασα το email του. Ε, και να τον άκουγαν γνωστοί μου από το λεκανοπέδιο! Εκείνος στην Δράμα και όλοι όσοι ζουν σε επαρχιακές πόλεις και κωμοπόλεις έχουν ντε φάκτο μικρότερο κίνδυνο να εκτεθούν στον φονικό ιό. Και ασφαλώς είναι γενικώτερα πολύ πιο υγιεινό να ζει κάποιος στη Δράμα και στην Καστοριά, στα Τρίκαλα και στην Καλαμάτα παρά στην Αθήνα και την Θεσσαλονίκη.  

Αυτό δεν είναι ωστόσο μια απόλυτη παράμετρος: αν κάποιος από τα Τρίκαλα, ή από ένα χωριό έξω από τα Τρίκαλα είχε ταξιδέψει στην Ιταλία, τότε μπορεί να εκτέθηκε και να φέρει τον κορωναϊό. Αν πάνω σ’ αυτό προσθέσουμε το γεγονός ότι αποδεδειγμένα κι εξακριβωμένα αυτό το παρασκεύασμα βιολογικού πολέμου, το μεταδίδουν και άνθρωποι που δεν είναι καν φορείς του, τότε αντιλαμβανόμαστε ότι η μετακόμιση στο χωριό είναι μια σωστή σκέψη αλλά δεν είναι μια πανάκεια. Κάποια άλλα θέματα έχουν μεγαλύτερη σημασία.

Οπότε, και βεβαίως είναι σωστή σκέψη και εξαιρετική συμβουλή να μετακομίσουν κάποιοι από επαρχιακές πόλεις (πόσο μάλλον από το λεκανοπέδιο) σε μακρινά χωριά και σε οικισμούς με λίγα σπίτια. Αλλά …

Μια τέτοια αξιοθαύμαστη επιλογή, για να αποδώσει, πρέπει να γίνει συνειδητά. Πολύ καλά συνειδητή επιλογή σημαίνει ότι αντιλαμβανόμαστε και τις πιο κρυφές λεπτομέρειες που αφορούν το θέμα – και προσαρμοζόμαστε ανάλογα.

Αυτά δεν μπορούμε να τα περιμένουμε από τις συμβουλές των ιατρικών θεσμών. Το τι συμβουλές διαδίδονται από τον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Υγείας και χαμηλώτερα σε τοπικό επίπεδο από υπουργούς και μέχρι τον τελευταίο γιατρό, αν και σωστές, είναι πάντοτε προσαρμοσμένες στις ανάγκες του παγκόσμιου συστήματος, της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας, της διεθνούς κοινότητας, των χωρών-μελών του ΟΗΕ, και των οικονομιών τους. Οπότε, όλες αυτές οι οδηγίες και συμβουλές είναι για όσους εκτίθενται στον κίνδυνο, δηλαδή κυρίως τον πληθυσμό των πόλεων και των μεγαλουπόλεων. Συνεπώς αυτές οι οδηγίες δεν είναι ούτε πλήρεις ούτε εξ ολοκλήρου σωστές.

Με άλλα λόγια, δεν είναι δυνατόν να περιμένουμε από εκπροσώπους του παγκόσμιου συστήματος συμβουλές πολύ πιο αποτελεσματικές από όσες δίνουν που όμως θα έκαναν την παγκόσμια οικονομία να καταρρεύσει σε λίγες μέρες και τον περισσότερο κόσμο να πανικοβληθεί ιδιαίτερα και να αντιληφθεί πόσο στραβή ήταν η μέχρι τώρα ζωή του. Κι όμως μια συμβουλή για απομάκρυνση των ανθρώπων από τις πόλεις, για απεξάρτηση από τον τωρινό τρόπο ζωής τους, και για απομόνωσή τους μέσα στην φύση θα έσωζε πολύ πιο αποτελεσματικά πολύ περισσότερους.

Τι σημαίνει συνειδητή επιλογή για διαβίωση σε μακρινό χωριό υπό τις παρούσες συνθήκες;

Πριν από όλα σημαίνει οριστική εγκατάλειψη του σημερινού τρόπου ζωής. Συνειδητά! Αν είναι να φύγει κάποιος από μια επαρχιακή πόλη για να πάει σε ένα χωριό και από κει να κατεβαίνει στην πόλη κάθε 3-4 μέρες για να συναντήσει τους φίλους του σε μια καφετέρια, τότε είναι δώρον άδωρον!

Αν είναι να φύγει κάποιος από μια επαρχιακή πόλη για να πάει σε ένα χωριό και από κει να κατεβαίνει στην πόλη για να ψωνίζει από το σούπερ μάρκετ και από καταστήματα κομπιούτερς και κινητών, τότε είναι άχρηστο.

Μια τέτοια απόπειρα (μετακόμιση από την επαρχιακή πόλη στο μακρινό χωριό σλλά με συνεχή πήγαιν’-έλα στην πόλη) θα ήταν σαν να έμενε μόνιμα κάποιος στην εξοχή και, όντας εξαρτημένος από την πόλη, να κατέβαινε για προμήθειες συστηματικά και σε τακτά χρονικά διαστήματα – ή καθημερινά (όπως όταν μένει κάποιος σ’ ένα χωριό και πηγαίνει κάθε μέρα στην επαρχιακή πόλη για την δουλειά του διανύοντας απόσταση μισής ώρας με το αυτοκίνητο). Ο κίνδυνος θα παρέμενε ο ίδιος.  

Η αποχώρηση από την πόλη, για να είναι συνειδητή, πρέπει να αποτελεί κατ’ ουσίαν απόφαση για ριζική αλλαγή τρόπου ζωής. Τέρμα η εξάρτηση από τα σούπερ μάρκετς! Τέρμα οι χαμένες ώρες στις καφετέριες! Τέρμα τα μπαράκια και οι γκόμενες! Τέρμα τα καλά ρούχα και οι φίρμες! Τέρμα οι πολλές επαφές με άλλους ανθρώπους! Τέρμα τα γήπεδα, τα κομματικά γραφεία, οι πολιτικές συγκεντρώσεις κι οι διαλέξεις του όποιου αμόρφωτου μαλάκα ξενο-πληρωμένου ψευτο-σωτήρα του έθνους σε διάφορα ιδρύματα!

Ι. Απομόνωση και Αυτάρκεια: Τα Κλειδιά της Επιβίωσης

Απομόνωση και αυτάρκεια: αυτοί είναι οι δύο βασικοί άξονες ζωής που σώζουν. Και έτσι ζούσαν πιο παλιά οι άνθρωποι. Και ήταν καλύτερα. Και βέβαια δεν είναι μονοδιάστατη υπόθεση το παραπάνω, αλλά πολυδιάστατη: ζώντας έτσι, ο όποιος άνθρωπος αποκτάει ένα ισχυρό ανοσοποιητικό σύστημα – κάτι που αποτελεί μια από τις βασικώτερες προϋποθέσεις για επιβίωση απέναντι στον κορωναϊό. Πιο παλιά λοιπόν ήταν πιο καλά. Αμετάκλητο συμπέρασμα.

Η Ιστορία γυρίζει πίσω. Δεν υπάρχει παρακάτω. Παρακάτω βρίσκεται μόνον ο Χάρος με το δρεπάνι του πάνω στο οποίο διαβάζουμε: “κομμουνισμός, κιναιδισμός, κορωναϊός”!

Αυτό πρέπει να χωνέψουν όσοι θέλουν να σωθούν σήμερα κι έτσι να κάνουν τον μέσο τρόπο ζωής του χωριάτη της Δράμας το 1935, του αγρότη της Καστοριάς το 1925, του αγρότη της Μεθώνης το 1915, του ψαρά της Αμφιλοχίας το 1945, του ξυλοκόπου των Γρεβενών το 1955, του κτηνοτρόφου στα Βίλλια το 1965 το εντελώς δικό τους πρότυπο σήμερα. Οι άνθρωποι τότε ασχολούνταν επί πολύ με τις εργασίες που τους εξασφάλιζαν την επιβίωση. Κι έτσι δεν συναντούσαν συχνά ούτε τους συγχωριανούς τους. Τα πολλά λόγια είναι φτώχεια, έλεγαν κι είχαν δίκιο.

Σπουδές; Μα οι σπουδές έφεραν αυτήν την πανούκλα! Σπούδασε κοινωνιολογία για ν’ αρπάξεις κορωναϊό από τα συφιλιασμένα μυαλά που είχες να νομίζεις ότι η ζωή στην Αθήνα και στα πανεπιστήμια είναι καλύτερη από τον καθαρό αέρα του βουνού!

Τι να τις κάνει κάποιος τις σπουδές; Αν είναι το Ευαγγέλιο και το Κατηχητικό, αυτά υπάρχουν και στα χωριά. Να πάει στα πορνεία της ψευτογνώσης να σπουδάσει τα ξερατά των Μαρξ, Μπρεχτ, Γκράμσι, Αντόρνο, Φουκώ, Κούντερα, Μολιέρου, Ρουσώ, Μοντεσκιέ, Πασκάλ, Χέμινγουαιη, Καστοριάδη, Πουλαντζά κι άλλες τέτοιες χολέρες; Να λείπει το βύσσινο! Οι ψευτο-ιδεολογίες και οι ψευτο-επιστήμες των σατανο-πανεπιστημίων έφεραν τον κορωναϊό.

Ό,τι μπορεί να διδαχθεί σ’ ένα πανεπιστήμιο προέρχεται από κάτι χλωμούς σακάτηδες, γκαντέμηδες, ξεφτιλόπουστες, πλακομούνες, κι άλλους ανήμπορους ξεφτίλες που δεν έχουν ποτέ ιδρώσει στο χωράφι, δεν έχουν οργώσει ποτέ τον αγρό, δεν έχουν κλαδέψει ποτέ το δέντρο, δεν έχουν μαζέψει ελιές, δεν έχουν τρυγήσει, δεν έχουν αρμέξει την κατσίκα, δεν έχουν δουλέψει στο ελαιοτριβείο, δεν μπορούν να σκοτώσουν ένα φίδι που πετιέται μπροστά τους, δεν έχουν πιάσει αξίνα, δεν έχουν γδάρει ένα αρνί για το Πάσχα, δεν έχουν σφάξει ένα πετεινό, και δεν έχουν χτυπήσει το χταπόδι κάτω μέχρις ότου να το κάνουν κατάλληλο για φαγητό. Τους τραβάς μια κλωτσιά στ’ αχαμνά και τους στέλνεις σα σαΐτες στα Χανιά!

Όλοι αυτοί οι ακαμάτηδες ούτε υδραυλικά ξέρουν να φτειάξουν, ούτε να χτίσουν ένα ντουβάρι μπορούν, ούτε να φτειάξουν ένα πηγάδι είναι ικανοί. Τέτοια ξεφτίλα είναι ο κάθε πανεπιστημιακός που, όταν ήταν έφηβος, δεν ήταν ικανός να ορμήξει και ν’ αρπάξει μια καρδερίνα πάνω στη γη με τα χέρια του ή έστω να βουτύξει μια χρυσόμυγα και να την βάλει σ’ ένα άδειο τσιγαρόκουτο και να την ταΐζει ζάχαρη. Μόνον τη μούχλα του τάφου εκπροσωπούν αυτοί όλοι. Ξεχάστε τους! Ή μάλλον, για να το πω πιο σωστά, τραβήξτε το καζανάκι! Κι αν δεν το κάνετε εσείς, έννοια σας! Έρχεται τώρα να το κάνει ο κορωναϊός. Όλοι αυτοί θα ψοφήσουν σαν τη σκνίπα! Θα τους φάει το μαύρο φίδι και θ’ απαλλαγεί η Γη από τη λέρα τους.

Οπότε, το να πάει κάποιος στο χωριό είναι ασφαλώς η σωστή επιλογή αλλά πρέπει να στρωθείτε στη δουλειά και να μάθετε πολλά πράγματα για την ζωή στην φύση που σας είναι άγνωσστα. Επικεντρωθείτε σ’ αυτά! Αυτά είναι άλλωστε όλη η ουσία της πραγματικής ζωής. Χρειάζεται δουλειά για να μάθεις να δουλεύεις ένα χωράφι. Πρέπει και να προσέξεις από που προέρχονται οι σπόροι που θέλεις να φυτέψεις. Βεβαίως και δεν θα καλλιεργήσεις όλα όσα σου χρειάζονται. Θα πουλάς ένα μέρος της παραωγής σου για να αγοράζεις άλλα απαραίτητα που παράγει ένας άλλος. Και δεν είναι εύκολο να μάθει ένας άπειρος άνθρωπος τις ανάγκες και τις συνήθειες ενός ζώου. Άλλο ένα κατσίκι κι άλλο ένα πρόβατο. Οπότε, έχει νόημα, αν πάρει κάποιος την σωστή απόφαση να πάει να ζήσει σε ένα χωριό, να το χωνέψει καλά ότι αυτή είναι μια βασική αλλαγή στη ζωή του. Ένα αμετάκλητο ορόσημο και οριστική αλλαγή πορείας.

Κι αυτό πρέπει να είναι η αλλαγή της ζωής ενός ανθρώπου με σκοπό την σωτηρία του, επειδή ο κορωναϊός ήρθε για να μείνει και οι επιπτώσεις από την πανδημία θα είναι ασύλληπτες. Και δεν εννοώ μόνον ότι δεν θα υποχωρήσει εύκολα σε ιατρικό καθαρά επίπεδο. Και το εμβόλιο εναντίον του κορωναϊού μπορεί ίσως να προξενεί χειρότερα δεινά. Οι επιπτώσεις όμως που θα προκληθούν στην παγκόσμια οικονομία και πολιτική, και συνεκδοχικά στον τρόπο της καθημερινής ζωής στις πόλεις, θα είναι ανυπολόγιστες και ανεξέλεγκτες. Αυτό θα είναι έτσι επειδή πολλές από τις επιπτώσεις θα αποκτήσουν την δική τους δυναμική.

Η ζωή όπως την ξέραμε στις μεγαλουπόλεις τελείωσε. Αναγκαστικά για να επιβάλλουν μέτρα προστατευτικά και αποτρεπτικά της πανδημίας, οι κυβερνήσεις θα οδηγηθούν στην λήψη απίστευτα κατασταλτικών μέτρων που σήμερα θεωρούνται αδιανόητα. Αυτά όμως, ενώ θα ισοπεδώσουν την καθημερινή ζωή στην πόλη, θα έχουν ελάχιστο νόημα κι ασήμαντη εφαρμογή στο μακρινό χωριό.  

Αυτό θα είναι έτσι, επειδή οι άνθρωποι που θα φύγουν για να πάνε στο χωριό θα έχουν ήδη σβύσει μέσα τους την παλιά ζωή στην πόλη. Για παράδειγμα, αν ζεις στην πόλη κι έχεις ένα λαπτοπ κι ένα USB modem, τότε έχεις επίσης κι ένα μπλογκ και δημοσιεύεις τις απόψεις, τις γνώσεις και τις ιδέες σου, ή ακόμη ένα λογαριασμό στο vk.com, στο ok.ru, στο livejournal, στο dailymotion, στο vimeo, ή ακόμη και στο σιωνιστικό YT και ανεβάζεις βίντεο, ηχητικά, και φωτο-άλμπουμς. Όλα αυτά θα δεχθούν τρομερούς περιορισμούς όταν η αλήθεια θα γίνει επικίνδυνη για την επιβολή της παγκόσμιας δικτατορίας.

Αλλά πόση ανάγκη έχει να ανεβάζει βίντεο και να δημοσιεύει κείμενα κάποιος που νοιάζεται για τις πατάτες, τις ντομάτες, τις πιπεριές ή το κριθάρι του; Καμμιά. Οι άνθρωποι στις μεγαλουπόλεις και στις πόλεις έκαναν το λάθος να νομίσουν (ή για να το πω πιο σωστά να πιστέψουν) ότι το ιντερνέτ είναι μια πραγματικότητα της ζωής. Το ιντερνέτ όμως είναι ένα ψέμμα. Το ιντερνέτ αποκόπτει από την πραγματική ζωή, η οποία υπάρχει μόνον στη φύση. Το ιντερνέτ βουλιάζει τα ανυποψίαστα θύματά του σε μια ψευδή, εικονική πραγματικότητα. Ο κόσμος του ιντερνέτ είναι ένα μείγμα παραπληοφόρησης και από τα mainstream media και από τα δήθεν αντιστασιακά – εναλλακτικά media (που τα περισσότερα είναι μαϊμούδες), απόλυτα προμελετημένης ψυχολογικής χειραγώγησης των χρηστών, και παρανοϊκής υστερίας εκφρασμένης από φοβισμένα ζώα (αυτά είναι οι περισσότεροι χρηστες).

Τίποτα το αληθινό και πραγματικό δεν υπάρχει στο ιντερνέτ. Μόνον συφοριασμένα ζόμπι του συστήματος της παγκοσμιιοποίησης ισχυρίζονται – τάχα νηφάλια !! – ότι το ‘ιντερνέτ έχει τα καλά του και τα κακά του’. Αυτή είναι η γνώμη της κάθε αμόρφωτης κυρα-Κατίνας και του κάθε πληρωμένου οργάνου των σιωνιστών και των ψευτο-μασώνων. Μια τέτοια αισχρή άποψη σκοπό έχει να εμπεδώσει και να συνεχίσει την εξάρτηση της υπόδουλης ανθρωπότητας από το ιντερνέτ, το κινητό, και όλες τις άλλες διαστροφές της υψηλής τεχνολογίας.

Ένας κορωναϊός άλλωστε είναι το ίδιο το ιντερνέτ - μόνο που ξέσπασε σαν πανδημία μερικές δεκαετίες πριν τον Covid-19. Αυτό είναι όλο – αλλά δυστυχώς ο κόσμος δεν το πήρε χαμπάρι. Οπότε, όποιος παρατάει το ιντερνέτ, για να μάθει να κλαδεύει, να οργώνει ή να αρμέγει την κατσίκα, κάνει ένα καθοριστικό βήμα για την απεξάρτησή του από το όπιο του ιντερνέτ και του ψευτο-κόσμου του, θεραπεύεται από την πανδημία, και κυριολεκτικά απελευθερώνεται από την σκλαβιά που του είχαν επιβάλει οι σιωνιστές και το βρωμερό σατανόσκυλο Μπιλ Γκέητς.

Αυτό εννοώ συνειδητή επιλογή στην αποχώρηση από την πόλη και την εγκατάσταση στο χωριό: το τι μπορεί να έχουν ως έννοια και φροντίδα ένας γεωργός κι ένας κτηνοτρόφος είναι γνωστό από χιλιετίες. Νοιάζονται να βρέξει την σωστή εποχή αλλά να μην βρέξει πάρα πολύ, να μη χιονίσει περισσότερο από όσο συνήθως, να μην πέσει χαλάζι, να μην αρπάξουν αρρώστειες τα δέντρα, να περιμένουν την χρονιά που θα αλλάξουν το τι καλλιεργούν στο χωράφι τους, να μην πέσουν ακρίδες, κλπ. Ή επίσης να μη μπει ο λύκος στο μαντρί, να μην αρπάξει η αλεπού κανένα κοτόπουλο, να μην βυζάξει την κατσίκα κανένα φίδι και άλλα παρεμφερή θέματα.

Αυτός είναι ο μόνος πραγματικός κόσμος. Δεν υπάρχουν ούτε ιντερνέτ, ούτε πολιτική, ούτε κρατικοί νόμοι, ούτε κυβέρνηση, ούτε κοινωνία. Όλα αυτά είναι πολύ μακριά και ισχύουν όσο τους δίνεις σημασία. Αν κανένας δεν τους έδινε σημασία, όλες οι κυβερνήσεις θα κατέρρεαν σε λίγη ώρα. Και θα καταρρεύσουν. Αλλά ο άνθρωπος στο μακρινό χωριό θα σωθεί χάρη στην απόσταση που τον χωρίζει από κέντρο (:την πρωτεύουσα) όπου θα πέσει η μεγάλη συμφορά και θα γίνει γης Μαδιάμ!

Οι σημερινές κυβερνήσεις θα διαλυθούν όχι γιατί όλοι οι άνθρωποι θα πάψουν να ενδιαφέρονται γι’ αυτά τα σατανι(στι)κά σχήματα εξουσίας, καθοδήγησης κι εκμετάλλευσης του ανθρώπου αλλά γιατί οι διεθνικές κλίκες της παγκόσμιας εξουσίας, στον ανελέητο πόλεμο που κάνουν η μια στην άλλη, ετοιμάζονται να διαλύσουν όλες τις κυβερνήσεις, όλα τα κράτη και όλες τις κοινωνίες. Και γι’ αυτό και βλέπετε τις τρισάθλιες, εγκληματικές, κατά τόπους κυβερνήσεις να σκαρφίζονται σχήματα εγκλωβισμού του ντόπιου λαού σε ψέμματα, ψευτοϊστορίες, άθλια κι ανυπόστατα αφηγήματα, ψευτοϊδεολογίες κι αρλουμπο-θεωρίες ώστε να τον εκμεταλλευτούν προς όφελός τους.

Ούτε ο μέσος Έλληνας, ούτε ο μέσος Τούρκος, ούτε ο μέσος Ρώσσος, ούτε κανένας άλλος έχει την ανάγκη, την υποχρέωση, ή κάποιο όφελος να υποστηρίξουν τον Σαμαρά εναντίον της Μέρκελ, τον Ερντογάν εναντίον του Άσαντ, τον Πούτιν εναντίον του Ομπάμα, κοκ, ή ακόμη τα κράτη στα οποία τυχαίνει να βρίσκονται ενάντια στο υψηλό κατεστημένο της παγκοσμιοποίησης, το οποίο θα σαρώσει όλους αυτούς τους ψευτο-ηγέτες σαν φτερά στον άνεμο.

Ο μόνος λόγος ύπαρξης ενός ανθρώπου ορίζεται από την πίστη του, την θρησκεία του και τις ηθικές αρχές του όπως του τις δίδαξε η εκκλησία του. Όλοι μας είμαστε περαστικοί από την Γη κι όσο πιο νωρίς το αντιληφθούμε αυτό, τόσο πιο σωστά θα ζήσουμε. Καλές είναι οι δουλειές, οι επιχειρήσεις, τα κέρδη, τα γλέντια, τα ταξίδια κι όλες οι άλλες χαρές της υλικής ζωής αλλά, όταν τελειώνουν όλα αυτά, ο άνθρωπος μένει με την ψυχή του και τις συνέπειες των λόγων και των έργων του – και τις πληρώνει.

- Πλούσιοι επτώχευσαν και επείνασαν, οι δε εκζητούντες τον Κύριον ουκ ελαττωθήσονται παντός αγαθού.

Αυτή είναι η μόνη αλήθεια αυτής της ζωής.

Και ο καλύτερος τρόπος να εκζητήσεις τον Κύριον είναι να στραφείς πίσω σ’ ένα χωριό και να αποκαλύψεις εκεί όλα τα θαύματα της Δημιουργίας που υπάρχουν τριγύρω σου και που οι άνθρωποι ξέχασαν, όπως τώρα τους ξέχασε ο Θεός, και θα ψοφήσουν από τον κορωναϊό.  

Όπως προανέφερα, απομόνωση και αυτάρκεια είναι τα κλειδιά της επιβίωσης του ανθρώπου. Δεν χρειάζονται ούτε βιβλία, ούτε εφημερίδες, ούτε περιοδικά, ούτε τηλεοράσεις, ούτε ραδιόφωνα, ούτε βίντεο, ούτε λαπτοπ, ούτε κινητά. Λίγοι συγχωριανοί που δεν ταξιδεύουν αλλά μένουν στον όμορφο τόπο τους και χαίρονται τις χαρές εκεί που τους τις έδωσε ο Θεός είναι υπεραρκετοί για παρέα. Καλύτερη παρέα για τον κάθε άνθρωπο από τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό δεν υπάρχει. Κρείττον σιγάν που έλεγαν κι οι αρχαίοι. Σιωπή και περισυλλογή! Αν θέλεις κουβέντα, κάντην με τον εαυτό σου.

Το να μάθεις όλο τον ετήσιο κύκλο γεωργικών απασχολήσεων θα πάρει καιρό. Συγκεντρώσου σ’ αυτό! Τον ελεύθερο χρόνο σου, χρησιμοποίησέ τον για να μετανοιώσεις για τον παλιό τρόπο ζωής σου που δεν απέδωσε ούτε σε σένα ούτε σε κανένα άλλο. Δίνει τρομερή δύναμη η απομόνωση. Να μην βλέπεις παρά λίγους ανθρώπους την ημέρα, και μερικές μέρες να μην μιλάς καθόλου. Κι όταν θα θέλεις να διαβάσεις κάτι, πήγαινε στην εκκλησία, δανείσου μια Καινή Διαθήκη, κι επίστρεψέ την το επόμενο πρωϊνό στον Όρθρο. Κι οι ευλογίες του Θεού μαζί σου!

Έτσι, ο κορωναϊός μπορεί να είναι καταστροφικός για τα σχέδια των ψευτο-μασώνων και των σιωνιστών αλλά μπορεί να αποβεί ιδιαίτερα ευεργετικός για τον μέσο άνθρωπο. Αρκεί να καταλάβουν όλοι ό,τι κατάλαβε ο καλός μου φίλος από την Δράμα: ότι το μόνο δράμα είναι οι μεγαλουπόλεις. Και σ’ αυτούς στέλνει ο Θεός την φώτιση. Όχι σε όσους βουλιάζουν ακόμη περισσότερο μέσα στον σατανικό βούρκο της παγκόσμιας εξουσίας και διοίκησης που, όπως τα μάελστρομ έξω από την Νορβηγία, θα τραβήξει τον σημερινό κόσμο σε ολοκληρωτική εξαφάνιση. Αλλά στη Φύση η ζωή θα συνεχιστεί.

Αλλά, μην ξεχνάτε δυο βασικές παραμέτρους: πρώτον, κατ’ ουσίαν ο κορωναϊός δεν είναι ιός αλλά παρασκεύασμα εργαστηρίων βιολογικού πολέμου. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι αποτελεί μια βιολογική οντότητα που μπορεί να ενεργοποιείται από ορισμένα βακτήρια που δεν είναι εύκολο να σημειωθούν σε ποιον άνθρωπο υπάρχουν και σε ποιον δεν υπάρχουν. Είναι δεδομένο ότι άνθρωποι που δεν είναι φορείς του κορωναϊού μπορούν να τον μεταδίδουν. Και είναι δεδομένο ότι ακόμη και ολότελα απομονωμένοι άνθρωποι χωρίς επικοινωνία με κάποιον άλλον στον κόσμο μπορεί να νοσήσουν (απειροελάχιστη πιθανότητα αλλά υπαρκτή).

Δεύτερον και κυριώτερον, το πεπρωμένον φυγείν αδύνατον. Ο καθένας άνθρωπος ζει όσο διαρκεί το αστέρι του και μόνον διεστραμμένοι σατανιστές πιστεύουν ότι ο άνθρωπος μπορεί να κυριαρχήσει πάνω στη μοίρα του. Και μοίρα υπάρχει και τύχη υπάρχει και ελευθερία του ανθρώπου. Η μόνη σημασία αυτής της ζωής είναι η προετοιμασία της αιώνιας ζωής και αυτό ασφαλώς και γίνεται στην φύση καλύτερα.

ΙΙ. Κορωναϊός και η Σύγκρουση Ψευτο-Μασώνων, Σιωνιστών και Ιησουϊτών

Είδατε τον πανικό των ιθυνόντων σε πολλές χώρες; Από τον Τραμπ στον Πούτιν και από τον Ερντογάν στον Νετανιάχου, ψευτο-μασώνοι και σιωνιστές ξέρουν πολύ καλά ότι το χαλί τραβήχτηκε απότομα κάτω από τα πόδια τους, και τώρα έρχεται άσχημη ανατροπή των περισσοτέρων σχεδίων τους. Κάποιοι είχαν επινοήσει κάτι μικρούς πολέμους. Κάποιοι άλλοι τους απέτρεπαν, τον ένα μετά τον άλλο. Τώρα τα ισχυρώτερα οικονομικά μεγαθήρια όλων των κλάδων της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας βλέπουν ότι τα ίδια δεν είναι παρά μικροσκοπικά σπόρια μέσα σε ένα κόσμο όπου σύρονται απίστευτες δυνάμεις.

Ο πανικός των ψευτομασώνων και των σιωνιστών φαίνεται και από τις τρελές αναζητήσεις 'προφητειών’ περί την πανδημία αυτή:  μερικοί αναφέρθηκαν στο βιβλίο – νουβέλα του Dean Koontz, The Eyes of Darkness (1981). Άλλοι θυμήθηκαν σχετικούς υπαινιγμούς στην τηλεοπτική σειρά The Simpsons και πιο συγκεκριμένα σε επεισόδιο του 1993 με τίτλο 'Marge in Chains’. Και κάποιοι παρέπεμψαν στην ταινία Contagion του 2001. Σχετικά:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_Darkness

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/simpsons-fans-convinced-show-predicted-21636905

The Simpsons Predicted The Corona Virus!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53GmsuppwY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagion_(2011_film)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598778/

Όλα αυτά δεν έχουν τίποτα το περίεργο. Μόνον άνθρωποι που πιστεύουν ότι υπάρχει χρόνος τα βρίσκουν περίεργα. Αν κάποιος συλλάβει την ζωή στην πραγματική της διάσταση, χωρίς χρόνο, τότε εννοεί ότι όλα όσα θα γίνουν (στο … 'μελλον’) έχουν ήδη ειπωθεί.

Ο πανικός των εξουσιών σε ΗΠΑ, Ισραήλ, Ρωσσία και Δυτική Ευρώπη δείχνει ότι η όλη επιχείρηση κορωναϊός, η οποία ήταν καθαρά κινεζικής επιλογής και δράσης (κάτι που φαινόταν ήδη από καιρό και για το οποίο έχω ήδη γράψει), είναι σαφέστατα ιησουϊτικής έμπνευσης και υψηλής καθοδήγησης. Ταιριάζει άλλωστε απόλυτα με τις αρχές των Ιησουϊτών και τις θεωρίες περί εντροπίας που από την δεκαετία του 1970 κήρυττε μετά παρρησίας το τότε λοιδωρούμενο Κλαμπ της Ρώμης (Club of Rome) – ένας σημαντικός σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο ιησουϊτικός θεσμός.  

Κίνα και Ιταλία ήταν οι δύο χώρες όπου οι Ιησουΐτες είχαν μεγαλύτερη ισχύ από αλλού. Και τις πλήττουν καίρια για να ανατρέψουν τις πλευρές των τοπικών κατεστημένων που δεν ελέγχουν. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει συντριβή για τις χώρες αυτές αλλά αναμόχλευση. Παράλληλα, με τις ασύλληπτες παρενέργειες κι επιπτώσεις σε διεθνές επίπεδο, θα χτυπηθούν και θα πληγούν καίρια αντι-ιησουϊτικές (δηλαδή ψευτομασωνικές και σιωνιστικές) πλευρές κατεστημένων διαφόρων πολύ σημαντικών χωρών. Η τράπουλα θα ξαναμοιραστεί αλλά διαφορετικά, και – κυρίως – από άλλον παίκτη. Αφελείς κι ανίδεοι ισχυρίζονται ότι ο κορωναϊός είναι η δεύτερη πράξη του θεατρικού έργου που βλέπαμε τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια μετά το γνωστό 9/11. Αυτό είναι εντελώς λάθος. Το 9/11 ήταν ένα χτύπημα Σιωνιστών. Ο κορωναϊός είναι ένα χτύπημα Ιησουϊτών.

Θα ελέγξουν οι Ιησουΐτες την Κίνα απόλυτα; Θα το επιδιώξουν. Έχουν πολλούς αντιπάλους και ο πρόεδρος Σι Ζινπίν, ένα σπάνια προικισμένο άτομο πολύ ικανώτερο όλων των άλλων σημερινών ηγετών, είναι ένας πολύ σημαντικός αντίπαλος των Ιησουϊτών.

Πριν από 14 μήνες, στο τέλος ενός δείπνου στο Πεκίνο με σημαντικούς Κινέζους παρόντες, είχα απέναντί μου τον Έλληνα ανατολιστή ιστορικό και πολιτικό επιστήμονα, καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτη που είχε μόλις δώσει μια διάλεξη στα κινεζικά για το πόσο χρήσιμος είναι ο Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ στους Κινέζους σήμερα αναφορικά με τους Ουϊγούρους του Ανατολικού Τουρκεστάν. Ο κ. Μεγαλομμάτης είχε επιδεικτικά κι εντυπωσιακά απαριθμήσει τους κινδύνους που αντιμετωπίζει σήμερα η Κίνα και οι Κινέζοι τον είχαν στην συνέχεια κατακλύσει με ερωτήσεις, επειδή είχαν αντιληφθεί ότι γνώριζε τέλεια το τι ακριβώς συμβαίνει στα παρασκήνια της εξουσίας της χώρας τους. Μετά την συζήτηση και μετά το δείπνο, εντυπωσιασμένος από το τι είχα ακούσει τον ρώτησα:

- Μα είναι πράγματι δυνατόν να γίνει η Κίνα χριστιανική;

Η συζήτηση γινόταν στα ρωσσικά που όλοι οι τριγύρω καταλάβαιναν. Ο Έλληνας ανατολιστής κύτταξε το πιάτο του και μου απάντησε:

- Η σούπα είναι ζεστή. Η σούπα είναι κρύα. Η Κίνα είναι κομμουνιστική. Η Κίνα είναι χριστιανική. Δεν έχει μεγάλη δυσκολία!

Στην συνέχεια και για περίπου 10 λεπτά της ώρας, ο κ. Μεγαλομμάτης εξέθεσε τις σταδιακές εξελίξεις μιας μεγάλης αναταραχής που θα ξεκινούσε με μια τρομερή κρίση δυσπιστίας των Κινέζων κατά του σημερινού κατεστημένου της χώρας τους και θα κατέληγε με μια άρδην ανατροπή του καθεστώτος ως συνέπεια μιας από καιρό ετοιμασμένης εκ των ένδον διάβρωσης της ηγεσίας του ΚΚΚ. Η διαδικασία θα έπαιρνε πολύ λίγα χρόνια, ή αν προτιμάτε μήνες: 18-24! Οι Κινέζοι συνδαιτημόνες φαίνονταν παγωμένοι γιατί καταλάβαιναν, προφανώς καλύτερα από μένα, τον κίνδυνο των περιγραφών του κ. Μεγαλομμάτη. Ένας τους τον ρώτησε σε τι μπορεί να συνίσταται μια κρίση δυσπιστίας στην Κίνα. Ο Έλληνας ανατολιστής είπε:

- Αρκεί να καταλάβουν οι Κινέζοι ότι η εξουσία τους δεν ενδιαφέρεται για την υγεία τους!

Και τότε ακολούθησε μια μακρά περιγραφή αναλογιών

α) του τρόπου με τον οποίο οι Ιησουΐτες θα επιχειρήσουν να καταλάβουν την εξουσία της Κίνας στα επόμενα χρόνια, να καταστήσουν την χώρα 'χριστανική’ (όσο χριστιανική μπορεί να είναι μια ιησουϊτική εξουσία!), και δι’ αυτής να ελέγξουν την παγκόσμια κοινότητα

β) με τον τρόπο που επιχειρήθηκε κάτι ανάλογο πριν από 1800-1840 χρόνια στην διάρκεια της δυναστείας των Ανατολικών Χαν (χονδρικά 206 π.Χ. – 220 μ.Χ).  

Το τρομερό γεγονός της κινεζικής ιστορίας, το οποίο ο κ.Μεγαλομμάτης έδωσε ως ιστορικό ανάλογο της επερχόμενης αλλαγής στην Κίνα, λέγεται στα κινεζικά Χουάν-τζιν ζι λουάν (黃巾之亂) και αυτό στα ελληνικά αποδίδεται ως το 'Από το Κίτρινο Τουρμπάνι Χάος’. Πρόκειται για ένα είδος στάσης κατά της αυτοκρατορικής εξουσίας και στην διεθνή οριενταλιστική βιβλιογραφία έχει πολύ στραβά περάσει ως 'Εξέγερση του Κίτρινου Τουρμπανιού’ (Yellow Turban Rebellion). Τα γεγονότα διαδραματίστηκαν στην περίοδο 184-205 μ.Χ. και προξένησαν (τότε) τον θάνατο 4-7 εκ. Κινέζων. Αλλά δεν ήταν αυτό που ακριβώς εννοούμε σήμερα ως 'εξέγερση’ ή 'επανάσταση’.

Αφορμή των γεγονότων τότε ήταν μια σοβαρή αγροτική κρίση και ξηρασία που εξελίχθηκε σε λιμό και στην συνέχεια σε πανδημία (λοιμό). Αυτά όλα όμως άμεσα κατηγορήθηκαν ως αποτελέσματα αυτοκρατορικής διαφθοράς και στην συνέχεια ένα μυστικιστικό ταοϊστικό τάγμα οδήγησε τους αγρότες σε απόλυτη αμφισβήτηση της αυτοκρατορικής εξουσίας καθώς εμφανίστηκε ως ικανό να θεραπεύσει τον λοιμό και την ξηρασία. Μια κάκιστη, παραχαρακτική των ιστορικών περιγραφή δίνεται εδώ και με πολλά λάθη, παραλείψεις και προ πάντων παρανοήσεις:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Turban_Rebellion

Οι Κινέζοι που άκουγαν τον κ. Μεγαλομμάτη είχαν γίνει κάτωχροι, επειδή το Χάος του Κίτρινου Τουρμπανιού είναι το χειρότερο φόβητρο κάθε εξουσίας στην Κίνα τους τελευταίους 18 αιώνες. Έτσι το καθιστά η σύνδεση ενός λοιμού και μιας συμφοράς για την εξουσία με την θαυματουργική θεραπεία του λοιμού εκ μέρους μιας πνευματιστικής οργάνωσης που είναι οι αποδέκτες Θείας Αποκάλυψης και ταυτόχρονα συνασπίζει μεγάλα τμήματα πληθυσμού κατά της διεφθαρμένης εξουσίας με την υπόσχεση μιας νέας αρχής.

Ο παραλληλισμός – σε ιστορικό / υλικό και σε ψυχικό / πνευματικό επίπεδο – του μυστικιστικού ταοϊστικού τάγματος του Ζαν Ζουέ (με το θεόσταλτο ιερό βιβλίο “Ουσιαστική Τέχνη της Μεγάλης Ειρήνης”) με τους Ιησουΐτες εμφανίζει ένα τεράστιο αριθμό αναλογιών και παρεμφερών χαρακτηριστικών, όπως άλλωστε και οι εξελίξεις που οδήγησαν στο χάος πριν από 18 αιώνες φαίνονται παράλληλες αυτές που σήμερα μπορούν να επιφέρουν κοσμογονικές αλλαγές στην Κίνα και στον κόσμο. Δεν μπορώ να επεκταθώ περισσότερο εδώ, αλλά ξέρω ότι εφέτος στις αρχές του Γενάρη στο Πεκίνο ο κ. Μεγαλομμάτης έδωσε μια άλλη διάλεξη σε επιτελικό κύκλο της Κίνας με ακριβώς συτό το θέμα: “Ωριγένης και Ιησουϊτες, Ταοϊσμός και Ζαν Ζουέ (Zhang Jue), ή το Κίτρινο Τουρμπάνι σήμερα”. Δεν μπορούσαν να παρευρεθούν παρά μόνον Κινέζοι και μάλιστα υψηλόβαθμοι του Κομμουνιστικού (ο Θεός να το κάνει!) Κόμματος της Κίνας.

Τώρα ο φίλος κ. Μεγαλομμάτης συνεχίζει τις έρευνές του στους ορεινούς όγκους του Δυτικού Αφγανιστάν και στα περίχωρα της Αλεξάνδρειας Προφθασίας, ενώ εγώ ακόμη τον θυμάμαι από πιο παλιά να λέει ότι “η Κίνα είναι ο κρυφός άσσος στο μανίκι των Ιησουϊτών”. Οπότε, για να ξεκινούν τέτοιες ιστορίες, καταλαβαίνω ότι τρέχουν να προλάβουν Εκείνους που έρχονται.

Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Φιλόσοφος, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Αυτοκράτορας, Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, Θεμελιωτής της Δυναστείας των Γκορκανιάν από την Κεντρική Ασία στην Ινδία

Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Philosopher, Poet, Historian, Emperor, Descendant of Tamerlane, Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty from Central Asia to Hindustan, Bengal and the Dekkan

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 18η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019.

Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης χρησιμοποιεί τμήμα ομιλίας μου, την οποία έδωσα στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 με θέμα τους παράλληλους βίους μεγάλων στρατηλατών και αυτοκρατόρων των Ακκάδων, των Χιττιτών, των Ασσυρίων, των Ιρανών, των Ρωμαίων, των Τουρανών-Μογγόλων, και των Κινέζων.

-------------------

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/μπαμπούρ-1483-1530-στρατηλάτης-φιλόσοφος-πο/ =================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Αρκετοί φίλοι με ρώτησαν τελευταία για το Τατζ Μαχάλ, για την Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Γκορκανιάν / Μουγάλ-Mughal) της Ινδίας, και τις σχέσεις των Σουνιτών Γκορκανιάν με τους Σιίτες Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν και τους Σουνίτες Οθωμανούς. Με δεδομένη την ιρανο-οθωμανική αντιπαλότητα (στην οποία αναφέρθηκα στα κείμενά μου σχετικά με την Μάχη του Τσαλντιράν το 1514), ένας φίλος με ρώτησε πως και δεν συμφώνησαν Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν να μοιράσουν το Ιράν ανάμεσα στην Σταμπούλ και την Άγκρα.

Η απάντηση είναι απλή: σε μια εποχή που δεν υπήρχαν εθνικισμοί και που η Πίστη αποτελούσε τον βασικό (αλλά όχι τον μόνο) δείκτη ταυτότητας, οι φυλετικές διαφορές βάραιναν σημαντικά. Αν ανάμεσα σε δυο κλάδους της ίδιας φυλής είχε χυθεί αίμα, αυτό θα ήταν πολύ δύσκολο να ξεχαστεί ακόμη και εκατό χρόνια αργότερα.

Οθωμανοί, Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν, και Γκορκανιάν της Νότιας Ασίας (όχι μόνον ‘Ινδίας’) ήταν όλοι τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.

Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν ήταν Σουνίτες, ενώ οι Σαφεβίδες ήταν Σιίτες.

Αλλά ο Ταμερλάνος, πρόγονος των Γκορκανιάν, είχε χύσει οθωμανικό αίμα το 1402 στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας. Αυτό ξεπεράστηκε σε κάποιο βαθμό αλλά δεν ξεχάστηκε ποτέ.

Η Ιστορία της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας της Νότιας Ασίας είναι γεμάτη από πλούτο, τέχνες, γράμματα, εντυπωσιακά μνημεία και μυστικισμό. Νομίζω ότι ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να την προσεγγίσει κάποιος είναι να μάθει μερικά βασικά στοιχεία για τον εντελώς ξεχωριστό άνθρωπο που ήταν ο ιδρυτής αυτής της δυναστείας. Παρά την μεταγενέστερη επέκταση των Γκορκανιάν, κανένας απόγονος του Μπαμπούρ δεν τον ξεπέρασε στην στρατιωτική τέχνη.

Έφηβος οδηγούσε εμπειροπόλεμα στρατεύματα στις μάχες. Για σχεδόν τρεις δεκαετίες διέσχισε όλα τα κακοτράχαλα βουνά ανάμεσα στο ιρανικό οροπέδιο, τις στέππες της Σιβηρίας, την Τάκλα Μακάν και τις κοιλάδες του Ινδού και του Γάγγη. Πριν κατακτήσει το Χιντουστάν (: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία), άλλαζε βασίλεια σχεδόν σαν τα πουκάμισα. Παράλληλα, συνέγραφε ιστορικά κείμενα και ποιήματα, έπινε, χαιρόταν την ζωή, και διερχόταν περιόδους ασκητισμού.

Παρά το ότι ο μεγάλος θρίαμβος ήλθε στο τέλος, ο Μπαμπούρ δεν ξέχασε ποτέ την γη που του συμπαραστάθηκε στα χρόνια των δοκιμασιών: την Καμπούλ του σημερινού Αφγανιστάν. Έτσι, αν και πέθανε στην Άγκρα της Ινδίας, θέλησε να ταφεί στην Καμπούλ. Ένας τεράστιος κήπος περιβάλλει το μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ και μπορείτε να το δείτε σε δυο βίντεο, στις εισαγωγές των οποίων δίνω ένα γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της ζωής και των ενδιαφερόντων, των κατορθωμάτων και των μαχών του Τίγρη (Μπαμπούρ σημαίνει Τίγρης στα τσαγατάι τουρκικά που ήταν η μητρική του γλώσσα κι αυτή των στρατιωτών του).

Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ στην Καμπούλ του Αφγανιστάν

Στο θέμα θα επανέλθω για να επεκταθώ στο Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ, το ‘Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’ το οποίο συνέγραψε ο ίδιος ο στρατηλάτης και αυτοκράτορας. Το αντίστοιχο θα υπήρχε, αν συγχωνεύονταν σε ένα πρόσωπο ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος και ο Αρριανός, ή ο Ιουστινιανός και ο Προκόπιος.

Μπορείτε να δείτε και αλλοιώς: το Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ είναι το ανατολικό, ασιατικό De Bello Civili και De Bello Gallico. Ή, πιο απλά, ο Μπαμπούρ είναι ο Μογγόλος Καίσαρ. Αλλά ο Καίσαρ είχε μόνιμο σημείο αναφοράς την Ρώμη. Ο Μπαμπούρ μετεκινείτο ως βασιλιάς από την Φεργάνα στην Σαμαρκάνδη, από κει στην Καμπούλ και τελικά στην Άγκρα. Δεν όριζε το στέμμα του το σπαθί του, αλλά το σπαθί του το στέμμα του.

Νόμισμα που έκοψε ο Μπαμπούρ το 1507-1508

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Кабул: Сады и Мавзолей Бабура, Могольского Императора (Горкани) Индии

https://www.ok.ru/video/1509854481005

Περισσότερα:

Баги Бабур (пушту باغ بابر, перс. باغ بابر; также встречаются названия сад Бабура и сады Бабура) — парковый комплекс в Афганистане, расположен неподалеку от города Кабула. Назван в честь своего владельца Бабура, основателя империи Великих Моголов. Бабур, помимо этого, увлекался разведением садов. Баги Бабур является одной из достопримечательностей страны. Отличается тщательной продуманностью посадок; в прошлом в нём выращивались многие уникальные растения. Среди них были различные сорта фруктов, бахчевых и многое другое, что ранее вовсе не встречалось на данной территории.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур

The Garden of Babur (locally called Bagh-e Babur, Persian: باغ بابر/ bāġ-e bābur) is a historic park in Kabul, Afghanistan, and also the last resting-place of the first Mughal emperor Babur. The garden are thought to have been developed around 1528 AD (935 AH) when Babur gave orders for the construction of an “avenue garden” in Kabul, described in some detail in his memoirs, the Baburnama.

The original construction date of the gardens (Persian: باغ – bāġ) is unknown. When Babur captured Kabul in 1504 from the Arguns he re-developed the site and used it as a guest house for special occasions, especially during the summer seasons. Since Babur had such a high rank, he would have been buried in a site that befitted him. The garden where it is believed Babur requested to be buried in is known as Bagh-e Babur. Mughul rulers saw this site as significant and aided in further development of the site and other tombs in Kabul. In an article written by the Aga Khan Historic Cities Programme, describes the marble screen built around tombs by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1638 with the following inscription:

“only this mosque of beauty, this temple of nobility, constructed for the prayer of saints and the epiphany of cherubs, was fit to stand in so venerable a sanctuary as this highway of archangels, this theatre of heaven, the light garden of the god forgiven angel king whose rest is in the garden of heaven, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur the Conqueror.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur

Ένα από τα πιο ενδιαφέροντα μνημεία της Καμπούλ είναι οι τεράστιοι κήποι και το μαυσωλείο του απογόνου του Ταμερλάνου βασιλιά της Φεργκάνα (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), ο οποίος αφού κατέκτησε την Σαμαρκάνδη, το σημερινό ανατολικό Ιράν και την Καμπούλ, κατέλαβε την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και όλη την Ινδία (Χιντουστάν: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία).

Εκεί κατέλυσε το ισλαμικό Σουλτανάτο του Δελχίου, θεμελίωσε την Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ – Mughal, όπως είναι γνωστοί στις δυτικές γλώσσες) την οποία οι ίδιοι αποκαλούσαν Γκορκανιάν.

Η λέξη αυτή (گورکانیان, Gūrkāniyān) είναι περσική και σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’. Έτσι ονόμαζαν τους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους της Νότιας Ασίας οι Ιρανοί στα φαρσί (περσικά) επειδή οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι διατήρησαν την μογγολική παράδοση να ανεβαίνει στον θρόνο και γενικώτερα στην ιεραρχία της αυτοκρατορίας ένας ταπεινής καταγωγής αλλά γενναίος στρατιωτικός μετά από τον γάμο του με μια από τις κόρες ενός ευγενή ή ενός αυτοκράτορα.

Ο Μπαμπούρ ήταν μια στρατιωτική μεγαλοφυία, ένας πολυμαθής φιλόσοφος, ένας ποιητής και ιστορικός που άφησε ένα τεράστιο βιογραφικό ιστορικό έργο γραμμένο σε τσαγατάι τουρκικά με αρκετούς περσισμούς που λέγεται Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ (το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ).

Η Ισλαμική (Σουνιτική) Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων ήταν συχνά ισχυρώτερη και πλουσιώτερη από την Σαφεβιδική (Σιιτική) Αυτοκρατορία του Ιράν και την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, συνένωσε εκτάσεις από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι την Ινδονησία, προξένησε μια μεγάλη μετανάστευση τουρκομογγολικών πληθυσμών στην Ινδία και στο Ντεκάν, κι αποτελεί την περίοδο της μεγαλύτερης ανάπτυξης Γραμμάτων, Τεχνών και Πολιτισμού στην Ινδία, το Ντεκάν, και γενικώτερα στην Νότια Ασία.

Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν είχαν έντονα επηρεαστεί από τον ιρανικό πολιτισμό.

Στην αυτοκρατορία τους, τα περσικά ήταν η γλώσσα της τέχνης και της λογοτεχνίας, τα αραβικά η γλώσσα των επιστημών, και τα ουρντού η γλώσσα του στρατού.

Τα ουρντού είναι στη βάση τους μια τουρκική γλώσσα (σήμερα στα τουρκικά της Τουρκίας ordu σημαίνει ‘στρατός’) μεικτή με ινδοευρωπαϊκό λεξιλόγιο.

Αν και πέθανε και τάφηκε στην βόρεια Ινδία ο Μπαμπούρ (στα τουρκικά το όνομά του σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’), ζήτησε να ταφεί σε μια πόλη που του χρησίμευσε ως βάση για την κατάκτηση της βόρειας Ινδίας.

Γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της πορείας του Μπαμπούρ από την Κεντρική Ασία προς την Ινδία

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Kabul: Gardens and Mausoleum of Babur, Mughal Emperor (Gorkani) of India

https://vk.com/video434648441_456240305

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Καμπούλ: Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ, Μεγάλου Μογγόλου (Γκορκανιάν) Αυτοκράτορα της Ινδίας

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Бабур (1483-1530): военный гений, поэт, историк и император, основатель Горканской династии (Великих Моголов) Индии

https://www.ok.ru/video/1510072388205

Περισσότερα:

Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель.

Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.

Бабур — основатель династии, выходец из города Андижан. Родным языком Бабура был турки (староузбекский). Писал в своих мемуарах: “Жители Андижана — все тюрки; в городе и на базаре нет человека, который бы не знал по-тюркски. Говор народа сходен с литературным”. “Мемуары Бабура написаны на той разновидности тюркского языка, которая известна под названием турки, являющегося родным языком Бабура”, — писал английский востоковед Е. Дениссон Росс.

За свою 47-летнюю жизнь Захириддин Мухаммад Бабур оставил богатое литературное и научное наследие. Его перу принадлежит знаменитое «Бабур-наме», снискавшая мировое признание, оригинальные и прекрасные лирические произведения (газели, рубаи), трактаты по мусульманскому законоведению («Мубайин»), поэтике («Аруз рисоласи»), музыке, военному делу, а также специальный алфавит «Хатт-и Бабури».

Бабур переписывался с Алишером Навои. Стихи Бабура, написанные на тюркском, отличаются чеканностью образов и афористичностью. Главный труд Бабура — автобиография «Бабур-наме», первый образец этого жанра в исторической литературе, излагает события с 1493 по 1529 годы, живо воссоздаёт детали быта знати, нравы и обычаи эпохи. Французский востоковед Луи Базан в своём введении к французскому переводу (1980 г.) писал, что «автобиография (Бабура) представляет собой чрезвычайно редкий жанр в исламской литературе».

В последние годы жизни тема потери Родины стала одной из центральных тем лирики Бабура. Заслуга Бабура как историка, географа, этнографа, прозаика и поэта в настоящее время признана мировой востоковедческой наукой. Его наследие изучается почти во всех крупных востоковедческих центрах мира.

Можно сказать, что стихи Бабура — автобиография поэта, в которых поэтическим языком, трогательно излагаются глубокие чувства, мастерски рассказывается о переживаниях, порожденных в результате столкновения с жизненными обстоятельствами, о чём красноречиво говорит сам поэт:

Каких страданий не терпел и тяжких бед, Бабур?

Каких не знал измен, обид, каких клевет, Бабур?

Но кто прочтет «Бабур-наме», увидит, сколько мук

И сколько горя перенес царь и поэт Бабур.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Poet, Historian and Emperor, the Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty (Great Mughal) of India

https://vk.com/video434648441_456240306

Περισσότερα:

Babur (Persian: بابر, romanized: Bābur, lit. ‘tiger’] 14 February 1483 – 26 December 1530), born Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad, was the founder and first Emperor of the Mughal dynasty in South Asia. He was a direct descendant of Emperor Timur (Tamerlane) from what is now Uzbekistan.

The difficulty of pronouncing the name for his Central Asian Turco-Mongol army may have been responsible for the greater popularity of his nickname Babur, also variously spelled Baber, Babar, and Bābor The name is generally taken in reference to the Persian babr, meaning “tiger”. The word repeatedly appears in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and was borrowed into the Turkic languages of Central Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur#Ruler_of_Central_Asia

Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель. Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Πρώτος Αυτοκράτορας των Γκορκανιάν της Ινδίας

Περισσότερα:

Ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους στρατηλάτες όλων των εποχών, ένας από τους ελάχιστους ηγεμόνες που δεν έχασαν ποτέ μάχη, ένας στρατιωτικός με μεγάλη μάθηση, γνώση και σοφία, συγγραφέας ενός μεγαλειώδους ιστορικού έργου (Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ: ‘το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’), ποιητής και μυστικιστής, με ενδιαφέρον για την καλοζωΐα σε σύντομα όμως χρονικά διαστήματα αλλά και με ασκητικές τάσεις, ήταν ο θεμελιωτής της μεγάλης μογγολικής δυναστείας της Νότιας Ασίας που οι δυτικοί αποκαλούν Μουγάλ (Μεγάλους Μογγόλους).

Όταν ο Μπαμπούρ γεννήθηκε στο Αντιτζάν της Κοιλάδας Φεργάνα της Κεντρικής Ασίας (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), τίποτα δεν έδειχνε ότι θα γινόταν ό ίδιος ο ιδρυτής μιας τεράστιας αυτοκρατορίας.

Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, ήταν γιος του ηγεμόνα ενός μικρού από τα πολλά τιμουριδικά βασίλεια των χρόνων του.

Έμεινε ορφανός και συνεπώς ηγεμόνας ενός μικρού βασιλείου στα 11 του χρόνια. Ακολούθησαν τρεις τρομερές δεκαετίες στην διάρκεια των οποίων ο Μπαμπούρ άλλαξε τον χάρτη της Κεντρικής και της Νότιας Ασίας.

Ήταν μια σειρά πολέμων, κατακτήσεων και διαδοχικών βασιλείων από τα οποία ο ίδιος με τους στρατιώτες του μετεκινούνταν, συχνά εν μέσω φονικών μαχών, τρομερών κακουχιών και φυσικών αντιξοοτήτων.

Μόνον στα 43 του, το 1526, κατάφερε ο Μπαμπούρ επιτέλους να επιβληθεί στην βόρεια Ινδία και να θεμελιώσει την δυναστεία – θρύλο της Νότιας Ασίας.

Έτσι, ο Μπαμπούρ διαδοχικά χρημάτισε:

1494-1497: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα

1497-1498: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης

1498-1500: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα

1500-1501: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης

1504-1530: βασιλιάς της Καμπούλ

1511-1512: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης

1526-1530: αυτοκράτορας του Χιντουστάν (πρωτεύουσα: Άγκρα)

Οι μάχες του Πανιπάτ (1526), της Χάνουα (1527), και του Τσαντερί (1528) στερέωσαν την κυριαρχία του στην βόρεια Ινδία (Χιντουστάν).

Μέχρι τότε, αν και σουνίτης μουσουλμάνος, δεν δίστασε να συνεργαστεί με τους Κιζιλμπάσηδες (όταν ο Οθωμανός Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ προτίμησε να συνεργαστεί με τους Ουζμπέκους εχθρούς του), με τον Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ (βασ. 1501-1524), και στην συνέχεια (μετά το 1513) με τον Σελίμ Α’ (βασ. 1512-1520), ο οποίος νωρίς κατάλαβε ότι ο Μπαμπούρ θα μπορούσε να στήσει ό,τι χρειαζόταν η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: μια μεγάλη σουνιτική ισλαμική αυτοκρατορία από την άλλη, ανατολική, πλευρά των συνόρων της σιιτικής ισλαμικής ιρανικής αυτοκρατορίας των Σαφεβιδών.

Αυτό ήταν μεγάλος ρεαλισμός: το 1402 (ένα αιώνα νωρίτερα) ο Βαγιαζίτ Α’, πρόγονος του Σελίμ Α’, είχε συλληφθεί αιχμάλωτος από τον Ταμερλάνο (πρόγονο του Μπαμπούρ), ο οποίος είχε χύσει άφθονο οθωμανικό αίμα στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας.

Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν (όπως αποκαλούνταν οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι οι ίδιοι στα περσικά) κράτησαν μια ισορροπία στις σχέσεις τους ανάμεσα σε Σαφεβίδες και Οθωμανούς.

Πριν από 500 χρόνια, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ (1470-1520), ο Σάχης Ισμαήλ Α’ (1487-1524), και ο Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530) ήταν οι τρεις ισχυρώτεροι αυτοκράτορες του κόσμου.

Και ήταν, ασχέτως θρησκευτικών διαφορών, και οι τρεις τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.

Με περισσότερη κλίση στην θεολογία και στην στρατιωτική πειθαρχία ο πρώτος, με έντονη τάση στην ποίηση και την συγγραφή οι άλλοι δύο που επίσης διέπρεπαν και στον έκλυτο βίο – ο Ισμαήλ Α’ συνεχώς κι ο Μπαμπούρ περιστασιακά.

Ο Μπαμπούρ θυμίζει τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο: αλλού γεννήθηκε (Φεργάνα), αλλού πέθανε (Χιντουστάν), αλλού τάφηκε (Καμπούλ).

-------------------------------

Διαβάστε:

Bābor, Ẓahīr-al-dīn Moḥammad

(6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530) Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India

His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.

Bābor’s father, ʿOmar Šayḵ Mīrzā (d. 899/1494), ruled the kingdom of Farḡāna along the headwaters of the Syr Darya, but as one of four brothers, direct fifth-generation descendants from the great Tīmūr, he entertained larger ambitions. The lack of a succession law and the presence of many Timurid males perpetuated an atmosphere of constant intrigue, often erupting into open warfare, between the descendants who vied for mastery in Khorasan and Central Asia, but they finally lost their patrimony when they proved incapable of cooperating to defend it against a common enemy.

It was against that same enemy, namely, the Uzbeks under the brilliant Šaybānī Khan (d. 916/1510), that Bābor himself learned his trade as a military leader in a long series of losing encounters. Bābor’s mother, Qotlūk Negār Ḵanūm, was the daughter of Yūnos Khan of Tashkent and a direct descendant of Jengiz Khan. She and her mother, Aysān-Dawlat Bēgam, had great influence on Bābor during his early career. It was his grandmother, for instance, who taught Bābor many of his political and diplomatic skills (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 43), thus initiating the long series of contributions by strong and intelligent women in the history of the Mughal Empire.

Ο Μπαμπούρ (δεξιά) με τον γιο και διάδοχό του Χουμαγιούν

Bābor presumed that his descent from Tīmūr legitimized his claim to rule anywhere that Tīmūr had conquered, but like his father, the first prize he sought was Samarqand. He was plunged into the maelstrom of Timurid politics by his father’s death in Ramażān, 899/June, 1494, when he was only eleven. Somehow he managed to survive the turbulent years that followed. Wars with his kinsmen, with the Mughals under Tanbal who ousted him from Andijan, the capital city of Farḡāna, and especially with Šaybānī Khan Uzbek mostly went against him, but from the beginning he showed an ability to reach decisions quickly, to act firmly and to remain calm and collected in battle. He also tended to take people at their word and to view most situations optimistically rather than critically.

In Moḥarram, 910/June-July, 1504, at the age of twenty-one, Bābor, alone among the Timurids of his generation, opted to leave the Central Asian arena, in which he had lost everything, to seek a power base elsewhere, perhaps with the intention of returning to his homeland at a later date.

Accompanied by his younger brothers, Jahāngīr and Nāṣer, he set out for Khorasan, but changed his plans and seized the kingdom of Kabul instead.

In this campaign he began to think more seriously of his role as ruler of a state, shocking his troops by ordering plunderers beaten to death (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 197).

The mountain tribesmen in and around Farḡāna with whom Bābor had frequently found shelter had come to accept him as their legitimate king.

He had no such claims upon the loyalty of the Afghan tribes in Kabul, but he had learned much about human nature and the nomad mentality in his three prolonged periods of wandering among the shepherd tribes of Central Asia (during 903/1497-98, 907/1501-02, and 909/1503-04).

He crushed all military opposition, even reviving the old Mongol shock tactic of putting up towers of the heads of slain foes, but he also made strenuous efforts to be fair and just, admitting, for instance, that his early estimates of food production and hence the levy of tributary taxes were excessive (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 228).

At this point Bābor still saw Kabul as only a temporary base for re-entry to his ancestral domain, and he made several attempts to return in the period 912-18/1506-12. In 911/1505 his uncle Sultan Ḥosayn Mīrzā of Herat, the only remaining Timurid ruler besides Bābor, requested his aid against the Uzbeks—even though he himself had refused to aid Bābor on several previous occasions.

His uncle died before Bābor arrived in Herat, but Bābor remained there till he became convinced that his cousins were incapable of offering effective resistance to Šaybānī Khan’s Uzbeks.

While in Herat he sampled the sophistication of a brilliant court culture, acquiring a taste for wine, and also developing an appreciation for the refinements of urban culture, especially as exemplified in the literary works of Mīr ʿAlī-Šīr Navāʾī.

During his stay in Herat Bābor occupied Navāʾī’s former residence, prayed at Navāʾī’s tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet’s vast corpus of Torkī verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be “flat and poor” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 272).

Navāʾī’s pioneering literary work in Torkī, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Bābor’s own efforts to write in that medium.

In Rajab, 912/December, 1506, Bābor returned to Kabul in a terrible trek over snow-choked passes, during which several of his men lost hands or feet through frostbite. The event has been vividly described in his diary (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 307-11). As he had foreseen, the Uzbeks easily took Herat in the following summer’s campaign, and Bābor indulged in one of his rare slips from objectivity when he recorded the campaign in his diary with some unfair vilification of Šaybānī Khan, his long-standing nemesis (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 328-29).

Bābor next consolidated his base in Kabul, and added to it Qandahār. He dramatically put down a revolt by defeating, one by one in personal combat, five of the ringleaders—an event which his admiring young cousin Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥaydar Doḡlat believed to be his greatest feat of arms (Tārīḵ-erašīdī, tr., p. 204).

Here again it seems that Bābor acted impetuously, but saved himself by his courage and strength; and such legend-making deeds solidified his charismatic hold on the men whom he had to lead in battle. Uncharacteristically, Bābor withdrew from Qandahār and Kabul at the rumor that Šaybānī Khan was coming.

It was apparently the only time in his life when he lost confidence in himself. In fact, the Uzbek leader was defeated and killed by Shah Esmāʿīl Ṣafawī in 916/1510, and this opened the way for Bābor’s last bid for a throne in Samarqand.

From Rajab, 917 to Ṣafar, 918/October, 1511 to May, 1512, he held the city for the third time, but as a client of Shah Esmāʿīl, a condition that required him to make an outward profession of the Shiʿite faith and to adopt the Turkman costume of the Safavid troops.

Bābor’s kinsmen and erstwhile subjects did not concur with his doctrinal realignment, however much it had been dictated by political circumstances. Moḥammad-Ḥaydar, a young man indebted to Bābor for both refuge and support, exulted at the Uzbek defeat of Bābor, thus demonstrating how unusual in that time and place were Bābor’s breadth of vision and tolerance, qualities that became crucial to his later success in India. Breaking away from his Safavid allies, Bābor dallied in the Qunduz area, but he must have sensed that his chance to regain Samarqand was irretrievably lost.

It was only at this stage that he began to think of India as a serious goal, though after the conquest he wrote that his desire for Hindustan had been constant from 910/1504 (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 478). With four raids beginning in 926/1519, he probed the Indian scene and discovered that dissension and mismanagement were rife in the Lodi Sultanate. In the winter of 932/1525-26 he brought all his experience to bear on the great enterprise of the conquest of India. With the proverb “Ten friends are better than nine” in mind, he waited for all his allies before pressing his attack on Lahore (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 433).

His great skills at organization enabled him to move his 12,000 troops from 16 to 22 miles a day once he had crossed the Indus, and with brilliant leadership he defeated three much larger forces in the breathtaking campaigns that made him master of North India. First he maneuvered Sultan Ebrāhīm Lōdī into attacking his prepared position at the village of Panipat north of Delhi on 8 Rajab 932/20 April 1526. Although the Indian forces (he estimated them at 100,000; Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 480) heavily outnumbered Bābor’s small army, they fought as a relatively inflexible and undisciplined mass and quickly disintegrated.

Bābor considered Ebrāhīm to be an incompetent general, unworthy of comparison with the Uzbek khans, and a petty king, driven only by greed to pile up his treasure while leaving his army untrained and his great nobles disaffected (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 470). Yet Bābor ordered a tomb to be built for him.

He then swiftly occupied Delhi and Agra, first visiting the tombs of famous Sufi saints and previous Turkish kings, and characteristically laying out a garden.

The garden provided him with such satisfaction that he later wrote: “to have grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindustan filled my measure of content” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 686).

His new kingdom was a different story. Bābor first had to solve the problem of disaffection among his troops.

Like Alexander’s army, they felt that they were a long way from home in a strange and unpleasant land.

Bābor had planned the conquest intending to make India the base of his empire since Kabul’s resources proved too limited to support his nobles and troops.

He himself never returned to live in Kabul.

But, since he had permitted his troops to think that this was simply another raid for wealth and booty, he had to persuade them otherwise, which was no easy chore (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 522-35).

The infant Mughal state also had to fight for its life against a formidable confederation of the Rajput chiefs led by Mahārānā Sangā of Mewar.

After a dramatic episode in which Bābor publicly foreswore alcohol (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 551-56), Bābor defeated the Rajputs at Khanwah on 13 Jomādā I 933/17 March 1527 with virtually the same tactics he had used at Panipat, but in this case the battle was far more closely contested.

Bābor next campaigned down the Ganges River to Bengal against the Afghan lords, many of whom had refused to support Ebrāhīm Lōdī but also had no desire to surrender their autonomy to Bābor.

Even while rival powers threatened him on all sides—Rajputs and Afghans in India, Uzbeks at his rear in Kabul—Bābor’s mind was turned to consolidation and government.

He employed hundreds of stone masons to build up his new capital cities, while winning over much of the Indian nobility with his fair and conciliatory policies.

He was anxiously grooming his sons to succeed him, not without some clashes of personality, when his eldest son Homāyūn (b. 913/1506) fell seriously ill in 937/1530.

Another young son had already died in the unaccustomed Indian climate, and at this family crisis his daughter Golbadan wrote that Bābor offered his own life in place of his son’s, walking seven times around the sickbed to confirm the vow (Bābor-nāma, translator’s note, pp. 701-2).

Bābor did not leave Agra again, and died there later that year on 6 Jomādā I 937/26 December 1530.

Bābor’s diary, which has become one of the classic autobiographies of world literature, would be a major literary achievement even if the life it illuminates were not so remarkable. He wrote not only the Bābor-nāma but works on Sufism, law and prosody as well as a fine collection of poems in Čaḡatay Torkī. In all, he produced the most significant body of literature in that language after Navāʾī, and every piece reveals a clear, cultivated intelligence as well as an enormous breadth of interests.

His Dīvān includes a score or more of poems in Persian, and with the long connection between the Mughals and the Safavid court begun by Bābor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Bābor-nāma translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty’s founder.

Bābor did not introduce artillery into India—the Portuguese had done that—and he himself noted that the Bengal armies had gunners (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 667-74). But his use of new technology was characteristic of his enquiring mind and enthusiasm for improvement. His Ottoman experts had only two cannons at Panipat, and Bābor personally witnessed the casting of another, probably the first to be cast in India, by Ostād ʿAlīqolī on 22 October 1526 (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 536-37).

The piece did not become ready for test firing till 10 February 1527 when it shot stones about 1,600 yards, and during the subsequent campaigns against the Afghans down the Ganges, Bābor specifically mentions Ostād ʿAlīqolī getting off eight shots on the first day of the battle and sixteen on the next (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 599). Quite obviously then it was not some technical superiority in weaponry, but Bābor’s genius in using the discipline and mobility which he had created in his troops that won the crucial battles for him in India.

Bābor, however, was generally interested in improving technology, not only for warfare but also for agriculture. He tried to introduce new crops to the Indian terrain and to spread the use of improved water-lifting devices for irrigation (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 531). His interest in improvement and change was facilitated by his generous nature. Though he had faults, they were outweighed by his attractive personality, cheerful in the direst adversity, and faithful to his friends.

The loyalties he inspired enabled the Mughal Empire in India to survive his own early death and the fifteen-year exile of his son and successor, Homāyūn. The liberal traditions of the Mughal dynasty were Bābor’s enduring legacy to his country by conquest.

Τις βιβλιογαφικές παραπομπές του κειμένου θα βρείτε εδώ:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din

==============================

Επιπλέον:

Μπαμπούρ και Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Империя_Великих_Моголов

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур

Οικογενειακό υπόβαθρο:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Shaikh_Mirza_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutlugh_Nigar_Khanum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sa%27id_Mirza

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate

Τοπογραφικά για την καταγωγή του Μπαμπούρ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana_Valley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhsikath

Ιστορικό υπόβαθρο:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khanid_Khanate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Ilkhanate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalairid_Sultanate

-----------------

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/14831530

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/babur.docx

https://vk.com/doc429864789_622328060

https://www.docdroid.net/JWgxJAd/mpampour-1483-1530-stratilatis-filosofos-poiitis-istorikos-autokratoras-apoghonos-toy-tamerlanoy-docx

Mikhail Kutuzov in 1812, Sergei Shoigu in 2024, and Aleksey Kivshenko's Historical Painting of the Military Council in Fili, a suburb of Moscow

Many Russians were astounded yesterday morning, when reading in the news that during searches conducted in the residences of the former Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Dmitry Bulgakov, who was arrested on charges of corruption on 26th of July, a small number of very bizarre frames and paintings were found.

The historically true: Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies Mikhail Kutuzov at 'the Council in Fili', 1812

The mystically allegorical: Sergei Shoigu, former Minister of Defense of Russia and currently Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation as an atemporal replica of General Kutuzov

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Brief description and possible parallels

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

VI. Appendices

Содержание

I. Введение

II. Краткое описание и возможные параллели

III. Длительное правление Шойгу намного превзошло президентство президента Путина

IV. Длительное «правление» сопровождается потворством коррупции и расточительству

V. Попытка инкриминировать или мистическая аллегория?

VI. Приложения

I. Introduction

The most mysterious of those paintings is based on a historical painting, which was created by the famous 19th c. Russian painter Aleksey Kivshenko (1851-1895) in 1879, and known as 'the Council in Fili'. This great masterpiece of Modern Russian Art represents the artist's impression of a historical event, namely a military council that took place (1812) in a suburb of Moscow, prior to Napoleon's temporary occupation of the Russian city (14 September – 19 October 1812). The extraordinary summit occurred immediately after the Battle of Borodino, which was a Pyrrhic victory for the French army.

Created 67 years after the event, the painting had an enormous success; Kivshenko, who was already known for his numerous, fascinating works and representations of significant historical events of the Russian past, had to repeat the painting twice, which clearly means that his artwork generated an overwhelming and exceptional enthusiasm. This situation was basically due to the primordial importance of the historical event.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, Infantry General Mikhail Golenishchev-Kutuzov had then to take a most critical decision: the orderly retreat of the Russian army from Moscow. The meeting (13 September 1812), which is known through several historical sources, started with the dilemma formulated by General Leonty Bennigsen, namely to give battle against the French army in an unfavorable position or to surrender. Kutuzov sided finally with the minority opinion and took the decision to abandon Moscow, which was finally proven correct, because Napoleon could not hold his position for long.

Then, how should we today, 212 years after the event and 145 years after the painting, interpret a bizarre painting in which a group of top Russian statesmen and military desire to be and are effectively depicted as exchanging roles with the historical personalities who saved the Russian Empire before two centuries?

In the painting found in Bulgakov's house, Sergei Shoigu, the former Minister of Defense of Russia, and now Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is depicted as the Russian commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Shoigu's former deputy Ruslan Tsalikov plays General Mikhail Barclay de Tolly. The painting also features former deputy defense ministers Timur Ivanov, Tatyana Shevtsova and other officials.

Several other bizarre paintings were found in the arrested statesman's house, but the atemporal replica of the said historical painting raises more questions, due to the potential symbolisms or parallels that can be drawn. If the potentially allegorical but effectively incomprehensible artwork was found in 2005 or in 2012, no one would pay much attention, and the eventually innocuous representation would be taken as the result of a certainly bold, yet counterproductive, imagination of a group of top level Russian officials, eventually characterized by their narcissism.

It is clear that many Russians are -truly speaking- under terrible shock because of the revelations, and their comments about this, most weird, story are very negative. With no doubt, Kutuzov is almost a holy person for the Russians because, although he did not mark a real victory over Napoleon, he forced him to advance following Pyrrhic victories during a prolonged war of attrition which led finally to the collapse of the French Army. How a defeat at the battlefield can possibly be transformed into a victory in the long perspective is a most fatalistic turn of events for historians to possibly fathom. But it was known since the time of the Battle of Kadesh (May 1274 BCE) between the Hittite Emperor Muwatalli II and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III.

On the other hand, many of the persons depicted on the bizarre paintings have recently lost their positions or even been arrested. Bulgakov was arrested only 4-5 days ago, following allegations of bribery, but he is only the last of several similar cases.

II. Brief description and existing parallels

As the mystery of these eventually absurd but potentially meaningful pictures is beyond imagination, several friends contacted me to make some inquiries. They asked me what this meant in reality and whether this initiatory and hypothetically purposeful painting denoted a hidden desire of Shoigu to "take Putin's place".

What follows here includes parts of my responses; it is actually difficult to answer such a question because there are many parameters involved in this regard; but in general, I never thought that Sergei Shoigu would be interested in taking Putin's place. In addition, the painting does not hint at anything of the sort. Kutuzov did not imagine, even for a second, not to be loyal to the Russian czars whom he served.

First and foremost, it is essential for any non-Russian to comprehend that Russians have no conventional thought. Historically, it is very common in Russia to evaluate one man as higher and as more important than the czar, the secretary general or the president.

If one goes to Russia and speaks with the average people, one will understand that what they narrate as «History of Russia» is not what is taught in the West about this topic. By this, I don't mean discrepancies at the level of historical facts and narratives, but a totally distinct perspective of the time and a markedly different evaluation of the human deeds.

There are effectively some parallels between Kutuzov (1745-1813) and Shoigu (born in 1955).

Kutuzov served (as military officer and diplomat) three czars (Catherine II, Paul I, and Alexander I).

And Shoigu was a minister under four presidents (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev). 

Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov-Smolensky (Михаил Илларионович Голенищев-Кутузов-Смоленский) belonged to an ancient noble family of German-Prussian extraction. The Golenishchev-Kutuzov branch consisted of the descendants of Gabriel, who left Prussia (1252-1263) and became the founder of the Kutuzovs.

Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu (Сергей Кужугетович Шойгу) belonged to a Turkic Tuvan family, as his father (Kuzhuget Shoigu, 1921-2010) was first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Tuvan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Tuvan ASSR. Shoigu's mother (Alexandra Yakovlevna Shoigu, 1924–2011) was a Ukrainian-born Russian, who was detained by the German occupation forces during World War II and had a traumatic experience from this event.

en.wikipedia.org

Kuzhuget Shoigu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tuvans - Wikipedia

Mikhail Kutuzov was a multilingual, as he was fluent in Russian, German, French and English; on later occasions he also studied Ottoman Turkish, Polish, and Swedish.

Sergei Shoigu is also a multilingual, who speaks Tuvan, Russian, and another seven languages including Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, English, etc.

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

All the people know that Vladimir Putin has been president since the year 2000 (with an interval of four years (2008-2012), when he served as prime minister; however, few people remember today that Shoigu was a minister since 1991. Only last May, he was removed from the position of Minister of Defense and promoted/rewarded as «Secretary of the Security Council of Russia».

This means that Shoigu was a minister for 33 years! When the positions are so important, a person creates his own small state within the state; this is normal and inevitable.

As a matter of fact, Yeltsin appointed Shoigu as Minister of Emergency Situations in April 1991. All the same, at the time, Yeltsin was only the «President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic», not the «President of the Russian Federation». This means that Yeltsin was under Gorbachev who was then the «President of the Soviet Union». In other words, Shoigu was at the very beginning a minister of USSR, not Russia! He was appointed before the August 1991 coup attempt, which failed and led to the rise of Yeltsin, resignation of Gorbachev, and demise of the USSR. 

en.wikipedia.org

Sergei Shoigu - Wikipedia

And what was Vladimir Putin at the time?

In June 1991, in (then) Leningrad, he was appointed as head of the Committee for External Relations of the Mayor's Office. So, you cannot compare. 

en.wikipedia.org

Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia

In fact, better than any other Russian, Sergei Shoigu epitomizes the transition from the USSR to today's Russia. Consequently, although he was not a career military man but an apparatchik and part of the Soviet nomenklatura, he had progressively become a major pole of power. And because of his success, which guaranteed Putin’s success, it was surely unthinkable for anyone to remove him. 

However, the uneasiness of the Russians with the ongoing fake war in Ukraine and the disclosure of several financial scandals and cases of bribery in the Russian army and the Ministry of Defense generated another environment.

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

Last April, the Russian deputy defense minister Timur Ivanov was arrested. 

The Moscow Times

Arrested Russian Deputy Defense Minister Accused of Accepting $12 Mln Bribe, Lawyer Says - The Moscow Times

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov has been accused of accepting a bribe “in the form of services” valued at more than 1 billion r

This occurred only little time after Putin’s re-election. 

One month after the arrest, Sergei Shoigu was removed and replaced by Andrey Belousov, who is provenly a very good economist, a well-experienced statesman, and a former First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia.

en.wikipedia.org

Andrey Belousov - Wikipedia

At the time, many people said that Putin placed an economist at the top of the Ministry of Defense, because he wanted to make a more effective programming of the military industrial production in view of the continuation of the war in Ukraine. It may be.

But personally, I was absolutely convinced that the reason for this appointment was the desire to effectuate an extensive control of earlier business transactions, carry out a thorough examination of past deals, identify practices of corruption, and uncover all cases of bribery that the «Shoigu establishment» allowed or tolerated or supported or covered deliberately. In the face of the collateral damages caused by the Russian military operations in Ukraine, it would be unacceptable that top officials accumulated illegal benefits. 

Almost four months after the aforementioned case of Timur Ivanov, the arrest of Bulgakov rang the bell for the part of the Russian establishment that was exposed to such inexcusable weaknesses at wartime and for ministers who indulged themselves in corruption and extravagance.

en.wikipedia.org

Dmitry Bulgakov - Wikipedia

and

The Moscow Times

Former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Arrested on Corruption Charges - The Moscow Times

Former Deputy Defense Minister Dmitry Bulgakov has been arrested on corruption charges, Russian law enforcement authorities announced on Fri

And with the frames and paintings found in his house yesterday, we learned that Bulgakov viewed Shoigu as Kutuzov!

Of course, Kutuzov is more important than Alexander I for the Russians. Czar Alexander I acknowledged personally that Russia owed the final victory to Kutuzov. This means that, with all similarities taken together as coincidental (!!), Bulgakov and his associates, friends and subordinates viewed Shoigu like a 'god'. Several Russian friends interpret this approach as absolutely true; they even consider it as the result of extreme narcissism of all persons involved. 

What follows is a selection of comments that I found in Russian social media (I translated them into English):

1. «This is blasphemy against the memory and exploits of our ancestors»!

2. «They came up with this a long time ago and are successfully stealing it»

3. «A finished script for a film. How far human stupidity and impudence go»!

4. «They are very far from Kutuzov and others; but there is plenty of time for self-admiration»

5. «A gang of thieves assembled»

6. «Where is Timur Ivanov»?

From the following web pages:

А такие портреты нашли дома у задержанного экс-замминистра обороны Дмитрия Булгакова во время обысков.

and

Минутка статистики по одному из шедевров золотой коллекции задержанного замминистра обороны Булгакова.

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

As a matter of fact, it would not make sense for Shoigu and his close associates to envision that he would take Putin’s place (let alone to conspire with this target in mind); in addition, the picture says the opposite. Kutuzov was already more important than the czar.

All the same, there is another dimension too; these pictures may have been placed in Bulgakov's home after his arrest in order to inculpate him, Shoigu and others in some way. This would however seem rather to be a puerile attempt, because there can be far worse and far more effective ways to inculpate someone than the revelation of the narcissistic visions and the grandiose imaginations of a group of corrupt and not corrupt officials.

If there is a symbolism, it means that the true ruler is («was»?) Shoigu; but even in this case, it is a very unusual type of praising and self-praising for some top officials. In real terms of boastfulness, such an atemporal replica of Aleksey Kivshenko's legendary painting adds nothing on the table.

I believe that, if some people want truly to unveil a real and serious purpose in this painting, they must rather view it as a mystical allegory – not a mere symbolism. In this case, the otherwise bizarre artwork becomes meaningful.

What are the major points of an allegorical mysticism in this regard?

I will brief enumerate a few.

1- Reminiscent of the French invasion of the Russian Empire, the present war in Ukraine reveals that the Russian Federation is under attack.

It matters little whether some Western idiots believe that we have to deal with a Russian invasion of Ukraine; there was never such an event, because Ukraine is an integral part of Russian territory that criminal Anglo-Saxon gangsters brutally and illegally detached from Russia at the time of the Soviet collapse.

Yuval Harari was very correct when saying that "Gorbachev saved us from nuclear war"; but his truth ends there. What truly happened in 1989 is not the continuation of a development that started in 1985. In fact, Gorbachev was openly threatened by George Herbert Bush with imminent nuclear attack if he did not rapidly dissolve the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The truth was enveloped in thousands of lies, endless smiles, and hypocritical hand shakings, because this was beneficial for both, the US and the Soviet Union/Russia. I cannot further expand now on this topic, because I would digress.

So, as it happened in the 1810s and the 1940s, Russia has been under attack since the late 1980s.

2- Similarly with Kutuzov's ingenious strategy and tactics, the Russian state withdrew from lands for quite some time now.

The formation of the Ukrainian pseudo-nation after 1991 was an entirely orchestrated fabrication, involving the creation of a bogus-idiom named 'Ukrainian language', the pseudo-translation of thousands of toponyms and personal names into their hypothetically Ukrainian forms, the compilation of a distorted 'History of Ukraine', the diffusion of heinous anti-Russian racism, and the subtle disfigurement of the Orthodox faith of the local population into a charlatanesque form of Anti-Christian Catholicism.

3- Similarly with what happened during the French Invasion of the Russian Empire, the military proved to be the backbone of the Russian nation.

In this regard, the lengthy tenure of Sergei Shoigu reflects perfectly well the long military career of Mikhail Kutuzov.

4- The partly withdrawal from the Western Russian lands, as implemented by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, can be mirrored in Moscow's agreement for a separate, 'independent' Ukrainian state. The concession made is very similar to the decision taken at the Military Council in Fili.

5- Sergei Shoigu's contribution to the final victory may be analogous to Kutuzov's strategy which brought the final victory after many rather insignificant defeats.

6- Last but foremost, the final defeat of Napoleon in Russia ended with the subsequent demise of his regime; the allegory is very clear as regards the combined Anglo-Saxon world that has attacked USSR-Russia since 1945 – or if you prefer 1985.

---------------------------

Download the article in PDF:

Patreon

Mikhail Kutuzov in 1812, Sergei Shoigu in 2024, and Aleksey Kivshenko's Historical Painting of the Military Council in Fili, a suburb of Mos

Get more from Megalommatis on Patreon