Россия, Украина и мир-IV: Континентальные империи и морские державы - фальшивые друзья и
единственный враг россиян
Or
how the Romanov collapsed only to the benefit of Serbs' and Greeks' Evil Elites
Или как Романовы рухнули только в пользу злых элит сербов
и греков
Contents
I. Prof. Huntington's
entirely misunderstood Book
II. The Serbian
Delusion of Russians
III. The Clash of
Civilization? A Mirage come True
IV. Spirituality &
Universalism: Divine Earth vs. Unholy Sea
V. Civilized
Continental Empires vs. Barbarian Sea Powers
VI. Continental
Empires, Sea Powers, and Divisive Traps
VII. The 'Greek
Orthodox' Delusion of Russians
Содержание
I. Совершенно
неправильно понятая книга профессора Хантингтона
II. Сербское
заблуждение русских
III.
Столкновение цивилизаций? Сбывшийся мираж
IV. Духовность и
универсализм: Божественная Земля против Нечестивого Моря
V.
Цивилизованные континентальные империи против варварских морских держав
VI.
Континентальные империи, морские державы и разделительные ловушки
VII. 'Греческое православное' заблуждение русских
Since the conflict in
Ukraine affects the entire world, it is essential at this point for me to shift
the focus and shed light on two issues that should attract the attention of the
Russian leadership, because these thorny matters can turn out to be disastrous
traps. When a major readjustment of the world's strategic balance takes place,
it is essential for a rising alliance of nations not to fall into colonial
traps set before 200 years in order to ensure continuity of the Western world's
prevalence.
The worst trap that can
be set to the rising challengers of the international status quo is the
deceitful appearance of a fake friend, i.e. a colonially fabricated state,
which appears to be friendly, familiar or able to become a trusted partner of
the emerging competitor. But in reality, due to the fact that this state is
fully instrumentalized, controlled and maneuvered by the colonial powers, it
inevitably functions as a real energy-consumer, mindblower or even ultimate destroyer
of the aspiring super-power.
In fact, for the
faithless crooks, who rule the colonial countries of the West, it is easy to
use religion to make a purposefully fabricated and duly instrumentalized state simulate
the 'friendly' force and, in the process, generate calamitous engagements for
the emerging power.
I. Prof.
Huntington's entirely misunderstood Book
Prof. Huntington's
overwhelmingly notorious and extremely fallacious book on the purported Clash
of Civilizations (1996) was -thank God- quite early known to me; the same is valid
for the evil intents and purposes that are hidden behind it. One has to recall however
that the book had become first famous as a lecture in 1992 and as an article in
1993.
I quite often remember
the wonderful, long discussions that I entertained about it in Istanbul
(between 1993 and 1997) with my excellent -alas, deceased- Turkish friends,
namely the famous film director Halit Refig (Halit Refiğ; 1934-2009) and the
leading Kemalist intellectual and economist Prof. Erol Manisali (Erol Manisalı;
1940-2022).
Although they were
fully aware of the dangers that such a nefarious book entailed for Turkey (and
for many other countries, by the way), I always believed that my friends
underestimated its impact, because they did not read the deceitfully written
book in the proper manner. The same conclusion is also valid for Francis
Fukuyama's apparently nonsensical but definitely revelatory book about the End
of History (1992). Most of the people worldwide have misunderstood these two
books, which have functioned like the pillars Boaz (בֹּעַז) and Jachin
(יָכִין),
ushering us into the era of the Mankind extermination.
Still today, many
Russians and many other countries' natives fail to realize how these two books,
as vicious tools in the hands of immoral and heinous rascals, shape and will
shape the world, until the moment someone, who achieved to access their true,
mystically embedded and secretively encrypted meaning, manages finally to fully
outmaneuver them. I am therefore irrevocably convinced that, for this to be
done, one needs to read these two blasphemous books in reverse.
Look now at the unprecedented
extent of the feat: although Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (1989) against
Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses (1988), a book that did not herald the
eradication of Islam and the extermination of Mankind, the supreme guide (رهبر معظم ایران /rahbar-e
moazam-e Iran) of the unfortunate nation (and his successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)
failed to issue two new fatwas for the above mentioned books, which were
written by far more ulcerous enemies of the Islamic religion and the Muslim
nation.
Nonetheless, the same deep
regret and absolutely deprecatory evaluation should be expressed as regards
today's Sunni muftis, imams and theologians, who fail to assess the true nature
of the world in which they have been hitherto allowed to live. All these fools,
instead of making sense of the terribly disastrous plots that have been mounted
against all Muslim nations, seem to be happy enough to perpetually live in the
rhythm of the famous song 'Let's forget about tomorrow' (initially sung as
'Forget domani' by Katyna Ranieri in the 1964 film The Yellow Rolls-Royce),
hypnotizing their misfortunate followers, while also incapacitating all the
Muslim states.
Where does Russia stand
in this regard?
As a matter of fact,
the two ominous books contain approaches and considerations, world views and
conclusions that do not bode well for the Russian Federation, the Russians, and
Orthodox Christianity. Notions of all these elements we are able to already detect
in the ongoing conflict that the Russian administration correctly and
accurately named 'Special Operation' (специальная военная операция), and not
'war'.
But do they understand
that only the outcome of a conflict is the kaleidoscope of all intents and
purposes? As I have never discussed with any of them personally, I don't
venture to respond; however, it is true that when the magistrates and the
potentates of a country fail to accurately evaluate the numerous dimensions of
a conflict that their enemies invent or ponder over, they sooner or later end
up with a defeat. The ensuing debacle can at times be of colossal proportions
like the fall of the Romanov dynasty (1917), which was undeniably the top
achievement of Russia's best friends (namely England and France) during WW I.
For the time being and
on the basis of his recent articles and interviews, I have the feeling that
Dmitri Medvedev has a very correct and very accurate perception of the
Ukrainian conflict's multilayered dimensions; but did he read the
aforementioned impious books in reverse? This is crucially essential to ask
now, because the Russian Federation faces indeed an existential threat at a
moment the Russian leadership has not yet decided to threaten the very existence
of Russia's enemies. This situation -in and by itself- creates already a
problem.
Threats are not always
visible; sometimes, invisible threats emanate from a state's ostensible
friends. This is so, because sea powers (the likes of England, France and the
US), being indisputably inferior, can never win over continental empires in a
true and honest military confrontation. That is why they customarily resort to
cheating; they thus undertake all types of ruse, deceit, and plot. Their
external relations and international involvement constantly and systematically
require an outstanding array of theatrical practices.
Their secret masters have
actually trained, educated and guided the academic, intellectual, political,
economic, and military leadership of all those states to act accordingly.
Unfortunately, those who fail to read texts in reverse cannot possibly
understand, being thus predestined to inevitably lose and disappear. The
epitome of the colonial decision-making, practice, policy, diplomacy and
intrusion is the maxim 'all the world's a stage' (from William Shakespeare's 'As
You Like It': Act II Scene VII Line 139). General introductory reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halit_Refi%C4%9F
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erol_Manisal%C4%B1
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erol_Manisal%C4%B1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaz_and_Jachin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses_controversy#Fatwa_by_Ayatollah_Khomeini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forget_Domani
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_conducting_a_special_military_operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_world%27s_a_stage
II.
The Serbian Delusion of Russians
Nicholas II failed to
save his throne and prolong his dynasty, because he naively accepted the
external appearance of certain situations and he failed to unveil the trap set
by the scheming Western European powers, i.e. the Serb-Russian alliance or, if
you want, the Alliance of Orthodox Nations. To defend his fake friend, namely the
French puppet named 'King of Serbs', the last Romanov terminated his
illustrious dynasty. This does not mean that in 1914 the King of Serbia (Peter
I of Serbia/ Пётр I Карагеоргиевич; 1844-1921) said lies to the Russian
ambassador, Baron Nicholas Genrikhovich Hartwig (Nikolaus von Hartwig/Николай Генрихович
Гартвиг; 1857–1914: assassinated by means of magical invocation on the 10th July,
i.e. 12 days after the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo). No!
Peter I of Serbia did not pretend to be a friend of Russia, while being an
enemy.
At the time, the King
of Serbia was sincerely a friend of the Russian monarchy – as a person with
feelings, thoughts, opinions and considerations; but he could not see, feel or
detect how he functioned, placed on the European chessboard by his 'gods',
namely all the various French statesmen, politicians, diplomats, military
officers, agents, 'advisors', academics, intellectuals and businessmen who had
created Serbia in the first place (from 1804 until the Ottoman recognition of
the Kingdom of Serbia: de facto in 1867, de jure in 1878, and involving diplomatic
relations with the Ottoman Empire were established in 1886). {I don't mention
herewith the short-lived Kingdom of Serbia (1718–1739), because it was an
Austrian-Hungarian fabrication.} Since Day 1, the entire Serb military, political,
economic, and academic-intellectual leadership followed the path of their
predecessors, i.e. the early 19th c. rebels who were duly utilized by France as
expendable material against the Ottoman Empire; in fact, it was sort of 'Arab
Spring operation' of those days. Thus, the entire establishment of Serbia
functioned inevitably as a trap, first for the Serbs themselves and
subsequently for the Russians.
It was therefore
inevitable that the Serbian royal and political class foolishly believed the
pro-Serbian feelings of the French criminals. However, the undeniable fact is
that, exposed to many great powers, the Serbians could never function properly
as a tiny, independent nation around Belgrade. The colonial trap was later
strengthened with the formation of the Pan-Slavic movement, notably after the
Prague Slavic Congress was first held in 1848.
Things turned worse,
because various local stooges of high rank (generals, ministers and academics)
were deceitfully flattered with their calamitous initiation in the filthy rites
of French and English Freemasonry (and the ensuing financial benefits), and
they therefore willingly worked for the interests of their masters, i.e. the
French and the English colonial gangs, without understanding or imagining the
extent to which they contributed to the engulfment of their country. They helped
further diffuse the unnecessary, divisive and catastrophic Anti-German
Pan-Slavic delusion either in Russia or in Serbia.
At the end of the whole
process, Nicholas II failed to detect the masterfully prepared Serbian trap
that the French had long prepared against their ally whom they so much loathed.
How could it happen otherwise? So many of the last czar's prime ministers,
ministers and generals were Freemasons and members of French Freemasonic lodges
that they totally obscured Nikolai II Alexandrovich's sight and vision; their
endless, unreserved and sophisticated lies, plots, fake promises, dissimulated
proclivities, and insidious activities helped only fool the Russian monarch.
When it comes to the
creation of states in Europe, what matters most is the location that these
fabrications have on the European chessboard. The 'gods' (or creators) of these
fake states know how to play the game of non-reversing mirrors very well, when
creating these commodities. This means that they know the correct position
where they have to locate their tools, which are named 'states'; this has
nothing to do with 'historical nations'. Why? Because the criminal scoundrels
that govern the sea powers do not want to either support or revive historically
known ethnic nations; they only fabricate civic nations to which they merely
provide the fake story, i.e. the absolutely false and ludicrous narrative that
their stooges locally teach as the supposed 'history of the glorious
ancestors'.
So, we can conclude
that the French produced (or literally 'gave birth to') Serbia at a spot where
it could never function as a proper ally of Russia. Why this is so we can
easily assess! By establishing an alliance with the microscopic (or rather
nanoscopic) 'nation' of Serbia, Imperial Russia would be forced to occasionally
clash with other major continental empires, notably Austria-Hungary and the
Ottoman Caliphate (and later Imperial Germany), which was absurd for Russia,
disastrous for Christian Orthodoxy, and calamitous for all the nations that
lived in peace in the wider region.
This conclusion can be
thoroughly corroborated following the consultation of the proper maps. Compare
the territorial increase of Serbia from 1912 to 1918 and the territorial loss
of Russia during the same period! Serbia's population increased from 2.9
million to 4.5 million in 1914 and to 12 million in 1918; the tiny Danube
kingdom with an area smaller than 35000 km2 in 1912 became a sizeable state
with an area ca. 250000 km2, i.e. slightly less than that of Italy, a major
European power! Contrarily, Russia lost vast territories with the Treaty of
Brest Litovsk (3 March 1918; Брестский мирный договор). This disaster occurred only
due to the trap set by France and England to the Russian czars; the trap's name
was 'Serbia'; Pan-Slavism was merely the Marketing campaign of the trap.
How should we therefore
read books and texts in reverse, timely spotting traps and adequately outplotting
the degenerate sea powers?
General introductory
reading:
https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/191213-balkan-crisis-prelude-world-war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_I_of_Serbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Hartwig
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Serbian_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara%C4%91or%C4%91e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Serbian_Uprising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Serbian_Uprising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Serbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Serbia#Principality/Kingdom_of_Serbia_(1878%E2%80%931918)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Serbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Slavic_Congress,_1848
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_Three_Emperors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty
(totally naïve
approaches:)
https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/1288-carrot-and-stick-a-prospective-view-on-russian-strategy-in-serbia.html
https://www.czipm.org/starisajt/mrk02.html
III.
The Clash of Civilization? A Mirage come True
Prof. Huntington's story
is not a historical book at all; every simple reader can understand this,
because it is well known that, throughout 5-6 millennia of Human History, there
has never been a 'clash of civilizations'. On the 17th September 2005, writing
for the portal Buzzle, I totally deplored the nonsensical effort of Turkey and
Spain to establish a ridiculous organization in hypothetical, yet idiotic,
opposition to the said book. The title was "The Clash and the Alliance of
Civilizations: too much ado for nothing!"; the article has been widely
republished, commented, quoted, referred to, and … misunderstood. You can find
this article here:
https://www.academia.edu/43000376/The_Clash_and_the_Alliance_of_Civilizations_too_much_ado_for_nothing_2005
The rather brief,
2300-word article starts from a very simple, undeniably correct, point that the
quasi-totality of the readers of Huntington's story were fooled enough not to take
into consideration. However, I must admit that, quite deceptively, the trap was
set beforehand, thanks to the book's title itself! I therefore found it
compulsory to start my article from the primordial point and to refute the
falsehood, which is included in the Prof. Huntington's devilishly misleading
title.
My article's first unit
focused on «‘Clash of Civilizations’: an irrelevant and a-historical concept.».
The article's three
other units were the following:
«The Divide 'East vs.
West' is an Orientalist, Colonial Aberration»
«Impossibility of Clash
of Civilizations in Our Era»
«There can never be an
'Alliance of Civilizations'!»
My approach was quite
simple; you can never oppose something that does not exist. This is correct at
all times, except you are as stupid and as the pathetic as Erdogan, who -due to
his nauseating ignorance, detrimental lack of education, and sly yet mean
character- fell in the trap and, quite ludicrously, added fuel to the fire –
only to the detriment of his own country.
Here you have comments
about my article, and my denunciation of some of them:
https://www.setav.org/en/a-collective-initiative-for-universal-peace/
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/38512682/a-collective-initiative-for-universal-peace-seta
Quotation from an
article of mine in which I denounced Samuel Huntington's Nonsensical Theory on
the 'Clash of Civilizations'
https://www.academia.edu/51065896/Quotation_from_an_article_of_mine_in_whi
Quotation from an
article of mine in which I deplored Erdogan's Ludicrous Political Theater named
'Alliance of Civilizations'
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/quotation_f
Quotation by a leading
Syrian Jihadist (2007): Denunciation of Pan-Arabism and Islamism as End Times’
Colonial Tools
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/quotation-by-a-leading-syrian-jihadist-2007-denunciation-of-panarabism-and-islamism-as-end-times-colonial-tools
Why do I claim that
there have never been any clashes of civilization anytime, anywhere, and under
any circumstances whatsoever?
Civilization is
commonly defined as a high "stage of human social and cultural development
and organization" or "any complex society characterized by the
development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic
systems of communication beyond natural spoken language (namely, a writing
system)"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
People, societies,
nomads, states, hordes, tribes and armies never made war one upon the other,
because of 'civilization' or due to difference of civilization; even in cases as
per which (through a racist viewpoint – and this is absolutely impermissible
for humans to accept) «barbarians waged war on a supposedly 'civilized' kingdom»,
the war never occurred because the barbarians envied the supposedly 'civilized'
kingdom or the latter wanted to 'civilize' them. What was at stake was either
of spiritual-religious-moral nature or of economic motives; in many cases, it
was a matter of survival. However, this means that there was never a truly
speaking 'clash of civilizations'.
Religious wars are of
very diverse nature, and quite often they are fought only for material benefits
and royal prestige, but they never constitute 'wars' (or a 'clash') of
civilization. This is so because, in any historical period, religion
constitutes only a small fraction of the civilization of a nation; this means
that if you describe a 'clash of religions' as 'clash of civilizations', you
will end up in an over-generalization without purpose. And as it is very well
known, many times religious wars occurred between people who had the same
civilization.
Taizong (598-649; reigned after 626), founding Emperor of the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE), gives audience to the Tibetan ambassador Gar Tongtsen Yulsung (painting by Yan Liben).
,%20Cave%2069,%20Kizil%20Caves.jpg)
Then, why did Prof.
Huntington give a so bizarre title to his book?
This is exactly what
only astute and perspicacious readers can assess; in other words, this is up to
those who can read the text in reverse. It is again the same game of
non-reversing mirrors; Prof. Huntington projected onto the past what he guided
experts, statesmen, military officers, diplomats, politicians, academics,
intellectuals, agents and others to create in the future.
In other words, he made
all of his gullible readers (involving heads of state, premiers, ministers,
ambassadors, professors, and others) 'see' in the past something that never
existed, because he merely fabricated a mirage (or Fata Morgana) that he placed
in the future.
In other words those,
who are properly instructed as to how to read and implement the book contents,
will produce a situation (namely the clash of civilizations) that the idiots
(like Erdogan and many other heads of state, prime ministers, etc. all over
world) will -very mistakenly- view as the comeback of an earlier state of
affairs. But, as I said as early in 2005, no clash of civilization has ever
existed in the past.
Then, the answer to the
earlier question is very simple:
Prof. Huntington did
not give a bizarre title to his book. The clash of civilizations that he wrote
about is merely the clash of civilizations that he wanted to generate in the
future in a way to trigger numerous wars in many parts of the world to the
benefit of his financiers. To do so, he fooled most of his readers that the
clash of civilizations had already taken place whereas this is not the case.
IV.
Spirituality & Universalism: Divine Earth vs. Unholy Sea
Once deeply and fully
comprehended, Prof. Huntington's book is a harmless amount of paper waste that
anyone can use for whatever purpose one may choose; recycled is better than
read.
All the same, I have to
state that governments, administrations, establishments, military academies,
diplomacies, academic institutions and mass media all over the world must take
into account, when they define their decision-making, the fact that the
outright majority of bureaucrats, magistrates and officers in the UK, US, NATO
and other Western countries have already been formed and educated in the
darkness and the negativity of this prejudicial book. A primary task for
governments in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Central-Eastern Europe is
therefore to outmaneuver the evil plan encrusted in the lines of the scheming
professor's traveler's companion to the Hell.
If World History is
studied in the light of Spiritual Ontology, the definition of the major
continental empires as creative forces of the Earth will help explorers and
investigators realize the true but deceitful nature of the modern world and
identify sea powers as destructive forces of the Sea. Today's major powers in
Asia, namely China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, and Iran, are
in reality the offspring of the main historical empires that successively developed
illustrious civilizations whose achievements are still unmatched by the Western
sciences and technologies. The same is valid for several outstanding states in
Africa and Latin America. For all of them, it is surely imperative to explore
the methods of creative governance that their forefathers employed and to follow
in their footsteps.
Achaemenid Iran: from Ukraine to Sudan and from Albania to Tibet
Continental empires are
expanding structures that reflect human societies in their creative dimension. History,
as we know it, was formed exclusively by continental empires; to them the
various seas were (and could only be) the periphery, which would eventually be
used in a positive and creative manner. The Achaemenid Empire of Iran offered a
groundbreaking example in this regard; by re-opening the Ancient Suez Canal
(also known as the Canal of the Pharaohs), the Iranian imperial authorities
offered themselves another transportation means in order to ensure
communication between the satrapy of Egypt and Fars (: Persia), Iran's mainland
and imperial headquarters. This was a creative innovation indeed. About:
https://www.academia.edu/43492808/Darius_the_Greats_Suez_Inscriptions_Birth_Certificate_of_the_Silk_Roads
To make a striking
contrast between the virtuous continental empires and the evil sea powers, I
have now to offer a dramatic comparison; when the Iranians intended to further
pursue the expansion of their already vast empire and to invade Egypt and Cush
(Napata in Ancient Sudan, i.e. the historical Ethiopia), they undertook (under
Kambujiya/Cambyses; reigned 530-522 BCE) a land invasion of the Valley of the
Nile – and not an overseas maritime expedition. The Iranian occupation of Egypt
ushered Egyptians into an era of peace and this was a very positive
development, particularly if we take into consideration the terrible divisions
that the country had known for centuries even before the three Assyrian
invasions, 150 years earlier.
Iranians could invade
Egypt by circumnavigating the Arabian Peninsula but they knew that this would certainly
have an ominous end; imperial expansion is far more important an attempt than
mere transportation. Uniting lands under a universal scepter is a divine
blessing; sending messages and transporting merchandises sold or purchased
elsewhere are ordinary human activities. You can never compare the former to
the latter. This worldview or world conceptualization was common among all the
important nations of the Antiquity. The valorization of the Earth derived from critical
passages of their holy books; it was a matter of Cosmogony and Cosmology.
On the other hand, the
inferiority, transience and profanity of the Sea (: Salt Waters), the marginal
role that it had to play in human affairs, and the preservation of life far
from it were also key topics of the most civilized ancient nations' holy books.
In striking contrast with Ether, Soft Waters, Earth and Air, the Sea
represented only an unholy element of chaos, disorder, uselessness and
unholiness. For the Ancient Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians,
Egyptians, Cushites, Hittites and Iranians, the seas were the threatening
barbarian periphery; no divine attribute was given to this element. It is
irrevocably imperative that, when it comes to human affairs, namely prophecy,
eschatology, and soteriology, there is no Salvation in the Sea. The impure
element will be canceled and, by definition, it has no place either in the
Original Paradise or in the Kingdom of the Heaven.
If we leave Spiritual
Ontology and History of Religions aside, we can conclude that the ensuing
historical fact proved to be that islands never generated civilizations; on the
contrary, they merely reflected the civilizations developed in the lands in the
vicinity of which these islands happened to be. It is noteworthy that, only in
later periods (1st millennium BCE) and among less advanced civilizations (namely
the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.), we attest
divinities of the sea. Indicatively I add that the Ancient Yemenites (Sheba,
Awsan, Qataban, Himyar and Hadhramaut), who developed a great continental
civilization while also engaging in extensive maritime activities, colonizing
Somalia, Socotra, and the Eastern African coast land, and sailing to India and
beyond, did not worship any major divinity of the sea. This assessment only
reconfirms my earlier statement that, contrarily to the holy element of Soft
Waters (later mythologized among Greeks and Romans as the 'Ocean', i.e. the
Soft Waters stream that surrounds the Earth), the Sea (Salt Waters) is an
impure and profane element.
Consequently, we can
realize why sea powers do not and cannot become proper empires. This is so,
because they lack land continuity; accordingly, people living in islands cannot
fathom the concept of universal empire, which exemplified all major historical
empires. Yet, universalism (or ecumenism) is conditio sine qua non for the
foundation of a real empire, and this fact became well known as early as the
World History's first empire, namely that of Sargon of Akkad, before 4500 years.
It goes without saying that all empires started first as small kingdoms, and
all theoretical considerations appeared after a significant land expansion.
This means that land invasions are in reality enthralling methods of spiritual
initiation for every good king and for his gallant soldiers and armies. Violence
is holy, whereas absence thereof is profane and destructive.
The first empire of World History and the beginning of Universalism: the Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad
Among all the major
historical empires, the Roman Empire constitutes an oddity. Although it
undeniably expanded across vast lands in Europe, Africa and Asia, in spite of the
fact that it willingly attempted to be positioned in the series of historical
empires that originate from Mesopotamia (translation imperii), and
notwithstanding its apparent, continental character, it ended up with the
formation of a truly bizarre imperial structure around a sea: the
Mediterranean.
As such, the Roman
Empire was the materialization of a rather counterfeit universalism, because
the earlier empires and their theoretical backgrounds made full abstraction of
the sea. Imperial considerations matter greatly for Russia today, because the
Eastern Roman Empire functioned as a pertinent continental empire, fully detaching
itself from the already briefly described Roman particularity, and in the
process, epitomizing (as New Rome) what Third Rome (Muscovy-Russia) would,
could and should be. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder#Conquest_and_local_support
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_king
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Sumer_and_Akkad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Four_Corners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_domination
The Roman Empire under Octavian Augustus
V.
Civilized Continental Empires vs. Barbarian Sea Powers
To make a clear
distinction between civilization and barbarism, we can compare the Achaemenid
Iranian conquest of Egypt (525 BCE) with the Spanish invasion of Mexico; there
is an enormous difference between the two events that are separated from one
another by more than 2000 years. The first event did not cause even one
thousandth (1/1000) of the bloodshed caused in Mexico by the Spanish colonial
monsters that were fully conscious of the fact that they fought with
detrimentally superior weapons (firearms).
Plainly acting as a
continental empire, Achaemenid Iran fully respected the Ancient Egyptian
population, civilization and local administration. The Achaemenid shahs were
depicted as typical Egyptian pharaohs with complete Egyptian hieroglyphic names
and in Ancient Egyptian art form; the Iranian satraps' close cooperation with
the major sacerdotal colleges (notably the Iwnw-Heliopolitan priesthood)
ensured continuity for the local civilization, peace and freedom for the
Egyptian people, prosperity for the imperial administration, and seamless
integration of Egypt in the empire. Later, the Iranian pattern of local rule,
provincial administration, and peaceful annexation was maintained by the
Ptolemies and the Romans. It was an undeniable success of religious tolerance, socio-behavioral
distinction, and cultural persistence.
The Iranians did not
force the Egyptians to become Zoroastrians, contrarily to the monstrous and
evil attitude of the Spanish conquistadores who executed scores of innocent,
imperially proud, and spiritually superior Mexicans, who did not accept to
change their religion and become 'Christian'. The Iranians did not demand of
the Egyptians to learn Old Achaemenid Iranian, write in cuneiform writing,
accept the Iranian culture, and adopt the Iranian customs and way of life.
Furthermore, the Iranians did not impose a loathsome tyranny on the Egyptians.
Quite contrarily, the
cruel Spanish rule over Mexico caused an unprecedented genocide (in the name of
Jesus), whereas those who survived had to learn and write Spanish, accept the
obnoxious Castilian culture, and imitate the cruel behavior of their
conquerors; however, even in that case, they were viewed as an inferior race
and treated with incommensurable contempt. This concerned even the mestizos,
every offspring of mixed race (Mexican/indigenous and Iberian).
Fully functioning as a
sea power, pseudo-Christian Spain (considered as heretic by the Eastern
Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time) disrespected the
populations that the conquistadores enslaved overseas, spreading for the first
time in World History racism outside the limits of Western Europe.
Intentionally, viciously and bestially, the 16th c. Spanish Jihadists {this is
the correct term!} destroyed a civilization incomparably higher than theirs in
every sense. The criminal gangsters dismantled every sense of local
administration and imposed Spanish criteria, measures and concepts, therefore
decimating the local populations and extending their bias, bigotry, hatred of
the other, cruelty and inhumanity across other continents. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_conquest_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambyses_Romance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Dynasty_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-first_Dynasty_of_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire
The Spaniards set the
pattern for the other Western Europeans who imitated their barbarism; I am herewith
referring to the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch and the English. We can
certainly discern variances of colonial practice, but this fact does not change
in anything the appalling nature of the Western European racism, odium and
inhumanity. The French were worse than the Spaniards, and the English proved to
be worse than the French, because they wanted to "make the world
England" – which is the most racist tenet ever uttered in Word History.
Closing this brief
description, I have however to add that the Ancient World's major sea powers,
namely the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians, were not known for similar
cruelty; we don't have any textual source or archaeological evidence to support
such claim.
All the same, there was
certainly an abominable model that the spiritual masters of the conquistadores,
i.e. the apostate popes of Rome and the Renaissance intellectuals, certainly
had in mind before sending the conquistadores to butcher the civilized
indigenous populations of the lands that they colonized.
It consists in one of
the World History's bleakest pages of utmost barbarism, inhuman monstrosity,
and repugnant cruelty. The abhorrent deed that served as model for the conquistadores
was perpetrated by a tiny, racist and uncivilized state that the Western
colonial countries have always exalted. Quite interestingly, during the
Christian Eastern Roman imperial times, the past of this abominable and
outrageous statelet was deplored and detested, as it was considered an outcast
of the civilized world.
Paranoid gangster, blasphemous atheist, and barbarian Pericles (495-429 BCE) was an ignominious perpetrator of series of crimes against the Mankind; however, for the needs of the villainous agenda that provided for the corruption of the modern world, he was shamelessly and absurdly depicted (1852) as an exemplary statesman (Pericles’ Funeral Oration / Perikles hält die Leichenrede) by the German painter Philipp Foltz, a Freemason. It was this cruel beast’s partners, colleagues, associates, pupils and followers, who carried out the genocide of the Melians. The History of Ancient Greece is a monstrous fabrication undertaken by lewd Modern European intellectuals, mendacious academics, and obscene pseudo-artists.
This statelet is
Athens, i.e. the Mediterranean basin's most disgusting ignominy. Only in modern
times, the sea powers' criminal and racist academics and statesmen turned
Ancient Athens' pedophilia, sexual anomaly, perversion and disgusting darkness
into absurdly applauded felony. During the Peloponnesian War, which was a
tribal butchery that lasted almost three decades (431-404 BCE) and constituted
Ancient Greece's greatest 'contribution' to World History, Athens (a sea power
and corrupt republic) opposed the Kingdom of Sparta (a minor continental
power).
As Melos Island (a tiny
independent statelet) sided with Sparta (due to their common Dorian origin),
the Athenian fleet sieged the misfortunate island (416 BCE) and in the process,
due to the heroic stance of the local population, the cruel and inhuman
Athenian soldiers executed the entire male population to the last, also selling
the women and the children as slaves. Of course, as it always happens with sea
powers, Athens was unconditionally vanquished and the cursed city was set
ablaze by the victorious Spartans, but the cruel Melian genocide remained in
World History as the best example of Greek barbarism and sea power inhumanity.
The fact that this
horrible deed did not prevent Western European intellectuals and academics from
lauding and extolling Ancient Athens clearly demonstrates their biased nature
and evil character. As Renaissance intellectuals and Catholic monks were well
versed in Thucydides, who authored his biased narrative about the war, must
have noticed the merciless attitude of the Athenian rascals. They subsequently
presented it as an example to the uncouth and ruthless conquistadores whose
deeds fully demonstrated that sea powers can never be civilized. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#The_Melian_Dialogue
As regards the
so-called Ancient Greece, i.e. the meridional periphery of the Balkan Peninsula
south of Ancient Macedonia and Ancient Illyria, one has to admit that the great
exposure to the sea, the lack of a major river, and the absence of vast plains
or a plateau prevented the region from becoming the cradle of a major
civilization. That's why it was always a marginal region for all the empires in
which it belonged: the Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Ottoman
Caliphate.
VI.
Continental Empires, Sea Powers, and Divisive Traps
Whereas continental
empires expand on land, sea powers disembark in faraway lands only to spread
chaos and diseases, perpetrate massacres, and destroy cultures and civilizations.
After the first stage of Modern European colonialism, which helped demonstrate
the Western European gangsters' cruelty at the material level, three sea powers
(France, Holland and England) created enormous colonial 'empires' in Asia and
Africa, carrying out massive spiritual genocides. If the sudden collapse of the
great continental empires of Mexico and Peru was due to the unmatched
superiority of the Spaniards in terms of weapons (firearms), the disintegration
of the Asiatic continental empires was in fact never completed (thank God!).
As there was no more
armament superiority, the sea powers employed ruse and deception against the
Ottomans, the Safavid-Afshar-Qajar Iranians, the Great Mughal Empire, and Qing
China. Only China managed to resist, in spite of the Opium Wars, and of the
partly occupation (or colonization) of Chinese coast lands. When the sea powers
attempted to oppose Imperial Russia from further expanding in Central Asia,
started the Great Game, which continues down to our days.
The most commonly known
trap that sea powers invented and implemented against the continental empires
is the divisive practice, which is rather known thanks to the Latin maxim
'divide et impera' ('divide and rule'). This practice was early attested in the
Antiquity among continental kingdoms fighting for prevalence in a wider region
of secondary importance where many smaller states and nomads lived; the ancient
kings and emperors used their armies for lands of crucial importance (against
main opponents) and their diplomacies for region of lesser significance.
Since the 16th c., sea
powers' deceitful practices against the great Asiatic continental empires involved
the formation of trade companies on the territory of the targeted states, the
dictation of trade terms, the instigation of numerous local rebellions, the
invention and establishment of fake states, notably Afghanistan, the
utilization of religious leaders against kings and emperors, the support of locally
dissident voices, the preaching of divisive beliefs, the diffusion of
controversial ideas, the propagation of the Western European modernism and
behavioral system, and the activation of endless wars among the major continental
empires (Ottoman Empire vs. Russia, Ottoman Empire vs. Iran, Russia vs. Iran,
Iran vs. Mughal Empire, Russia vs. China).
%20in%20Beijing%20in%201761.%20%E4%B8%87%E5%9B%BD%E6%9D%A5%E6%9C%9D%E5%9B%BE.jpg)
In the 19th c., when
the Great Game started, the sea powers managed to infiltrate among many small
nations that belonged in different continental empires, utilize numerous
individuals, educate numerous rebels (by means of 'studies' in Western
universities), promise national independence to the supposedly 'oppressed' nations
of the continental empires, etc. Aptly utilizing religious or linguistic
affinities, the colonial agents managed to create alliances between an imperial
administration and representatives of several indigenous nations in another
continental empire, notably Czarist Russia and the Armenians, Aramaean
Nestorians (falsely called 'Assyrians'), Eastern Romans (Rumlar/Romioi), and
Pontus 'Greeks' (: Eastern Romans) of the Ottoman Empire.
Then, by seemingly
making the Russians imagine that their infiltration inside the Ottoman Empire
increased (whereas the Western colonials definitely controlled these minorities
by means of bribery and corruption), they turned them against another major
continental empire, i.e. the Ottoman Caliphate. But this development was beneficial
to the sea powers' agenda and catastrophic for both Eurasiatic empires. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game
VII.
The 'Greek Orthodox' Delusion of Russians
Long before Nicholas
II, many other czars committed disastrous mistakes for the continental empire
that they had to solidly maintain and properly expand. It was absurd for
Russians to support anti-Ottoman activities and rebellions of the Eastern Roman
Orthodox subjects of the Caliphate. Russia's monumental failure was plainly
demonstrated in 1917, but we have first to analyze the reasons and to offer several
examples, before examining the disastrous results that the Romanovs brought
upon their heads with their 'Greek Orthodox' delusion.
The term 'Greek
Orthodox' is an ahistorical, deceitful, modern construction; there was never
such nation or people or church for the very simple reason that for all
Christians, before and after all the theological disputes and the schisms,
'Greek' was a shameful and profane name and entity as an idolatrous, polytheistic
and utterly blasphemous nation. Actually, there was never an ancient Greek
nation, and -more importantly- there was never an ancient Greek state, be it a
kingdom, a tyranny, a tribal union or an ignominious 'republic'. 'Greece' was
merely a geographical notion to describe the South Balkan confines south of
Mount Olympus; 'Greeks' ('Hellenes') was a noxious recapitulative term applied
to a group of tribes (Achaeans, Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians) that lived
among other populations (Pelasgians, Illyrians, etc.), which were not
considered 'Greeks'. Furthermore, numerous foreign slaves, notably Scythians,
lived in some cities-states.
Homer was therefore not a 'Greek', but an Ionian of Anatolia, culturally unrelated to South Balkans; yet, when he used a recapitulative name for the participants of the naval military expedition against Troy (Taruisha), he basically called them 'Danaans'. In the external, Oriental historiographical sources (Hittite, Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphic, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Ancient Hebrew, etc.), we never attest a recapitulative term about all these marginal tribes. This is normal, because the plethora of the historically unimportant and meaningless Ancient Greek 'statelets' never united in one kingdom. 'Greeks' (Graeci) is merely a posterior, Latin name by which the Romans designated this collection of tribes and clans. Useless to add that to the Romans Graecia (Greece) was geographically, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, spiritually and socio-behaviorally very different and absolutely distinct from Macedonia, Illyria, and Thrace in the Balkans, and from Lycia, Caria, Lydia, and Phrygia in Anatolia.
The so-called Ancient
Greeks were so disparate tribal elements that, despite Alexander the Great
forced most of them to unify under Macedonian scepter, after his death, they
continued living in the disorderly and haphazardous manner of theirs, being
impossible to incorporate in any of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Attalid Anatolia
(Pergamon), Seleucid Syria or Ptolemaic Egypt (although Antiochus III the Great
attempted to achieve it in 192-188 BCE, only to be stopped by the expanding
Romans). Simply, Ancient Greeks were unfit to civilize. That is why the Romans,
extending their control throughout South Balkans in the middle of the 2nd c.
BCE, were forced to decimate them, notably during the conquest of Corinth (146
BCE).
Annexed to Rome, Greece
became a rather unimportant province strongly characterized by population
movements (local populace relocating elsewhere and foreign populations settling
in the lands south of Macedonia), aggressive invasions, and spiritual-religious-cultural
Orientalization. The name 'Greece' was forgotten and that is why the lands
south of Macedonia became part of the Roman province of Macedonia (147 BCE).
The lands of 'Greece' were later detached from the senatorial propraetorial
province of Macedonia by Emperor Octavian Augustus, during a major administrative
re-arrangement (27 BCE); they formed a separate Roman province, but they were
named Achaia. This shows that, even as a geographical term, 'Greece' was an
obsolete name.
Of course, one has to
add also that the descendants of the Ionians and the Aeolians in Western Anatolia
inhabited several other Roman provinces, notably Asia (129 BCE; established
after the dissolution of Attalid Pergamon), Bithynia and Pontus (63 BCE),
Galatia (25 BCE), Cappadocia (17 CE), Lycia and Pamphylia (43 and 74 CE),
Pontus (62 CE), and Commagene (72 CE), being however ethnically, linguistically
and culturally amalgamated with numerous other Anatolian nations, the Iranian settlers of the Achaemenid times, the
Roman ruling class, and the remnants of various invaders, notably the
Galatians. This means that, in the 1st and 2nd c. CE, those Anatolians were
entirely disconnected in every sense from the historical process that took
place in South Balkans ('Achaia', not Greece).
With the Edict of
Caracalla (212 CE; 'Constitutio Antoniniana') all the free citizens throughout
the empire ('Provincia Achaia' included) were declared 'Roman citizens'. This
overwhelming imperial change irrevocably put the tombstone on the remainder of the
'Greek' tribes either in Anatolia or South Balkans; this is so because it
proved that they were imperially or politically extinct. Then, the
groundbreaking edict was enthusiastically accepted across the empire; this fact
demonstrated that, except the Romans (who were amalgamated with most of the
nations of the empire), no other nation existed west of Euphrates and east of
the Iberian and Mauretanian coasts of the Atlantic Ocean.
In other words, no
other tribe, people, ethnic group, religious community or nomad clan had
retained their moral integrity, their cultural identity, their socio-behavioral
values, and their imperial or political world view intact up to the point of
forming an independent kingdom or empire. They had all gradually been entirely Romanized.
By 212 CE, if Greeks had ever existed, they would have vanished.
Later on, the Greek
speaking populations in the South Balkans were repeatedly decimated during the
numerous catastrophic invasions (first wave: 300-500 CE; second wave: 500-700
CE). During the same period, due to their obdurate rejection of Christianity as
the sole official Roman religion and to their obstinate attachment to their
absurd polytheism, they caused an unprecedented massacre of the pagans among
them. 'Hellen' or 'Graecus' (Greek) ended up meaning 'profane', 'villainous',
'promiscuous' and 'blasphemous' during the period of the Eastern Roman Empire
(down to 1453). The inhabitants of the surviving part of the Roman Empire
called themselves 'Romans' {Ρωμαίοι
- Ρωμιοί; أروام (Arabic);
رومیان (Farsi); Rûmîler & Rumlar (Turkish)},
denying with abject indignation that they had any relation with the 'Hellenes'
or 'Graeci'. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Thessalonica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Greece#Ancient_Greece
In the terrible imperial
and religious confrontation that pitched Rome against New Rome (Constantinople)
already before the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 CE) but more openly
after Rome discarded (752) the institution of Constantinople-selected/approved
popes of Rome (which was imposed by Justinian I in 537), the pejorative term
'Hellene'/'Graecus' became a crucial tool in the hands of the impious and blasphemous,
anti-Christian popes of Rome, who attempted to utilize various barbarians
(notably the Frankish Merovingians and Charlemagne) in order to oppose the
Eastern Roman Empire, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the prevailing
Caesaropapism.
Following the two
schisms (Photian schism: 863-867; East-West schism: 1054), the launch of the
Crusades (1095), and the Latin conquest and sack of Constantinople (1204), in
order to fully discredit the Eastern Roman Empire and to posture as the sole
religious authority among Christians, the Latin (: Western European)
pseudo-Christian 'Catholic' occupiers and looters of the Eastern Roman Empire
extended the use of the term 'Greeks' for their Eastern Roman Christian
Orthodox subjects. The abominable, Satanic rule of the Latin conquerors was
fully overthrown (1261), but the scheming Catholic heretics had managed to establish
a strong foothold in parts of Romania (Ρωμανία; as the official name of the
Eastern Roman Empire was in Eastern Roman language) and to form small groups of
theological lackeys and local stooges, who became known as 'Enotikoi' (Ενωτικοί; pro-Union). It goes without saying
that the papal puppets tried to diffuse the pejorative name, but they failed to
achieve any substantive results until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman
Sultanate (1453) and the end of the Ottoman rule in South Balkans (early 19th
c.).
With the removal of the
Christian Orthodox Eastern Roman obstacle, the apostate, Anti-Christian,
Catholic Church launched the projects that it had already prepared for about
250-300 years: Renaissance and Colonialism (the totally mischievous term
'Discovery of America' must be considered as an obsolete falsehood). Part of
the Renaissance intellectual-scientific-artistic fallacy concerned Ancient
Greece; it was indeed the fabrication of an entirely ahistorical, misleading
and delusional narrative which did not represent but distort the historical truth,
which was contained in historiographical sources and documented in the
archaeological material record. The intentionally distorted representation of
Ancient Greece was coined 'Hellenism' in disparaging contradiction to the use
of the term that Ancient Ionians, Aeolians and others made of it.
During the Late
Antiquity, Ionians described as 'Hellenism' the tendency of some people in
Anatolia and Syria (Cappadocians, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Jews) to appear dressed
after the 'Greek' fashion and to adopt the cosmopolitan lifestyle of Ionians,
Athenians and Macedonians living in cities founded by Alexander the Great and
his successors. But during the Renaissance, 'Hellenism' defined the falsehood
that anti-Christian Western European intellectuals, fraudsters, academics and
crooks invented, fabricated and believed about Ancient Greece.
The villainous forgery of
Hellenism was quite useful to the Satanic gangsters who killed millions of
Mexicans and Peruvians; it helped diffuse scores of profane topics, concepts,
illusions, sick passions, evil desires, immoral behaviors, anti-Christian
attitudes, and an absolutely putrefied world conceptualization at the very
antipodes of Christianity. By merely marketing these mental and intellectual
contaminations as 'civilization', the so-called Renaissance 'humanists' started
distancing themselves from the faith that they deceitfully presented as still
theirs. They thus produced a polarization that gave birth to other movements
like Classicism, Enlightenment, etc., which further contributed to the
corruption of the Western world and, through colonialism, to the degeneracy of
the rest of mankind. In this manner, the formation of the modern faithless,
worthless and useless societies was completed, only to fully corroborate the
various calls that we now hear for eugenics, population control, and reduction
of the world population to 500 million or 50 million people.
All this was totally
unknown to the Muscovites, the Tatars, and the populations of Novgorod,
Astrakhan and Sibir (Siberia) back at the time of Ivan IV the Terrible. To
them, Constantinople was merely Tsargrad (Царьград), the capital of the Eastern
Roman Empire (Восточная Римская империя), even more so because Gennadius
Scholarius (Геннадий Схоларий) ensured the translatio imperii, making of Mehmet
II the successor of Constantine XI Palaeologus, who was the last of the
Palaeologi dynasty (Палеологи). Tsargrad means literally 'the city (gorod/город)
of Caesar' (i.e. the Roman Emperor), thus fully demonstrating that to the Russians
the realm that the Ottomans conquered in 1453 was purely, entirely and
indisputably Roman.
The dispute around the
term lasted no less than 450 years, ever since Sophia Palaiologina (born Zoe;
1449-1503/ Софья
Палеолог), niece of the last Eastern Roman Emperor, married Grand Prince Ivan
III of Moscow (1440-1505 / Иван III Васильевич) in proxy marriage (1 June 1472;
in the Old St. Peter's Basilica, Rome) in presence of Gian Battista della
Volpe, diplomat and adventurer in the Muscovite service in the 15th c., who
became rather known as Ivan Fryazin (Иван Фрязин). Sophia, accompanied by a
pontifical custody led by Ivan Fryazin, reached Moscow (Muscovy) on 12th
November 1472 and later gave birth to many children, notably Vasili III of
Moscow (Василий III Иванович/1479-1533), who was the father of Ivan IV the
Terrible. The dispute ended with the abdication of Nicholas II (15th March
1917) and the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate (1st November 1922), because -for
ca. 470 years- one of the titles of the Ottoman sultans was Qaysar-i Rum (روم قیصر).
We therefore conclude
that Ivan the Terrible knew only Romans and Eastern Romans, and wanted to
position Muscovy as continuity to Tsargrad; of 'Greeks' he probably never
heard. The same is true for most of his successors and for the first of the
Romanovs. Only after the rapprochement with European dynasties that Peter I
attempted, numerous academics, artists, and architects started moving from
France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Denmark and England to Russia. They
diffused what was then called 'European civilization', involving the tenets of
Renaissance, Classicism and Enlightenment, including Hellenism.
The rise of the
proponents of Westernization at the time of Catherine II became a real threat
to the Russian Orthodox identity; this generated several reactions, notably the
Pochvennichestvo (Почвенничество) movement, the supporters of the so-called Slavophilia
(Славянофильство/however, the term is not accurate), the fervent defenders of
traditional Russian values, such as Sobornost (соборность), Obshchina (община),
etc., and -last but not least- a monarchical conceptualization of Russia as
Orthodoxy, Autocracy & Nationality (Православие, Самодержавие, Народность).
About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pochvennichestvo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobornost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/church-history-and-the-predicament-of-the-orthodox-hierarchy-in-the-russian-empire-of-the-early-1800s
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-westerners-and-the-slavophiles/
However, this reaction
was not enough to eliminate the diffusion of the historical forgery that the
biased Western scholars undertook in 18th and 19th c. Russia. Then, in the case
of the so-called Greek Revolution of 1821 and the subsequent formation of the
tiny pseudo-state 'Greece' (by the English and the French colonials) Russia
made exactly the same mistakes as in the case of Serbia. The Russian diplomats,
statesmen and czars were fooled enough to possibly believe that the descendants
of the Eastern Romans could make 'Greeks' resurrected after almost 1500 years!!
Even worse, the imperial elites failed to fathom that, if the English and the
French wanted to perform the rebirth of the Ancient Greeks, as a blasphemous
act of Black Magic, this simply meant that they intended to utterly destroy
Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.
Failing to realize that
the only descendants of the Ancient Ionians and Aeolians, surely amalgamated
with numerous other nations, were located in Ottoman Anatolia and that the
inhabitants of the South Balkan Ottoman provinces were ethnic Slavs amalgamated
with Vlachs, Albanians, Italians, Turks, Egyptians and Berbers, the czars
contributed greatly, at their own detriment, to the destruction of the Ottoman
Empire. The imperial Russian elites could not realize that to defend their
interests, as a continental empire, they had to side with the Ottoman Empire
and Qajar Iran. The only beneficiaries of the numerous Russian-Iranian and the
Russian-Ottoman wars were England and France. When it comes to the tiny state
of Greece, this became the embodiment of colonially educated and prepared elite
that govern their country according (not to the local, national interests but)
to the needs of their colonial masters.
It is ironical but, by
helping the tiny Greek state first exist and second expand, the Russians
damaged their own chances to ever reach their secret and mystical targets:
Tsargrad (Constantinople) and Jerusalem. The Russian Church of Mary Magdalene (Церковь
Святой Марии Магдалины) on the Mount of Olives symbolized that vision;
constructed in 1888 by Alexander III, the splendid edifice with the typically
Russian gilded onion domes epitomized all the Russian Orthodox eschatological
claims.
As a matter of fact,
the Russians were far closer to both locations than their rivals (the English)
were; they could reach there first. But to do so, they should ally themselves
with the Ottomans and strengthen the Ottoman Empire against the evil erosion
carried out by the French and the English. And this is the merciless strike
that Fate delivered to the naïve Czar Nicholas II who thought it possible to
ally Holy Russia to the filthiest and most execrable realm on Earth, namely
England; although he wanted to reach Jerusalem first, he was arrested and
imprisoned in his own country, when the profane general Edmund Allenby entered
the old city of Jerusalem on 11th December 1917. Russia was plunged in the
Marxist-Leninist abyss, when England achieved its largest territorial extent.
This disaster will come
again, if Russia's present ruling elite and administration make the same
mistake and fail to realize that the worst enemies of Holy Russia are (not the
Ukrainians, the Poles, the Germans, the French, the Israelis or the Americans
but) the English. It is only England (along with London's various
paraphernalia, i.e. the pseudo-states of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)
that turns the US, NATO, and also EU against Russia. The reason is very simple;
in full agreement with their Satanic eschatological agenda, the English want to
prevent Holy Russia-Third Rome from becoming "a blessing on the Earth"
(Isaiah, 19:24). To cancel the English agenda, Russians must remove Shakespeare
from their education.
-----------------------------------------------
Earlier
Publications: Titles, Dates, Links & Contents
From
the Pandemic to the Special Operations in Russian Ukraine (3 April 2022)
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/from-the-pandemic-to-the-special-operations-in-russian-ukraine
1- A Critical
Confrontation between Jesuits and Freemasons
2- The Pandemic and the
Jesuit Eschatological Agenda (and how it has advanced throughout the last
millennium)
3- The Multiple
Dimensions of the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine
4- The Historical Facts
My position
about Ukraine, Russia, and the Russian Special Operations in Russian Ukraine -
in brief (15 April 2022)
https://megalommatis.livejournal.com/25045.html
https://megalommatis.blogspot.com/2022/04/my-position-about-ukraine-russia-and.html
https://ok.ru/megalommatis/statuses/154562853352280
https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_6737%2Fall
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/my-position-about-ukraine-russia-and-the-russian-special-operations-in-russian-ukraine-in-brief
1. Many people did not expect it,
but I did
2. The plan to split Russia to
5-10 pieces
3. There is no Ukrainian language
or nation
4. The negative impact of History
5. If Ukrainians are a
nation, then Egypt's Sa'idis are a nation too!
Russia, Ukraine and the World-I: 'Moscou, les
Plaines d'Ukraine, et les Champs-Élysées' (14 March 2023)
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2023/03/14/russia-ukraine-and-the-world-i-moscou-les-plaines-dukraine-et-les-champs-elysees/
https://www.academia.edu/98495216/Russia_Ukraine_and_the_World_I_Moscou_les_Plaines_dUkraine_et_les_Champs_%C3%89lys%C3%A9es
I- The Historical
Background
II- Western Colonialism
against Russia: Projection of Fake Concepts and Historical Falsehood onto
Russian Elites
III- Western Bias:
Russia's Europeanization as De-Russification
IV- Where does the
Fallacy of European Russia End?
V- False Identity for
Russians means Defeat in the Great Game
VI- The Fall of the
Romanov: due to the False Concept of 'Russia as a European Empire'
Russia, Ukraine and the World-II: 5000 Years of
Russian Asiatic Identity vs. 500 Years of Anglo-French Racism & Colonialism
(21 March 2023)
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2023/03/21/russia-ukraine-and-the-world-ii-5000-years-of-russian-asiatic-identity-vs-500-years-of-anglo-french-racism-colonialism/
https://www.academia.edu/98873247/Russia_Ukraine_and_the_World_II_5000_Years_of_Russian_Asiatic_Identity_vs_500_Years_of_Anglo_French_Racism_and_Colonialism
I. The Western
Anti-Russian Bias
II. Skillful Western
European Falsification of Russian History
A. Erroneous
contextualization of Archaeology of Northern Asia
B. Deliberate use of overlapping
terms: Northern Asia, Siberia, and Scythia
C. Prehistory and
Ancient History of Northern Asia are subject to modern borders and to the
meaningless attempts for 'national archaeology'
D. Failure to discern
Northern Asia in its entirety and true dimensions
E. Deliberate,
multifaceted distortion of the Asiatic Turanian Migrations
F. Minimization of the
cataclysmic presence and prevalence of the Turanian nations throughout Eastern
Europe
G. European
academia-backed biases: malignant disregard of the spiritual value of Kievan
Rus, and absurd focus on ethnic, racial and linguistic considerations
H. Erroneous focus on
Kievan Rus and disastrous neglect for Volga Bulgaria
I. Concealment of the
historical reality of the Turanian ('Tatar-Mongol') period
Russia, Ukraine and the World-III: the need for a New UN or how UK, US,
France and NATO must be defenestrated from the world (28 March 2023)
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2023/03/28/russia-ukraine-and-the-world-iii-the-need-for-a-new-un-or-how-uk-us-france-and-nato-must-be-defenestrated-from-the-world/
https://www.academia.edu/99242411/Russia_Ukraine_and_the_World_III_the_need_for_a_New_UN_or_how_UK_US_France_and_NATO_must_be_defenestrated_from_the_world
https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_8657%2Fall
I. Ukraine or Ireland
and Switzerland?
II. England, France,
and the fake state 'US'
III. Ukraine or Mexico?
IV. UK, France, US and
NATO: the Enemies of the Mankind
V. The Fallacy of all Geopolitical Analyses
====================
Download the article, the pictures and the legends in PDF:
https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_8683%2Fall
https://www.academia.edu/99805121/Russia_Ukraine_and_the_World_IV_Continental_Empires_and_Sea_Powers_Russians_Fake_Friends_and_Only_Enemy
