The Medes will not return! The Freemasonic Forgery of a ‘Kurdish Nation’ and the US False Christians

How Historical Falsifications Go Viral

 

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

 

Ancient Medes, their Precarious Empire, and the Historical Truth

 

Few remember today the Ancient Medes, one of the Iranian nations that rose to prominence in the Ancient Orient when, making an alliance with the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, managed to eliminate the few remaining Assyrian garrisons from the abandoned heartland of the Assyrian Empire and, with his Babylonian ally, divide the greatest empire that had grown in the then 2500 years old History of the Mankind. The Median Empire flourished under king Cyaxares (625 – 585 BCE), known as Umakishtar to Assyrians and Babylonians and as Uvak-shatra to Medes and Persians; today, his name in English is derived from the Ancient Greek deformation of the Assyrian-Babylonian name.

 

Modern maps reflecting political needs of the colonial powers are the result of the forgery of Freemasonic and Zionist Orientalists, who are payed (: bribed) to write what is convenient for those who spread animosity, enmity, fratricidal wars, and bloody conflicts; that’s why these maps show a huge empire of Media stretching from today’s Central Turkey to …. Kyrgyzstan ( ! ). These maps are entirely false. Media was smaller than Babylonia. It certainly spanned from Central Turkey to Central Iran, but neither Fars (today’s Iran’s south) nor Khorasan (today’s Iran’s northeast) were controlled by Cyaxares – let alone territories further to the east.

Median Empire FALSE MAP

Map forgery carried out to portray the Median Empire more than double of what its was in historical reality

Made by paranoid, hysterical and heinous pseudo-Christians, Zionists and Freemasons – who quite shamefully revile personally, and fill their sick hearts with great hatred against, the illustrious Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar who turned the tiny and worthless state of Judah to ashes, transporting  its entire population captive to Babylonia -, these fake maps only help these pseudo-Christians implement their odium by dramatically reducing the demarcated Babylonian borderlines as much as possible ( !! ). It sounds childish and sick, but it is true; these forgers of Ancient Oriental History do therefore their ingenious best to deliver a minimalistic view of Babylonia stretching only between today’s southern Iraq and Palestine. That’s absolutely false and totally ridiculous.

 

The last (and weakest) Babylonian king Nabonidus’ second palace was located nowhere else than in Tayma, an oasis not far from Yathribu, which is the Assyrian-Babylonian name of Yathrib, the pre-Islamic name of Medina. In fact, it was not a matter of the last Babylonian King. For almost two centuries before Nabonidus, the successive Assyrian Sargonid Emperors and Babylonian Nabonid Kings controlled the northern half of the Arabian Peninsula and received tribute from the vassal Yemenite states of the peninsula’s southern.

 

This is a brief excerpt from a scholarly, albeit summarizing, presentation of the archaeological evidence in Aramaic (administrative language of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom) that was unearthed in the area:

 

“Aramaic was probably introduced into North Arabia as an official written language by the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus. In 553 BC, he conquered Taymāʾ, Dadan (modern al-ʿUlā), Yathrib (modern Medina) and three other oases on the frankincense route and stayed at Taymāʾ for 10 years. Since Imperial (or Official) Aramaic was the administrative language of the Neo-Babylonian empire, it would almost certainly have been used by Nabonidus’ officials in Taymāʾ, though we know that some of them could also write in Taymanitic, and some fragmentary cuneiform inscriptions from this period have also been found in the excavations. After Nabonidus returned to Babylon in 543 BC, it appears that Imperial Aramaic remained one of the written languages at Taymāʾ and seems gradually to have displaced Taymanitic”. (from: OCIANA – Online Corpus of the Inscriptions of Ancient North Arabia / http://krc.orient.ox.ac.uk/ociana/index.php/home/155-english/home/aramaic-scripts-of-north-arabia/355-the-aramaic-scripts-of-north-arabia).

 

Introductory readings can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus_Chronicle / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinders_of_Nabonidus

 

To continue about Cyaxares, we know quite well that his capital was located at Ecbatana (Hangmatana in Old Achaemenid Persian), which is today’s Hamadan (NW Iran), and that the Median capital was protected by seven concentric walls. However, the Medes were a very small people, and the fact that they controlled an already large (for their capacities) territory did not bode well for the future of the newly risen kingdom. Their homeland constituted a minimal portion of the territory they controlled, and north of Media was located Atropatene (Azerbaijan) that stretched from the Middle Zagros Mountains to Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. With a multitude of nations under their control in Anatolia (today’s Turkey) in the west and with a rising strong Persian kingdom in the southeast of their country, the Medes could not last long due to the total lack of homogeneity in their territory, and to the weakness of their traditions. When Cyaxares died fighting against Lydia in the west, it became clear that the days of Media were numbered.

 

And truly, few decades later, Cyaxares’ granddaughter Mandane’s son, the Persian King Kurosh (Cyrus) – thanks to the mixed marriage of his father – united once forever Media and Persia (550 BCE), only to subsequently add other Iranian plateau territories (through suppression of minor rulers), Eastern Anatolia (already a Median territory), the kingdom of Lydia (Western Anatolia), and more importantly, Babylonia itself in 539 BCE. There is an enormous literature available in different ancient sources (Babylonian, Old Achaemenid Persian, Ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew) about Cyrus whereby historical truth is perplexedly intertwined with legends, involving a great deal of eulogy and mythologizing. But the Median Empire’s only posterior memory is to be retraced in the the Achaemenid Persian Empire of Iran. The Ancient Greeks may have called their wars with the Iranian Empire (which are today conventionally called ‘the Greco-Persian Wars’) ‘τά Μηδικά’ (the Median affairs), but in reality, there were only few thousands of Medes fighting in South Balkan lands in the early 5th c. BCE.

 

There has not been found even one inscription in Median language thus far, and it is quite possible that the mother tongue of king Cyaxares was actually never written. The only pre-Achaemenid inscription unearthed thus far is written in Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, which is quite normal because the western half of Iran was integral part of the Sargonid Empire (722 – 609 BCE) at least until the end of Ashurbanipal’s reign (669 – 625). What is reconstructed by modern linguists, epigraphists, philologists and historians as Median language is just a list of unusual occurrences in Old Achaemenid Persian inscriptions that are considered loanwords from the Median.

 

This is the brief diagram of the historical reality as known to us through an objective, neutral, and unbiased reconstruction of the Antiquity on the basis of philological and archaeological evidence.

 

Ancient Medes: totally Unrelated to Different Modern Nations that have been criminally Baptized as ‘Kurds’

 

Now from this point up to making of Cyaxares the …. ancestor of many – different from one another – nations that live today from Zagros Mountains (in the borders between Iran and Iraq) to the eastern plains of Syria to the Antitaurus Mountains (SE Turkey) there is as much distance as between the serious and the ridiculous.

 

In a previous article and video-presentation (http://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2014/09/07/there-is-no-kurdish-nation-it-is-a-freemasonic-colonial-orientalist-hoax/ – http://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2014/09/19/there-is-no-kurdish-nation-unmasking-an-orientalist-fabrication-able-only-to-generate-conflicts/ – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKJh-6bdGFk), I demonstrated that there is no Kurdish Nation, and that the collective appellation, which has been given in Arabic (Akrad) to the – different from one another nations – that live in the aforementioned geographical area, and which is translated in Modern English as ‘Kurds’, cannot be considered as the ethnic name of one nation, due to the tremendous racial, linguistic, religious, and cultural differences that exist among the different ethno-religious entities regrouped under this appellation.

 

The vicious plan providing for a state named ‘Kurdistan’ was conceived by French, English and American Orientalists, and other Freemasonic agents, politicians and diplomats, and the entire preparation has lasted decades. In the process, for the fake nation, a fake historicity was sought after, and the result ended with the usurpation of the Median past and heritage, which was conveniently and suitably attributed to the past-less ‘Kurds’, who certainly cannot have one common past and heritage, because they are not one nation but many.

 

Even worse, all these different modern nations (Kurmanji, Zaza, Sorani, Gorani, Hawrami, Faili, Yazidi, Ahl-e Haq to name only the major ethno-religious groups among those who are fallaciously named ‘Kurds’) do not have written monuments in their respective languages (which are of course different from one another) that go beyond 500-600 years. Before that level, all these modern nations are known through very few references in other languages (Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Azeri, Armenian, Syriac Aramaic, Georgian), but the scarce textual evidence is not enough to duly reconstruct their past. Earlier mentions in ancient languages (Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Achaemenid Persian, and even Assyrian-Babylonian) are even scarcer and cannot help us understand whether they all refer to the same ethnic group or different.

 

We cannot conclude whether the Assyrian-Babylonian ‘Zikurtu’, the Old Achaemenid Persian ‘Asagartiya’, the Ancient Greek ‘Kardouhoi’, the Ancient Roman ‘Cyrtii’ and the land known as Gordyene in Ancient Greek and Latin have anything to do

  1. with one another, and/or
  2. with one of the modern Kurmanji, Zaza, Sorani, Gorani, Hawrami, and Faili – the main ethno-linguistic groups that are mistakenly called altogether as ‘Kurds’.

 

Attributing to these disparate ethnic elements an almost totally undocumented past (the Median heritage) is purely absurd and testifies only to extremely vicious and even criminal needs of distortion and falsification. In fact, the Medes did not have any posteriority after the end of the Achaemenid Empire and its substitution by the ephemeral empire of Alexander the Great. The term ‘Media’ was shrunken into a merely geographic description; the Medes were certainly assimilated to the Atropatene Azeris and/or to Persians, and no Median cultural identity can be traced in any possible way during the subsequent periods of Seleucid (312 – 63 BCE), Arsacid (250 BCE – 224 CE) and Sassanid (224 – 651 CE) rule.

 

The Ludicrous Usurpation of the Median Past by bogus-Kurdish Nationalists – agents of the Intelligence Service

 

The story of this purely childish effort can make every saddened heart explode in laughter. At the very beginning of the falsehood about a hypothetical connection between the extinct ancient nation of the Medes and the non existent nation of the ‘Kurds’, one finds an unfortunate Iraqi Sorani young man who died under mysterious circumstances (most probably assassinated by the English secret services because he knew ‘too much’ of their internships and projects, while failing to keep his mouth closed) and in very young age and after never having studied History. This is Yûnis Reuf (1918–1948), who is widely known through his pen name Dildar (an Indian name that no Sorani Iraqi would have ever imagined to use it for himself because simply no one knew in Iraq this name at that time – and actually before being used as pen name, this name was his code name among the English secret services agents and diplomats who were those who made the name known to his silly bearer). Yûnis Reuf was a naive, idealistic, enthusiastic, daydreaming, and rather romantic youngster who failed to identify the criminal minds and the heinous hearts that were hidden behind the smiley faces of the Baghdad-based English gangsters, i.e. all those who befriended him for a while (before poisoning him and only after they extracted from him what they intended to duly utilize for their ignominious purposes). Born in Koy Sanjaq, near Suleymaniyeh, ‘Dildar’ studied Law in Baghdad, and there he was picked up by the English agents who used to include in their payroll youngsters originating from different ethnic background as tools for their nefarious and evil colonial rule that brought about the destruction that we have attested in the ancient land of Mesopotamia over the past decades.

 

During the period he is referred to as imprisoned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dildar), he was in fact interned, and then he attended various seminars offered to duly selected audience by distinct members of the perfidious and criminal, colonial elite including Max Mallowan, the Assyriologist and archaeologist who happened also to be the husband of Agatha Christie.

 

During this process of falsehood indoctrination (I should say intoxication), he was told all the irrelevant points of which he made the cornerstones of his misplaced, baseless and futile ‘nationalism’. Ideas of a ‘Kurdish’ past related to the Medes (of whom he had never heard before) were deleteriously instilled into his ignorant mind, while his youthful and innocent enthusiasm was criminally exploited in a way to make him deliver in Sorani poetry what the English wanted the Soranis to be stupid enough to believe.

 

The rest was easy. ‘Dildar’ composed in Sorani (there is no ‘Kurdish’ language) the silly and heinous pseudo-poem Ey Reqib, and his colonial masters – happy that after 20 years of murderous, illegal presence on Ottoman territory they had in their dirty hands at last a useful document written by a naive, idiotic and therefore easily manipulated local youngster – managed within no time that the ‘poem’ was accepted by their other ‘Kurdish’ stooges as a ‘national anthem’ of the bogus-Kurdish nation that they intended to create. More about the fake anthem of the bogus nation can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ey_Req%C3%AEb

 

Simple philological analysis can prove that the ‘poem’ is not a normal national anthem. National anthems reflect the identity of one nation or the aspiration of one people at a particular moment. In striking contradiction with what a national anthem is or can be, this ‘poem’ defines the supposed nation for which it is written as per their imaginary opponent! Ey Reqib (which is both the title and the first verse) in Sorani means ‘oh enemy’. The pathetic verses of the pseudo-poem constitute a series of affirmations so viciously Freemasonic of content that certainly not one Sorani, Gorani, Zaza, Kurmanji, etc. would dare accept. Through English treachery, mendacity, and perfidy, people who have nothing in common as ethno-religious groups are made to believe that (as one verse states) “Kurdistan is our religion”. This is a shame and an abomination for every Muslim, Yazidi or Ahl-e Haq (the main religions among all these different nations of which the villainous gangsters of the Freemasonic lodges intend to make one monstrous ‘Kurdish’ fabrication).

In the worthless text, which comprises of just 20 verses, the sentences “Let no one say Kurds are dead, they are living. They live and never shall we lower our flag” are repeated five times, being thus half of the rather short ‘anthem’!

However, in the fourth stanza, it is stated in Sorani that “Ême roley Mîdya u Keyxusrewîn”. This is the first time the word Mîdya is written or said in Sorani, because no local had studied Orientalism and Iranology until that time in order to come across with this ancient nation which is not mentioned in Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Azeri literature – let alone the literature of the indigenous Sorani, Gorani, Zaza, Kurmanji, etc.

 

It is really cute to notice that the naive boy that composed the worthless verse did not even bother to localize in his native language the previously unknown to him, English name of the ancient kingdom, and so ‘Media’ was merely transliterated into Mîdya without the slightest effort of an eventual localization – Midistan, etc.!

 

Translated in English, this verse reads: “We are the descendants of Media and Keykhosrow”. However, in the conventionally accepted and diffused, false English translation of the Sorani verse, ‘Media’ is replaced by ‘Medes’. This is an enormous falsification, because ‘the descendents of Media’ can mean in general the heirs of earlier civilizations developed by other nations on the same land, which poses no problem as it can be a normal case of cultural historicity. Quite contrarily to this, the false translation presents today’s bogus-Kurds as the offspring of the Ancient Medes, which is absolutely wrong and absurd.

 

What is really comical as falsification and, at the same time, demonstrates how fake the whole effort is can be attested in the false translation of the verse’s last word, e.g, the name Keykhosrow (‘Keyxusrewîn’).

 

Who is Keykhosrow?

 

Conventionally written in English as Kai Khosrow or Kay Khosrow, the legendary king is attested in Iranian and Azeri literature that goes as back as the 10th c. CE and reflects views over the origins of the Central Asiatic civilization, namely an heroic era of mythical kings, of their deeds of their and exploits, at a historically undefined time, when prevalence, superiority and sovereignty was vindicated by both, Turks and Persians, who – according to the narrative – are in fact the offspring of the same royal family.

 

Certainly, this heroic king’s name was not invented in the 10th c. CE as it is attested in earlier texts and even in the Avesta. But the Avestan term Kavi Husravah does not mean any legendary king but the ideal, primordial concept of fame. In other words, within different religious-cultural backgrounds the same name takes diverse connotations – Zoroastrian, Zendist, Mazdeist, etc., and the latest connotation is the Islamic Iranian one within which the earlier concept of fame is merely personified as a famous king.

 

Reading and interpreting epic poems like the famous Shahname by Ferdowsi (10th c. CE) is totally out of the limits of the present article, but here we have to stress the point that there are several different compositions and narratives of the same epic circle and they all reflect varied interpretations, Azeri / Turkic or Persian, of the common, Central Asiatic heritage and past that these nations had recorded  to have had. One must add at this point that the epic circle in and by itself demolishes the modern linguists’ long venerated assumption of a division between two distinct ethno-linguistic groups, namely the Indo-European and the Uralo-Altaic (or Turco-Mongolian); however, this is a different topic.

 

On the other hand, one must specify that the consideration of ‘Iran’ as a matter of Persian history, homeland, nation, language, culture and civilization is only the result of Western Orientalist and Iranologist biases. Of course, this forgery was subsequently utilized by Persian nationalists, who turned the Iranian Empire into a nationalist monarchy under the pseudo-dynasty of Pahlavi, but this consists in a typical nationalistic nonsense. Iran is equally Azeri / Turkic and Persian, and the full proof for this is demonstrated by the fact that several Seljuk (Turkish) Sultans were also named Kay Khosrow. In fact, different narratives and diverse interpretations of the same heroic era heritage were equally appropriated by Azeris / Turks and Persians.

 

About the legendary king, introductory information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Khosrow / http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Literature/Shahnameh/keykhosrow.htm

About the three Seljuk Turkish historical kings, basic info can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaykhusraw_I / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaykhusraw_II / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaykhusraw_III
A last point that I would like to add to the aforementioned is that it is not only for the name Kay Khosrow that a) the aforementioned set of the existing different connotations as per diverse religious context and b) the Azeri / Turkish – Persian polarization can be encountered. Other names, like Kay Kaus, Kay Qubad, etc. present respective parallels at both levels, a and b – each involving several different connotations (Zoroastrian, Zendist, Mazdeist, etc.) and the said polarization.

 

– What is the relation that Kay Khosrow may have with the Soranis and the other nations that the Western colonial forgers regroup under the name of ‘Kurds’?

 

– Ethnically – racially none, but culturally great!

 

The mention of Kay Khosrow in the few childish verses composed by ‘Dildar’ to be selected by the English colonials, and by their idiotic pseudo-‘Kurdish’ stooges, as ‘Kurdish’ national anthem (Ey Reqib) reveals only the following points:

 

1- there was a tremendous cultural impact, exercised on two axes, namely a) Seljuk – Ottoman (Turkish) over the Kurmanji and the Zaza and b) Timurid – Safavid – Afhar – Zend – Qajar (Iranian, so partly Persian and partly Azeri / Turkish) over the Sorani and the Gorani

 

2- there was a sheer identification of the diverse small nations (that today’s colonials attempt to portray them as one and independent ‘Kurdish’ nation) with the common Turkish – Azeri – Iranian historical and mythical national background,

 

3- there was an evident overwhelming appropriation of Turkish – Azeri – Iranian concepts, values and virtues, ideals, prototypes and paradigms for the social-behavioral and cultural life’s needs of these marginal mountainous nations that did not have a significant heritage of their own, and

 

4- Turkish – Azeri – Iranian concepts, values and virtues, ideals, prototypes and paradigms prevailed even in the minds of those selected in Iraq by the English colonials as their own tools as recently as the middle of the 20th c.

Now, it is high time for me to unveil why I started my article by expanding briefly on Cyaxares, the only significant king of the Ancient Medes. The reason is that the UK-US bribed, fake Kurdish gangsters, who – in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran – promote the fake Kurdish nationalism and demand an independent Kurdistan, have been ‘taught’ by their secret Western masters to posture as the descendents of Cyaxares!

 

– What is their proof?

 

The false English translation of the verse of the fake national anthem Ey Reqîb that refers to Kay Khosrow!

 

The Sorani verse “Ême roley Mîdya u Keyxusrewîn” was falsely translated in English as “We are the descendants of the Medes and Cyaxares” (see Wikipedia link above), and this is presented by the idiotic thugs of the fake Kurdish nationalism, the likes of Talabani and Barzani, as the ‘proof’ of their supposedly Median ancestry.

 

Why do I specify that these idiotic thugs and gangsters have been taught all this fallacious nonsense by their Freemasonic / Zionist masters?

 

Simply because not one Sorani or Kurmanji specialized in Old Achaemenid Persian (cuneiform), Ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew to have thus direct access to original sources and subsequently form a correct view of the specific historical period to which it is impossible to establish any link for themselves and their resolutely non-Median past.

 

All the bribed fake Kurdish nationalists repeat therefore the lies and the falsehood that the incestuous Freemasonic tyrants, diplomats and agents of France, England, Holland, Canada, America and Australia and the inhuman beasts of the fake, Anti-Jewish state of Israel order them to say, although it is very well known that all their instructions are false and that ‘Key Khosrow’ cannot possibly be translated as ‘Cyaxares’!

 

Fake Christians propagating the Anti-Christian, Satanic Falsehood

 

It would however be wrong to imagine that the pathetic and ignorant fake Kurdish thugs are the only victims to have been misled and deceived through the Satanic poison that the Anti-Christian rulers of the Freemasonic – Zionist tyrannies of the West have systematically and incessantly diffused. There are many millions of Western fake Christians who are equally or even worse victimized. How? By unquestionably accepting the aforementioned falsehood as truth and by trying to adjust it to their evil ministries and childish teachings.

 

Scores of ‘pastors’, ‘ministers’ and other ignorant commentators – of all sorts of heretical backgrounds involving Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Methodist and other villainous deviations – ‘inform’ their supposedly Christian, but genuinely unsuspicious, naive and gullible readership about the plans of their criminal and Satanic elites that these pseudo-Christian ‘ministers’ serve by deceitfully presenting these plans as godly of origin (which is a foremost sin) and as supposedly prophesied across their misinterpreted Bibles!

 

Their followers, all those who accept the filthy scam, are being used by the ruling Freemasonic – Zionist, Satanic elites of America, France, England and their allies. By accepting this falsehood, sizable Christian populations are demotivated from scrupulously examining the Christian or Anti-Christian character of their rulers’ deeds, plans and policies and thus remain inactivated, pathetic and lethargic, which in turn eliminates obstacles and reactions from the path of their rulers towards establishing a global Satanic state of falsehood and distortion.

 

Even worse, the devilish ‘pastors’ and ‘ministers’, by identifying the Satanic policies and deeds of the Western rulers with supposedly Biblical prophecies and with the will of God, force their followers into slavery and submission to Satan, as they – by rejecting the historical truth and deeply plunging into ignorance – directly oppose Jesus’ order “Γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς” (Vulgata:  “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos” / English: And shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free – from John 8:32).

 

You probably don’t know Jack Kelley; you certainly don’t miss much. This ignorant and uneducated person found it necessary to compose a nonsensical article under title ‘The Return of the Medes’ (http://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/the-return-of-the-medes/). The article starts with a fake map of an otherwise non existent country, ‘Kurdistan’. Not even in their wildest dreams did the fake Kurdish thugs and gangsters (who are closely guided controlled by the Satanic organizations CIA and the Mossad) dare to imagine that such a big bone would be thrown to them! Fake, non-existent Kurdistan is depicted in extraordinary dimensions on this forged map in order to look as vast as the precarious Median Empire!

Fake Kurdistan

Map forgery included in the ridiculous, false article published by the False Prophet Jack Kelley

 

Do you know what exactly the Anti-Christian gangster Jack Kelley does by suggesting the formation of a fake this big?

 

He heralds the butchery of the Oriental Christians of Urumiyeh, Salmas, Miandoab and other locations in Iran who are presented as forthcoming subjects of the fake Kurdish state, since all these cities and the surrounding territories of the Iranian provinces of West and East Azerbaijan have been included in the fictional state that Jack Kelley’s criminal masters want to set up. To serve his Satanic masters, the inhuman beasts of the CIA and the Mossad, this false preacher does not give a damn about the fate of the true Christians – which in and by itself is the best proof that he is a Satanist impersonating the Christian priest. I can already see Aramaean Christian blood in Jack Kelley’s hands because, if such an evil state is formed, the Christians will be the first targeted by the fake Kurdish nationalists and their lawless militias.

 

This silly person, who never attended the first hour of a first year course in History of Ancient Iran, repeats the hereby refuted falsehood of the Median ancestry of the non-existent Kurdish nation (“The Kurds are the modern descendants of the Medes”) in his trashy text, which is full of stupid mistakes, nonsensical assumptions, and deliberate distortions. In fact, every line of his text is full of mistakes.

 

Example: “The Medes, an Indo-European people who were joined by the Persians in their successful effort to overthrow Babylon and establish themselves as a world power in the 6th century BC”!

 

This pathetic and dangerous liar ignores that the Medes were not joined by the Persians in any effort against Babylon, simply because the Persians merged with Media by means of mixed royal marriage of Cyrus’ father, and that the unification of the two kingdoms (Media and Persia) took place more than a decade before Iran attacked Babylonia.

 

Why does this ludicrous Kelley man want to desperately include the Medes in the invasion of Babylonia which was undertaken exclusively by the Persians under Cyrus? The reason is simple. The Western pseudo-Christians’ and Satanists’ ‘art’ of impressing innocent and naive Western Christian readership involves the establishment of parallels between a misinterpreted past and a falsely prophesied future. Scores of villainous gangsters, who incessantly, purposefully and mercilessly kill Christians’ souls – through lies, systematic falsehood, and multilevel deception – insist on ‘inventing’ prophetic parallels in past events and teach their otherwise unsophisticated audiences that what happened in the past was an archetypal form of crucial events that ‘will’ happen at the End of Times. In fact, they commit a double forgery; they misinterpret several excerpts from prophetic – apocalyptic texts, then they deliberately falsify the past events as per their needs, and at the end, they establish the parallelism, thus uttering their bogus prophecies!

 

Concerning the ludicrous assumption of a double Median-Kurdish (past and future) Anti-Babylonian action, Jack Kelley’s paranoid forgery involves the following 3-step argumentation and the ensuing conclusion:

 

  1. The Medes overthrew Babylonia (which is proven wrong).

 

  1. The Medes are the ancestors of the ‘Kurds’ (which is proven wrong).

 

  1. So, the ‘Kurds’ will overthrow Babylonia at the End of Time.

 

– That’s why the West should help ‘Kurds’ setup their state, so that they later overthrow …. Babylonia (that does not exist anymore, but the idiotic author makes a laughable effort to resuscitate it!!).

 

What does Jack Kelley does not say?

 

He does not confess that he intends to write another ‘article’ in the future, and similarly ‘prove’ to his unfortunate readership that today’s ‘Babylonia’ is Islam or Turkey or Saudi Arabia and that the ‘allegorical’ notion of the Biblical term has been meanwhile ( ! ? ) transferred to Istanbul, Medina, Mecca or any other place whereby his shadowy masters and payers may order him to locate it!!

So, unrelated to the Medes and non-existent as one nation, the fake Kurds are ‘prophesied’ by this vicious liar to become “God’s agency for the never before fulfilled judgment against Babylon at the End of the Age”. And although ‘Babylon’ is a metaphor within Biblical and Christian prophetic texts (so, totally unrelated to any possible ‘state’, past or future), the miserable and idiotic liar Jack Kelley tries to identify it with the location of the ancient Mesopotamian city!!

 

This is a brief part of his toxic text: “Those who say the restoration of Babylon will require billions of dollars and many years have not considered that its preparation has been under way for several years now. For example, if you take a close look at the dimensions and capabilities of the US embassy in Baghdad you will see how easily it could be converted into a world governmental headquarters. With a compound covering 104 acres, it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City. Babylon is only about an hour away by car.

 

In addition, one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces sits on a hill overlooking ancient Babylon and has been completely restored as a hotel and tourist destination. It could easily house the anti-Christ and his entourage.  And there are several large military installations nearby as well.  In short, preparing Babylon to become the capitol of the world won’t take anywhere near as long as most people think.  And remember, this is Satan’s city on Earth”.

 

Do you want to know how it will all end?

 

False Prophet Jack Kelley has it ready for you in his McDonald’s style ‘prophecy’: “Through the Kurds, the Medes have stepped out of history and onto the world stage once again, and another player in the End Times Scenario is taking its place. One day soon, the King of the Medes will again lead a vast army against Babylon, and this time her destruction will be complete, and the Lord’s words will be fulfilled”. Absolute nonsense and deliberate forgery for which Jack Kelley will be deservedly thrown in the bottomless pit.

 

So, now you understand that, when you read in Matthew 24:4 “Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ” (Vulgata: “videte ne seducamini ” – English: See that no one mislead you), you know that Christians have already been ordered to reject the vicious fallacy of Jack Kelley.

 

Where does Jack Kelley’s mistake lie?

 

His reading of the Biblical and Christian texts is very superficial, schematic, immoralist and materialistic. He views these texts, which are above all reflecting moral standards and principles, eternal values and virtues, as simple mechanical tools able to be adjusted to his dirty heart’s vicious plans and desires that are all materialistic of nature. There is no spirituality and there is no morality in the Biblical texts in the way he reads them. I will terminate my article with an example. His worthless text starts with a Biblical excerpt referring to the Ancient Medes (the true ones, who are unrelated to today’s fake Kurds).

 

This is the Biblical text’s English translation that he has chosen: “See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians’ pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there, no shepherd will rest his flocks there”. (Isaiah 13:17-20)

 

This text should not be taken as historically wrong because it mentions Medes and not Persians destroying Babylon; the selection of the ethnic names by scribes, translators and copyists in the Antiquity reveals several times a preference for a certain archaic style, and one has to take into consideration that the Septuagint (the 72 scholars), who translated from Biblical Hebrew to Ancient Greek the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), delivered their work to Pharaoh Ptolemy II in Alexandria 250 years after the Persian invasion of Babylonia (539 BCE). Even more so because the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus had already ceased to exist in their time, following the conquests of Alexander the Great that took place at least 50 years before the Jewish scholars traveled to the Mediterranean city where they worked on this project in a royal facility made available to them at the island of Pharos.

 

However, the first sentence of the text is a key for us to understand the moral standards involved in Hebrew god’s decision to use a nation against another as chastisement. The Medes, as per the text, “do not care for silver and have no delight in gold”. This sets a very specific contextualization of how things like that can happen. The Medes are described as fully disinterested in materialistic goods, because even the two most precious metals of those days did not attract their attention.

 

This irrevocably concludes the case of the corrupt mind and worthless text of the False Prophet Jack Kelley. Even if today’s fake nation of the so-called ‘Kurds’ had been a true nation (and not a collective appellation of many different nations that evil colonial interests want to put together in the next ‘fratricidal’ scheme), even if today’s ‘Kurds’ as a hypothetically one nation had been the latest offspring of the Ancient nation of the Medes (which is certainly not the case), today’s ‘Kurds’ – in order to be eventually used again by the Hebrew god for the role that the ignorant author pretends that they will play – would have obligatorily reflected the same moral principles, concepts, values and virtues as those attributed by the Biblical text to the Ancient Medes (meant by the Septuagint translators as ‘Persians’).

 

Anyone who lives in our world knows that the fake Kurdish nationalists and their thuggish leaders, who are the puppets of France, England, America and Israel, are lewd and villainous persons of exclusively materialist interests of the lowest sort. These are the gangsters who killed scores of Iraqi Turkmen in order to ensure some millions of petrodollars for their filthy bank accounts and disreputable pockets. These are the inhuman beasts who can let others (particularly the Christian Aramaeans) die if this is the way their Satanic masters order them to act (they did so in Mosul where they had the time to prepare for battle when they first got the news of the ISIS plan – but their CIA / Mossad masters ordered them to abstain from any involvement). These are the masters of corruption, perversion, and lawlessness; they sell drugs wherever they settle and they manage their illegal business of human trafficking which has marked an extraordinary growth over the past 11 years. They feel no moral compunction to perform the most monstrous deeds for a handful of dollars. Only a False Prophet would find in them the tool of his god, but this lower god’s name would be Satan. And the False Messiah that a False Prophet like Jack Kelley expects is only the Antichrist (Masih Dajjal) and none else.

 

The very bad news for America’s fake Christians and False Prophets is that a genuine interpretation of sacred texts reflecting moral values cannot be undertaken by people who find it normal to live in a genocidal country that has systematically and mercilessly persecuted the indigenous population of the occupied territories for more than two centuries in the most abominable manner.

 

Truth and Faith do not permit a country to have Wall Street or Federal Reserve. If there are true Christians in America, their only possible target is the immediate rejection of the Satanic tyranny that has been imposed on them and on their forefathers since Day 1 the cursed Freemasonic – Zionist state was incepted.

 

To be or not to be – Western Questions about ISIS and Islam reveal the Collapse of Christianity

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

 

Refutation of Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer’s article ‘Is ISIS Islamic?’

 

topkapi

The true Caliphate – this is what the Freemasonic, Zionist gangsters of the West wanted to destroy.

ISIS 1

The fake Caliphate – this is what the Freemasonic, Zionist gangsters of the West wanted to bring forth in order to totally eliminate Islam in the process.

In a previous article under title ‘Ottoman Empire, Fake ‘Middle East’, the Pseudo-Christians of the West, and the Forthcoming Tribulation’ (http://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/ottoman-empire-fake-middle-east-the-pseudo-christians-of-the-west-and-the-forthcoming-tribulation/), I analyzed why the Western Christians’ stance towards their governments’ policies against the Ottoman Empire and its detached provinces (the technical entities of the so-called ‘Middle East’) is very wrong, definitely immoral, and in total contradiction with the Christian principles, values and virtues. I concluded that a great number of nominal Christians, who approved of the evil policies and deeds of the Western governments, are in reality pseudo-Christians irrespective of what they may think they are.

 

In a world engulfed in the worst crisis of identity of all times, it is only normal that doubts are raised as regards the identity of the ‘other.’ Only yesterday, Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer, who specializes in ‘global religion’ – a non-existent entity – questioned in an article the identity of ISIS (Is ISIS Islamic? / http://www.theglobalist.com/is-isis-islamic/).

 

Quite interestingly, under the title, a motto gives the summarizing idea of the article (“Every religion has its dark sides, but the conflict is about politics.”). This is absolutely irrelevant; dark sides in a religion are what you don’t know of that religion. They don’t exist by themselves. No religion has ever had any dark side whatsoever. And all conflicts about politics cannot be deprived of their own religious dimension, because everything in a human society hinges on the spiritual belief or disbelief. Atheists are religious too; they are slaves of Satan either they understand it or not. Their theory and their rejection of God is a form of Satanic faith.

 

When one starts with so many preconceived ideas as the global religion theoretician Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer, his approach is doomed to fail, but this does not originate from the lack of knowledge of the ‘other side’. And Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer’s main problem is not his lack of insightful knowledge about both, the Islamic world and ISIS itself. The article reveals a serious problem of Christian identity and for this reason I intended to comment on it. I think that my comments will be useful to both, Christians and Muslims.

 

The author of the article tries to implement the following simplistic logic: if we hold the Ku Klux Klan in the US and the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda as ‘Christian’, then we can consider ISIS as ‘Islamic’. This sort of approach does not clarify anything, and rather creates further confusion among both, Christians and Muslims. Generally speaking, I understand and accept the approach through analogy, but to implement this method in your text, you’ve got to select very firm examples. Yes, it is correct to say ‘if we hold the New and the Old Testament as holy books for the Christians, then we can consider the Quran as holy book for Muslims’. Beyond the limit of such comparisons, we can achieve minimal result through analogy and at times lose clarity.

 

There is always a very serious mistake in every approach that avoids a proper, direct definition and attempts to define something through its opposite. If you want to define Christianity, you cannot possibly be as vague as you are when saying ‘Christianity is something other than / different from Ku Klux Klan’ (or the LRA). Ditto for the Islamic World.

 

It is really gross to try to define Christianity as the antithesis of what the author calls the LRA ‘a terrible terrorist organization’! Who can expect a religion to possibly be ‘a terrible terrorist organization’? No one!

 

In addition, there are in Uganda hundreds of thousands if not millions of simple people who, if not terrorized, will have the courage to state that the LRA is NOT a terrorist organization – or if you want not as terrorist as the execrable, racist Ugandan government. And who is authorized to speak about ‘terrorism’? The global mass media? Or the defenders of a non-existent ‘global religion’?

 

But the term ‘terrorism’ (or ‘terrorist’) is an unhistorical fabrication that was composed only recently as a vicious tool of the world’s most evil, most villainous, and most dictatorial regimes, the likes of America, England and France. It has no credibility, and above all, it is used within political context. Why on Earth a scholar and an academic feels the need to confuse his readers so much as to mention a political term when he talks about religion?

 

Whatever Christianity has been or has not been or may have been, it is certainly something unrelated to modern political terms; even more so if these terms are recently invented as result of scheming and propaganda and therefore fully rejected by vast populations worldwide.

 

However, the use of brutal manners in order to achieve power that will later consolidate the survival and the propagation of a faith, a religion, a sect or a secret order-organization is widely attested in almost every religion, culture, nation and period.

 

There are many historical examples in this regard. The Ismailiyah Order of the Shia Muslims, who were also called Hashashin (because their leader, the famous ‘Elder of the Mountain’ administered the proper dose of hashish to his disciples in order to duly instrumentalize and effectively utilize them for his purposes) and were known to Marco Polo (he called them Assassins and this is how this word was first used in European languages), used to send members (their secret knights) to cross incredibly long distances to arrive where their target (a ruler, an military leader, an imam or other) lived and, by treacherously approaching, assassinate them. Should we call them ‘terrorists’? This would be utterly ridiculous.

 

It is actually always pathetic and ludicrous to project one period’s / civilization’s / culture’s measures, values and criteria onto other periods, civilizations and cultures. One cannot evaluate others through use of one’s own criteria; every civilization, culture, religion, and historical period is an independent entity that no scholar can transform as per his theoretical needs in any way. The reason for this maxim is simple; by slightly transforming (through improper evaluation involving external criteria) a civilization, culture, religion, and historical period, a scholar only modifies and misinterprets it. This scholar is therefore speaking of a false entity that practically speaking never existed (except in his misinterpretation and imagination); thus, he only confuses his unfortunate readers.

 

Another example is offered by the Christian Catholic Holy Inquisition. It is undisputed that this Holy Office carried out very brutal policies for long. Should we call it ‘terrorism’? This would also be utterly ludicrous.

 

As the author is continuously avoiding a proper definition for what is ‘Islamic’ and what is not, the article is characterized by a personal, individualistic approach that is both, irrelevant and confusing. Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer implements again the analogy approach, but this time at the very personal level. He, as a Christian, dissociates himself from the Ugandan LRA and the American Ku Klux Klan, and he therefore postulates that, accordingly, ‘this is the same position most Muslims are in now with regard to ISIS’.

 

This is very irrelevant because scholars are expected to include personal views and experience in their memoirs at the end of the their lives and not as supposedly convincing evidence in their articles and other publications. This style is very arrogant; in addition, it is very confusing because personal approaches do not constitute proper definitions. The sentence he makes is quiet evident: ‘As a Christian, I feel like they have nothing to do wit h me or with the Christianity that I know’. The last words reveal the extent of the problem; probably the globalist professor and specialist of the non existent ‘global’ religion ( !! ? !! )  does not know the Holy Inquisition, and consequently we can safely claim that he does not know Christianity well. And this is the problem for him and for all the misled and confused Christians of the West.

 

Many people have been driven to the impasse of assuming a lot; one of their wrong assumptions is to take today’s fallen Christianity as the true Christianity. Similarly, in the Islamic world, there are many Muslims, who assume that today’s fallen Islam is the true Islam. Both groups fail to understand one another because they primarily fail to understand themselves and accurately specify how far they have gone from their respective religions, sailing adrift in the Sea of Relativism and Faithlessness.

 

After the preliminary part of the article, its inconsistency turns it to a mere worthless piece. As the title obliges the author to give a definition of ISIS, the ‘global religion’ specialist or rather propagandist Mark Juergensmeyer enters into a series of mistakes while giving to his readers unexplained terms that are absolutely meaningless to the non-specialist.

 

He says: ‘What makes things even more complicated is that ISIS bases its beliefs and actions on a form of Islamic interpretation called Salafism’.

 

– Why on Earth is now the Salafist nature of ISIS (which is true and beyond any doubt) a problem?

 

Let me make my position clear. In many articles, I denounced the Wahhabism (the correct term for Salafism) as a deformation of Islam. But Wahhabism (or if you want Salafism) is nothing new to the Western world’s academia and diplomats.

 

To paraphrase Prof. Juergensmeyer, before any other institution on Earth, Saudi Arabiathe country that America catastrophically chose as its primary ally in the region before …. 70 years or, to put it otherwise, the country that England disastrously conspired with against the Ottoman Caliphate for more than 100 years before the fall of the Ottoman dynasty and continually ever since‘bases its beliefs and actions on a form of Islamic interpretation called Salafism’.

 

What is Prof. Juergensmeyer talking about?

 

If Saudi Arabia did not exist, there would never be an ISIS.

 

What does Prof. Juergensmeyer want?

 

Does he want ISIS to disappear and Saudi Arabia to survive?

 

That’s silly.

 

Because if Saudi Arabia continues existing, even if ISIS is mercilessly exterminated and all its members and fighters executed ( and this needs at least 50000 US soldiers in a large scale land attack and in coordination with the venerable president of Syria! ), there will be another ISIS, an ISIS bis if you want, or an ISES (Islamic State of Egypt and Sudan), an ISYA (Islamic State of Yemen and Arabia), or any combination of letters you may choose!

 

As long as Saudi Arabia exists, Wahhabism will be its pseudo-Islamic state dogma, and through the filthy money of the inhuman gangsters who rule from Riyadh, Wahhabism will be diffused among the masses of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia to the Muslim Diaspora worldwide.

 

What is even worse is that Prof. Juergensmeyer fails again to either give a definition of Wahhabism (Salafism) or the historical perspective thereof; as a matter of fact, all the filthy and un-Islamic, dark and inhuman ideas that Muhammad Abdel Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism) shaped and propagated during the 18th c. did not fall from the sky into his idiotic and ignorant mind. There has been an entire historical process within Islam (with heretic theologians preceding Muhammad Abdel Wahhab by 450 and 900 years) that led to this monstrous theological deformation of Islam. All this is unknown to the ‘global religion’ professor who writes about Islam without having a clue of all academic fields pertaining to the study of this historical – spiritual phenomenon.

 

This is the historical reality, which is quite well known to specialists of Islamic History and Religion in the West, but it remains concealed, because it is politically disturbing and troublesome. If Wahhabism is not uprooted, if all the Wahhabi institutions across the world are not shut down, if a new class of Muslim intellectuals at the antipodes of Wahhabism is not formed, the explosive situation will only turn worse.

 

First point of conclusion is therefore that Saudi Arabia and the Saudi family itself must be denounced as the only matrix of all evil across the Islamic world for the last 200 years, and an overwhelming attack against it must be undertaken in order to totally eliminate Riyadh and the villainous, heretic elite which from there managed to incessantly spread the evilness of Wahhabism worldwide.

 

The confusing presentation of Prof. Juergensmeyer is due to the fact that he does not seek the historical, religious, cultural and theological truth, but only writes in order to serve political purposes and needs, preserve strategic alliances, and in the process, effectuate compromises. We saw these compromises in Mosul, in Sanjar and in Raqqah. These compromises are responsible for the evacuation of most of the Yazidis from their homelands; these compromises are the reason for the deracination of all the Aramaean Christians of Mosul; these compromises are the root cause of the hecatomb that the bloodthirsty vampires of ISIS want to deliver.

 

For one more time, the ‘global religion’ specialist, Prof. Juergensmeyer, attempts a confusing definition through analogy! He writes: “The Salafi movement is similar to an extreme fundamentalism in Christianity”. This is an understatement; in addition, who can specify what ‘fundamentalism in Christianity’ means? This is not called ‘definition’ but ‘anyone’s guess’…

It must however become crystal clear to Western readership that ISIS, Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism, (Salafism) do not constitute any form of Islamic fundamentalism. They are heretic, so they cannot be held as Islamic in any sense. They are far and out of the foundations of Islam, so they cannot possibly be ‘fundamental’. Muhammad Abdel Wahhab in his days was considered as a heretic and a traitor by the Ottoman administration; the same evaluation concerned also the Ottoman Caliphate’s traitor and founder of the Satanic house of the Saudis.

 

The two earlier Islamic theologians on whom Abdel Wahhab was based to produce his pseudo-Islamic trash, namely Ahmed ibn Taimiyah and Ahmed ibn Hanbal who lived in the 13th-14th c. and the 8th-9th c, respectively, were also considered as heretic in their times and duly imprisoned. They may be unknown to Prof. Juergensmeyer, but he should then abstain from writing purposelessly on issues he is not relevant of.

 

The famous, 14th c. Moroccan traveler, explorer and scholar Ibn Battuta encountered in Damascus people who knew personally the evil, villainous and ignorant heretic Ibn Taimiyah who was then imprisoned. This is what the Islamic World’s most illustrious traveler wrote about the progenitor of Wahhabism:

 

A controversial theologian  

 

One of the principal Hanbalite doctors at Damascus was Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiya, a man of great ability and wide learning, but with some kink in his brain. The people of Damascus idolized him. He used to preach to them from the pulpit, and one day he made some statement that the other theologians disapproved; they carried the case to the sultan and in consequence Ibn Taymiya was imprisoned for some years. While he was in prison he wrote a commentary on the Koran, which he called ” The Ocean,” in about forty volumes. Later on his mother presented herself before the sultan and interceded for him, so he was set at liberty, until he did the same thing again. I was in Damascus at the time and attended the service which he was conducting one Friday, as he was addressing and admonishing the people from the pulpit. In the midst of his discourse he said “Verily God descends to the sky over our world [from Heaven] in the same bodily fashion that I make this descent,” and stepped down one step of the pulpit. A Malikite doctor present contradicted him and objected to his statement, but the common people rose up against this doctor and beat him with their hands and their shoes so severely that his turban fell off and disclosed a silken skull-cap on his head. Inveighing against him for wearing this, they haled him before the qadi of the Hanbalites, who ordered him to be imprisoned and afterwards had him beaten. The other doctors objected to this treatment and carried the matter before the principal amir, who wrote to the sultan about the matter and at the same time drew up a legal attestation against Ibn Taymiya for various heretical pronouncements. This deed was sent on to the sultan, who gave orders that Ibn Taymiya should be imprisoned in the citadel, and there he remained until his death.

 

At a certain point in his article, Prof. Juergensmeyer makes a totally misleading statement (“So, yes, ISIS is ultimately Islamic – whether you like it or not”), which can have disastrous consequences on anyone who may happen to accept it. A heretic cannot be identified with the religion from which he was rejected. It is not a mere point of accuracy, but a critical issue of false target.

 

Failing to understand this, he adds perjury to infamy, by completing his sentence with the following: “but it is certainly not the kind of Islam that most Muslims would accept or profess”.

 

This is a pure lie. And more than a merely false point, it reflects the tendencies of the Western governments to totally conceal the truth from their peoples. First of all, no one has accurate estimates on the subject. Gallup polls in several Muslim countries are prohibited – particularly on a subject this critical -, whereas in the rest no Gallup polls have ever been conducted on issues as troublesome as that.

 

However, there are many indicators that ISIS does truly reflect in a certain way the kind of false, heretic and decayed Islam that most Muslims accept and profess. If you make a list of what is correct as an act or practice of the Islamic way of both, personal life and social organization, including perhaps 500 detailed points accepted by the followers, the fighters and the leaders of ISIS, and then you submit this list to 1000 average Saudis (without adding that these points are all approved by ISIS members), their responses, homogeneous and ominous, will take you by surprise. Their agreement with the 500 points of the list will deliver a result far above 90-95%.  Similar results, always above 80%, you will collect from countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, etc. And certainly the agreement will be lower in other countries, but even in Turkey, it will be as high as 40% due to the vicious Western policies in favor of the AKP party Islamists and against the nationalist military establishment of Ankara (a paranoid policy that allowed the ruling Islamists to widen their basis through a varied set of methods).

 

How can one be sure of this?

By simply walking in the streets of districts inhabited by middle and lower classes (that total more than 80-90% of the total population of the country in most of the aforementioned cases) and observing what goes around, talking to the people, asking about their ideas, and entertaining comprehensive discussions as to just how they see and how they want to see their lives and their social environment – something that Prof. Juergensmeyer did not do, ultimately preferring the calmness and the security of his office somewhere in the States.

 

However, the situation is far worse than that. If you now present the same list (of what is correct as an act or practice of the Islamic way of personal life and social organization, including perhaps 500 detailed points accepted by the followers, the fighters and the leaders of ISIS) to a selected group of academics, engineers, businessmen, administrators and high profile functionaries, deputies of ‘parliament’ (this is a non-representative assembly for most of the cases), military, ministers and religious authorities across the Islamic world (without however saying that these points are all approved by ISIS members), you will collect even more surprising results. The outright majority of the elite of these countries (and I don’t mean here only Saudi Arabia but all the aforementioned countries) in majority supports the same points. This is for instance the reason one should view the latest president El Sisi of Egypt as theologically – ideologically – politically far closer to the former president Morsy than to the one time vice president El Baradei.

It would take too long to narrate how this situation has been formed, but I would however like to briefly hint at what I said earlier about the theologians who served as source of inspiration for Muhammad Abdel Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabism (Salafism), namely the heretics Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn Hanbal. In fact, if Muhammad Abdel Wahhab developed the theological system that constitutes today’s Wahhabists’ doctrine, this is due to the fact that Ibn Hanbal’s and Ibn Taimiyah’s successive and intertwined theological systems gradually prevailed among the Islamic world and eliminated or transformed/altered all the opposite systems.

 

As a matter of fact, if one Muslim imam, qadi, mufti, minister, general, professor, president or businessman today rejects Wahhabism, he still accepts Ibn Taimiyah’s widespread and fully accepted theological system, which is – metaphorically speaking – the tree that produced the fruit of Wahhabism. There is, practically speaking, little difference or no difference at all between the two systems; simply every posterior system that emanates from an anterior is expected to feature and does actually feature some extra points.

The real difference existed in the past, in Islam’s Golden Era, when totally opposite philosophical systems totally prevailed across the highly educated Islamic World. These are the philosophical systems of Ibn Sina, Qurtubi, Ibn Rushd, Ghazali, Mohyieldin Ibn Arabi, Ibn Hazm, to name but a few; to them is due the Islamic Enlightenment, whereas to the gross, villain, uneducated trash of Ibn Taimiyah is due the complete disfigurement of Islam’s quintessence. However, due to the gradual diffusion of Ibn Taimiyah’s theological nonsense and ignominious darkness, and following its prevalence among ignorant and uneducated masses that it created in a vicious circle mechanism, as it attacked Science, Knowledge, Philosophy, Art and Spirituality, gradually all the philosophical systems of the aforementioned Titans of the Islamic Thought disappeared until the end of the 16th c.

 

Of course, there is one more difference between the political elites of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. and the ISIS extremists; the former, although accepting most of Abdel Wahhab’s theories and all of Ibn Tamiyah’s ideas, differ politically and make the necessary compromises to ensure the survival of their regime. Contrarily, the latter reject the compromise of the former, viewing it as a treason of Islam. Political difference is therefore due to mere survival tactics of elites that are theological quasi-identical to ISIS; these elites believe that by making compromises upon compromises with the West, they can prolong their tenure and the ensuing material benefits. But their existence only spearheads new waves of uncompromising Wahhabists. Certainly, there is also an attitudinal difference (but no behavioral difference) between the followers of a guy like al Bashir of Sudan or Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and the fighters of ISIS; the former want to pocket more money and store it in their banks, whereas the latter are ready to die. But none of them would accept his wife to be uncovered (without hejab, the Islamic veil) or his daughter to travel alone on motorbike across Europe.

 

The best corroboration of the aforementioned is the following tragicomical contrast between Egypt’s last and current presidents; Muhammad Morsy is viewed by some as extremist  whereas the incumbent is considered as a moderate and pragmatist person.

 

Former Egyptian president Muhammad Morsy’s wife wears hejab (Islamic veil that allows the face to be seen).

 

Current Egyptian president El Sisi’s wife used to wear a niqab (Islamic veil that covers the face entirely leaving only two small holes for the eyes) and only recently “swapped the niqab for a trendy hijab, hushing up claims that she was dyed-in-the-wool” (http://www.albawaba.com/slideshow/sisi-wife-intisar-amer-581626)!!

 

Prof. Juergensmeyer goes on saying that the reason for which “world leaders are trying to make in saying that ISIS is ‘not Islamic’.” is that ISIS “is certainly not the kind of Islam that most Muslims would accept or profess”. In the light of the aforementioned this appears to be a very unfortunate consideration and an erroneous evaluation of what is going on in the Islamic world.

 

Reaching the end of the brief yet mistaken article, Prof. Juergensmeyer says that Islam’s name means “peace” which is very wrong (in reality, it means ‘submission to God’ although it originates from the word ‘peace’).

 

In the article’s last three paragraphs, Prof. Juergensmeyer makes one more futile effort to dissociate ISIS from today’s prevalent Islamic theological systems and to associate it with politics. This is quite pointless and misplaced. In fact, there is no, and there cannot be any, difference between religion and politics in Islam. So, everything that is religious is also political, and vice versa.

 

Contrarily to the wrong Western assumption that Islam is the only system whereby religion and politics constitute an indivisible entity of faith and action, it is historically proven that all the major religions were systems in which faith and government were perfectly well interwoven. The same occurred particularly in Christianity either Orthodox or Catholic; one may even ponder that in some cases the phenomenon occurred more emphatically in Christianity than in Islam; extensively discussed terms, such as Papocaesarism and Caesaropapism are quite telling in this regard.

 

So, Prof. Juergensmeyer’s sentence “Besides religion, it is critical to recognize that all the forms of terrorism that we have seen are about politics. Any act of violence in the public sphere is aimed at trying to claim political space – at taking over power to assume control over regions or peoples. This is certainly true in the case of ISIS” is absolutely irrelevant and completely wrong.

 

The way one family lives is defined by religion; the way one society is organized is specified by religion; the way the art of rule is exercised is decreed by religion. The aforementioned does not only apply to the Islamic world; it does also to Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Iran, etc. It is also valid in Confucian China, Biblical Israel, and Christian Rome or Constantinople. One can enter into details that can fill volumes: the way one fights in battle is determined by religious orders; the way one sleeps is elucidated by religious advice; the way one eats is clarified by religious guidance; the way one has sex is stipulated by religious prescriptions, and so on.

 

Piety is one of the religious traits and virtues that must be reflected in a person’s life, either this person is Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Confucian. I fully agree with Prof. Juergensmeyer that “most people directly involved in ISIS are not pious Muslims”; this is right. But does it really matter?

 

And what about Prof. Juergensmeyer? Will he agree with me saying that “most people directly involved in Assets Management are not pious Christians”?

 

When we see vulture-funds in Latin America terrorizing nations like Argentina (which involves populations far larger than Iraq or Syria) and endangering the lives and the well-being of dozens of millions of people, do we still need to focus exclusively on a minor terrorist group and forget worse gangsters and terrorists who are far more perilous than the idiotic fighters of ISIS?

 

And this concludes the case of this type of confusing presentations and futile approaches that leave the Western readership in mysteries; identifying the true reasons of an explosive situation may help greatly solve and diffuse the crisis. But it entails a real inquiry about the original and the altered, the genuine and the transfigured, the authentic and the corrupt. Instead of searching pretexts and excuses, one should seek the truth.

 

It is not only greatly comical but also highly perilous for the Western leaders to continue on the same track. Why should they bother whether most of today’s Muslims accept or don’t accept the doctrine and the practices of ISIS? The Western leaders themselves constantly disregard the majority of the population back in their countries, and particularly when the majority is ostensibly opposite to calamitous choices that they make (such as the case of the erroneously conceived and catastrophically carried out attack against, and occupation of, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq). Their disregard for the wishes and the opinions of the majority of their countries’ populations is monumental; they cannot be sensitive for other nations when they are insensitive for their own.

 

The search for the reasons that brought about the present situation cannot be undertaken by Western academia, intellectuals and diplomats without a deep investigation of the developments that took place in their own countries in the first place. Before bothering to know whether ISIS is Islamic or not, they should care to find out whether the so-called Christian nations of the West are really Christian. Drunken of their colonial successes for many centuries, the Western peoples lived with myths and lies that totally disfigured the true dimensions of their own deeds, choices and policies. Modernity is not Christian but Anti-Christian. Globalism is not Divine but Satanic. And the Homosexual Marriages are not the ‘right of the free’ but the evilness of the slaves – of Satan.

 

Atheist, materialistic, and despiritualized, the Western world turned out to be the Cemetery of the Christian Faith. That’s why the leaders of the Western countries did not give a damn about the persecution, expulsion and extermination of the Aramaean Christians in Mosul. They face now a nominalist and legalist theological system of despiritualized Muslims, who are partly westernized and deeply materialistic, which means filled with extremely contradictory elements able to explode with uncontainable consequences.

 

The fallacy, inhumanity and monstrosity of either systems is such that one could simply consider them as the two faces of same coin. So corrupt and eroded this coin is that nothing can save it; it will soon be thrown in the Hell that it deserves. And its two faces, in full discord to one another, are triggering now by themselves the downgrading spiral that will bring their end. To survive one has to dissociate him/herself from the onerous coin as much as possible, as soon as possible, and as irreversibly as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland, ‘Civic Nation’, ‘Ethnic Nation’, and the Search for National Identity and Independence

mgsEBO0 4724123By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

 

 

The modern European concept of ‘nation’ triggered ceaseless wars and interminable conflicts over the past two centuries. But was there only one modern European concept of ‘nation’? Certainly not!

 

Nation – a modern term with no ancient parallels

 

The word ‘nation’ existed in all major ancient languages that we deciphered, but it did not always have the same meaning and resonance. As we see it, it was very common for several populations that belonged to the same nation to be organized in different states. This was already typified in the world’s first civilization, the Sumerians – an exemplary case.

 

Before the formation of Ancient Egypt as a state around 3000 BCE, for no less than 500 years we attest the early organization and development of the first Sumerian cities-states, namely Eridu, Ur, Uruk, Larsa, Kish, Lagash, Isin, Shuruppak, etc.

 

The same situation is observed 2000-2500 years later among the Phoenicians, when Tyr, Sidon, Arwad, Byblos, Beirut and other states-kingdoms coexisted for hundreds of years, at times peacefully and at times at war.

 

The Assyrians and the Babylonians, both descendents of the Akkadians who were the earliest Semites to form an empire with Akkad (Agade) as capital in the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE, were apparently the first nation in the world to be divided on religious, cultural and ideological grounds. This started happening at the very end of the 3rd millennium BCE.

 

The phenomenon was repeated in Ancient Egypt, and there too we have noticed great examples of national division due to religious, cultural and ideological grounds; the post-Ramesside period (at the beginning of the 11th c. BCE) is plenty of divisions. For centuries, Egypt was divided and ruled by two or even three parallel dynasties; the 8th – 7th c. BCE clash between the Napatan – Kushitic – Sudanese dynasty (called ‘Ethiopian’ by the Ancient Egyptian Historian Manetho) and the Western Delta dynasty (that Manetho called ‘Libyan’) reflect different readings of the Ancient Egyptian Heritage to which were willingly ascribed the peripheral nations the Berber ‘Lybians’ of Egypt’s western confines and the Kushites-Ethiopians of today’s Sudanese North (who were totally unrelated to the modern Abyssinian tribes that peremptorily and fallaciously use the name of Ethiopia for their country).

 

Among Ancient Greeks, the extent of the division was such that even among the same tribe’s people (Ionians, Aeolians, etc.) there were several small cities-states formed.

 

The word ‘nation’ in English is borrowed successively from Old French, and Latin. The original Latin word ‘natio’ meant first ‘native’ (someone relevant to his/her birthplace) only to be progressively extended to all the natives of a place as a group.

 

At this point it is essential to state that the confusion currently existing in English between the words ‘nation’ and ‘state’ or ‘nation’ and ‘country’ does NOT exist in other languages; in English, at times, ‘nation’ means ‘state’ or ‘country’ and a lot of misunderstanding is due to this confusion, which is highly advisable never to make. Consequently, it is important to clarify at this point that, throughout the present article, the word ‘nation’ is NOT considered as synonym of the words ‘state’ and ‘country’.

 

This is of primordial importance, and we need to always take it into consideration. In fact, the prevalent concept is that of an indigenous people. Only this concept makes of the term ‘nation’ a real, original value in Humanities; this is due to the fact that the term describes an indigenous community of humans. The term ‘country’ in its origin is purely geographical of context; it means land. Perhaps for several religions, a particular land or piece of land may be considered as sacred or holy, but this approach does never cover all lands and places that appeared as the result of the Creation.

 

Similarly, the term ‘state’ denotes the governmental mechanism that exists within some well demarcated borderlines. However, there has never been a state to have any value – except that given to it by either humans (the indigenous nation) or God (in Whose Name the state in question may have been established).

 

Within the context of modern disciplines of Ancient History and Political Science, there has been a long discussion about the main traits and the real essence of a nation. Several authors tried to identify what the concept of ‘nation’ meant to various ancient nations. Quite unfortunately, in doing so, most of the scholars projected their own, contemporary, views and viewpoints onto the ancient texts that they collected to study. The result is therefore untrustworthy,

 

What is even more unfortunate is the fact that, in Modern Times, the term ‘nation’ did not mean the same thing to all philosophers, political theorists, ideologists and historians – so, every effort to examine what ‘nation’ meant in the Antiquity was definitely linked with the concept of nation each modern author had in his/her mind.

 

In this regard, Azar Gat was very wrong in viewing in Ancient Egypt the world’s ‘first national state’ that was formed ‘quite early as a unified state, congruent with a distinct people of shared ethnicity’. That is utterly nonsensical! The idiotic Israeli author does not in fact refer to a ‘nation’ but to a ‘national state’, which is a state properly speaking, so irrelevant to the nation itself!

 

Even worse, there was no one distinct people in Ancient Egypt but many; we don’t actually know how they viewed their participation in their ‘nation’ and how differently they viewed the many ethnic components of their country.

 

In addition, for several Ancient Egyptian religious doctrines, the Ancient Egyptian gods originated from Napata, the Kushitic-Sudanese capital near today’s Karima, more than 750 km alongside the Nile south of today’s Egyptian – Sudanese borders. For some time, this was a mere religious belief. However, in the beginning of the New Empire (1st half of the 16th c. BCE), this belief became the cornerstone of Imperial Egypt’s Kushitic irredentism, and of the subsequent annexation of North Sudan (what the Ancient Greeks and Romans called ‘Ethiopia’) by Ahmose and Thutmose I.

 

It is also wrong to hypothesize like Steven Grosby that the small Canaanite states of Israel, Ammon, Moab and Edom underwent a process of nation-formation as result of the Assyrian expansion that led to their subordination to Nineveh. This approach is due exclusively to unrestrained projection of modern theoretical and political viewpoints onto the study topic of the said scholar.

 

Similarly, Edward Cohen’s irrelevant conclusion that ancient Athens met all modern definitions of nationhood is merely due to this author’s wrong conception of the term ‘nation’ – which he later projected onto his study subject.

 

Nation – a modern term with two diametrically opposite concepts

 

In modern times, all possible efforts of conceptualization, identification and contextualization of the term ‘nation’ originate from two diametrically opposed concepts.

 

Civic nation

 

First comes the ‘civic nation’ theory which is a vicious distortion fabricated during the formation of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract concept (first discussed in his homonymous book in 1762). As he never studied History and in addition was an innovative thinker, J. J. Rousseau had a total disregard of History itself. In addition, he was characterized by an absolute ignorance of the historical nations as they had existed over millennia; in Rousseau’s fictional, unreal, and at times monstrous world, a nation was just a mass population that he should fix as per his silly ideas that he had shaped without taking into account the real wishes and feelings, desires and ideas, traditions and beliefs of any nation whatsoever.

 

The ceaseless wars that ensued from the French Revolution, and most of the bloodshed occurred across the Earth over the past 250 years are to be credited to Rousseau’s noxious ideas and philosophical system which was an incredible and inhuman aberration of sick ego(t)istic background.

 

For Rousseau, what matters in a community of people is the formation of a state, which is to be politically legitimate only through the active participation of the entire population, i.e. the citizens of the country. The cynical, absolute and Macchiavellistic ‘general will’ is all that matters in this regard, and this was quite accentuated in later reconsiderations of the concept of ‘civic nation’. This approach draws however from other philosophical systems and theoretical traditions, notably rationalism and liberalism.

 

In reality, when it comes to the notion of ‘civic nation’, the real identity of a nation does not matter. The ‘nation’ is not viewed as a historical development and reality, but as a group of gangsters with a common will, few materialistic targets, and therefore only target-appended ‘opinions’ as regards the social organization. For this reason, membership of the civic nation is simply voluntary. In fact, many people originating from different nations can gather together in an uninhabited place and …. thus shape a ‘nation’. Unfortunately, the real problems start when these gangsters do not settle in an uninhabited place, but forcefully remove the indigenous nation of a targeted region, thus creating two nations on the same place, one legal (the indigenous one) and one illegal (the ‘civic’ nation of the gangsters).

 

It is therefore correct to conclude that a ‘civic nation’ is a fake nation indeed.

 

Why and how all this came out of the mind of a Swiss philosopher who died in France to be posthumously reburied in Pantheon at Paris after the French revolution? To take J. J. Rousseau as per his own words, he thought that through imagination he could reconstitute the History of the Mankind; of course, this thought constitutes in itself an aberration. In the uselessly venerated Discourse on Inequality (1754), he wrote ” The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society”; quite unfortunately for Rousseau and his theories, things did not happen that way, but this was impossible for him to know.

 

It was actually impossible to form any idea about this subject in the middle of the 18th c., when no Sumerian, no Egyptian Hieroglyphic, no Elamite and no Akkadian texts were deciphered, let alone studied. The only historical past to which J. J. Rousseau had access through modern translations was Ancient Rome and Greece; but these civilizations were too late if compared with the Oriental civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Canaan, Anatolia) where the first human societies were formed as we now know. In addition, J. J. Rousseau never studied the History of India, Central Asia, and China, while he was fully unaware of the then existing early accounts of the pre-Columbian, indigenous civilizations of Mexico and the Andes. Finally, his contempt for the Christian and Islamic cultures and heritage that existed in his time only deprived him from the reality of the historical continuity and finally drove him to baseless theories that lacked any solid background. His ‘philosophy’ was a fully useless and absolutely unrealistic bunch of assumptions as to just how to create a new ‘human being’ in full rejection of the historical mankind.

 

Like most of the world’s philosophers, J. J. Rousseau was the child of his time, and this means that he was submerged in news and accounts, reports and narrations about settler colonies, such as the Western European establishments in the area of today’s Canada, United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and South Africa. One must take into consideration that when J. J. Rousseau was writing, Australia was still an unknown and undiscovered land. These Western European colons were in their outright majority heretics, gangsters and renegades of their own civilization that they had abandoned in order to settle in other continents in vain search of profit, exploitation, and material treasures. These desolate colon settlements, deprived of humanity and morality, full of racism against and hatred for the normal, human, indigenous societies, and passionate for unadulterated crime, merciless exploitation of the others, and discriminatory supremacism, offered J. J. Rousseau his study scope and soon became his model for an ideal society whereby freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights should prevail. This was an oxymoron! He was simply unable to see that his ideas did not fit the European colons’ feelings and desires, and that he had to search for a model elsewhere. The ensued disaster was quite disproportionate.

 

Modern theoreticians view this ‘civic nation’ as a ‘non-xenophobic’ form of nationalism, because there is no apparent discrimination among the settlers / citizens of the ‘new’ society as regards their origin; Poles who forget Polish culture, Danes who forget Danish culture, and Dutch who forget Dutch culture are equally welcome in a settler colony; but their all white aliens in Asia, Africa, ‘America’ and ‘Australia’. However, both, modern theoreticians and J. J. Rousseau disregarded totally the reality that these settler colonies gravely and discriminately disrupted the pre-existing order of indigenous, non-white societies and civilizations and that, due to the villainous and criminal identity of the settlers, the disruption of the pre-existing order very often entailed an unprecedented bloodshed or even a multifaceted genocide of disproportionate dimensions. In reality, the ‘civic nation’ is a counterfeit nation, an evil human fabrication, and a vicious immoral order.

 

No positive outcome can ever originate from the aforementioned rudimentary concepts. In reality, as much tolerant as these civic nations proved to be internally, so intolerant they have been externally. The intolerant character demonstrated by civic nations either to the indigenous nations in whose territories the civic nations were criminally founded (in cases like Canada, US, Australia, etc.) or to other, ‘ethnic nations’ in other parts of the world (like the African Somalis, Oromos and Berbers or the Aramaeans, the Azeris and the Baluch in Asia) reached several times the level of racist paroxysm.

 

It is not therefore strange that, almost one century after J. J. Rousseau, the adaptation of his civic nation theory by Ernest Renan produced a chain of catastrophic byproducts ranging from the Nazi Reich and the Soviet Union, to China’s Cultural Revolution state and the (under preparation) global state of the so-called New World Order.

 

Ethnic nation

 

In striking contrast with the fake concept of ‘civic nation’, ‘ethnic nation’ is the real, historical nation, as it existed throughout centuries and millennia. By themselves and not through the involvement of an external factor, nations feature a common language, origin, religion, culture, and behavioral system.

 

History demonstrates that, on the basis of the aforementioned fundamental traits, nations can be identified unequivocally; because they represent a common communal feeling of distinct identity, true nations (i.e. ‘ethnic nations’) tend naturally and automatically to function as self-determined entities.

 

The ‘ethnic nation’, e.g. the historical nation, has been the only generator and promoter of historical civilizations as we have known them. By definition, an ethnic nation is more difficult to manipulate, maneuver and deceive than a fake, ‘civic nation’ that can be created on the spur of the moment. The general sum of all the characteristics of an ethnic nation forms the identity of the nation, and, as this is the result of a slow process that took centuries and millennia to be formed, it is practically impossible to extirpate.

 

In modern times, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 – 1814) made the most convincing and the most comprehensive presentation of what an ethnic nation is. In his venerated Addresses to the German Nation, he revealed the concept of national identity in all its dimensions when forming the exemplary term ‘Germanness’ which has ever since been reproduced in hundreds of copies, such as Romanness, Turkishness, Russianness, Oromoness, Somaliness, Tuaregness, etc.

 

As it is the real result of History, an ethnic nation is drastically corroborated by means of historical references, and by the ensuing concepts of diachronic existence and national identity, which has in every case several permanent, fundamental traits. To instigate feelings of German patriotism against the French occupation (under Napoleon – in 1808), Fichte referred to the Roman Historian Tacitus who, writing his Annals 1700 years before Fichte composed his flagrant speeches, exemplified German virtues and proverbial heroism.

 

An ethnic nation organized in a state ordinarily defines nationality as per jus sanguinis (lit. ‘the right of the blood’, i.e. descent from a member of the same nation), and not as per jus soli (lit. ‘the right of the soil’, i.e. birth in the land of the nation), which widely practiced by ‘civic nations’.

 

It would be wrong to assume that all historical nations are today organized as ‘ethnic nations’. The political choices of the local elites have turned several historical nations into ‘civic nations’ because this suited best their economic – political interests.

 

On the other hand, it would also be wrong to accept the arbitrary division made by Anthony Smith, who thought that ‘ethnic nations’ belong to non-Western concepts of nationalism as opposed to ‘civic nations’, which reflect the Western view of a settler colony that controls a demarcated territory.

 

The concept of ‘ethnic nation’ constitutes the rightful global approach to the historical phenomenon of a nation; it is equally Oriental and Occidental – if such division exists, which needs yet to be demonstrated. In what is peremptorily called by ‘Western’ academia as the ‘Western world’, the concept of ‘ethnic nation’ was first described by Herodotus, the Carian Historian who settled in Athens before 2500 years, on the basis of three criteria, namely
– homaimon (‘of the same blood’ / i.e. kinship, origin),

– homoglosson (‘of the same language’ / i.e. common language), and

– homotropon (‘of the same manners’ / i.e. common behavioral system, culture and religion).

 

However, the concept and the reality of the ‘ethnic nation’ proved to be a major stumbling block for the powers-that-be and for all those who tried to distort and deform the world as per their criminal interests, secret plans, and hidden vicious beliefs. The strength of the national identity was at times revealed as an omnipotent factor able to persistently remain unchanged and unaltered in full defiance of the world’s greatest powers, colonial armies, and diplomatic blackmails or ultimatums.

 

Civic nation vs. ethnic nation: the fake will always fail

 

The ominous fact that not all the nations of the world have the privilege to setup their own states and the gruesome reality that hundreds of nations have been monstrously obfuscated within monstrous super-national states clearly indicate that the moving force of the colonial states England, France, and the US, and the ruling administrations of the WW I – WW II Allies fully and systematically supported the concept of ‘civic nation’ and definitely opposed the existence of all ‘ethnic nations’ in many different ways.

 

The US: a fake nation – realm of gangsters and idiots

This is quite relevant of their nature; the US is by definition a ‘civic state’ that was formed, not as many pretend through secession from the colonial state of England but, via successive, multifaceted genocides of the indigenous nations of the vast territory of which Washington D.C. tragic-comically pretends today to be the unnecessary and unsolicited capital. In real terms of Humanity, Human History, and Humanism, the existence of the criminal state of the US is the greatest scandal and the most evil episode in the History of the Mankind.

 

The unpardonable acts perpetrated by all the colons, who settled in parts of America north of Mexico, against all the indigenous nations for several centuries before the inception of the US, the inexcusable fact that the decimated, dislodged, marginalized and persecuted indigenous nations were not even consulted in the process of state formation / secession by the so-called Founding Fathers, and the unforgivable attitude demonstrated against the subjugated indigenous nations in their own occupied homelands since 1783 make of the US the World History’s most criminal, most atrocious, and most Satanic institution. Religious, spiritual and philosophical jargon was invented and purposefully used in shameless texts and bogus-declarations to plaster and conceal the above reality.

 

It is therefore only normal that the diverse instances of the criminal state promoted the evil concept of ‘civic nation’, opposed the human concept of ‘ethnic nation’, viewed with suspicion the ethnic nations’ attitude to derive political legitimacy from their status as homelands of their populations, reviled the ethnic nations’ tendency to function protectively against colonization, occupation, persecution, deracination, racism, physical and spiritual genocide, and constantly denied the right to self-determination, independence and preservation of their National Heritage to ethnic nations peremptorily incorporated in monstrous super-national states (which is the typical case of the Oromos, the Afars, the Sidamas, and the Ogadeni Somalis in Abyssinia – Fake Ethiopia –; the Somalis, the Luo, and the Masai in Kenya; the Furis – of Darfur –, the Beja, and the Nubians in Sudan, and so on).

 

In a well orchestrated manner, the three colonial states of England, France and the US did their best for ethnic nations not to form a sovereign state (the case of the Azeris whose majority are still under Iranian control is quite indicative), to lose their sovereign state (if they achieved to form one – in this regard, Somalia is the most striking example), or to limit the ethnic nations’ sovereignty to a mere autonomous entity (as in Catalonia) or, even worse, to self-regulated administrative bodies within a civic state (as in Yukatan, Mexico).

 

France: the world’s most barbaric and inhuman tyranny

Following the so-called French revolution (1789), the establishment of the modern state of France as a ‘civic nation’ on European soil had ominous results for the entire continent and for the world. It first triggered the separation of the world into two fictional and aberrational entities, the West and the East (the Occident and the Orient), theoretically confined to perpetual fight; of course, this was a purely Manicheistic concept, and as such it turned out to be a calamitous reality and a hecatomb for Europe and the rest of the world.

 

France is not a nation; there is no ethnic nation named ‘France’. On French territory, there have been several ethnic nations that were forced to cohabitate: the Breton nation (Breizh – Brittany), the Bask nation (Euskaldunak), the Catalan nation (Catalunya), the Corsican nation (Corsi), the Occitan nation (lo País d’Òc), the Alsatian-Lorraine populations of the German nation (Elsaß-Lothringen), and the Frankish nation (Langue d’oïl – Standardized Oïl) of the North of today’s France. The latter was imposed as ‘civic nation’ on all the other ‘ethnic nations’ of France as per the tyrannical policies of the French revolutionaries in the 1790s.

 

The extinction of the subordinated ‘ethnic nations’ was evidently the primary means of survival for the ‘civic nation’ of France; the war declared against the national identity, the cultural heritage, and the native language of France’s ethnic nations other than the Frankish was without precedent in the World History.

 

When today’s uneducated European politicians and ignorant American statesmen speak of Turkey’s intolerant stance to Kurmanji or Zaza natives, of Iran’s prejudiced attitude against the Azeri, the Baluch and other ethnic minorities, and of Egypt’s bigoted position as regards the Copts, the Nubians, the Beja, and the Berbers, they all forget that the persecution of Breton language in France reached a unique level of paroxysm when Breton schoolchildren were ‘taught’ by the French civic state’s occupation authorities that, in the streets, it was “prohibited to speak Breton and spit on earth”. As early as 1794, the criminal gangster Bertrand Barère declared in the Committee of Public Salvation (Comité de salut public) that “federalism and superstition are speaking the dialect of Lower Brittany” in a contemptuous rejection of communal identity, religion (libeled as ‘superstition’) and language.

 

In fact, in the name of a democratic society, the most excruciating and brutal imposition of the Standardized Oïl language of France’s North took place, whereas the Frankish ethnic nation became the undisputed model for the new ‘civic nation’ of France. This demonstrates that the genocidal attitude of the French revolutionaries against France’s ethnic nations was similar to the disregard and the disrespect that the American gangsters showed for the subjugated and marginalized indigenous nations across the US territory.

 

The genocidal attitude of the French revolutionaries is very well documented indeed. Texts dating from the first years after the French Revolution reveal the extent of the deception that led to the aforementioned tyrannical attitude. Here is an example: “Monarchy had its reasons to look like Babel Tower; in Democracy, to leave the citizens ignorant of the national language and incapable of controlling the power is tantamount to high treason”.

 

Another example of the premeditated genocide (announced by abbot Grégoire in the Committee of Public Instruction in 1793): “In politics, it is far more important than we think to extirpate this diversity of ‘grossly idioms’ (sic!) that merely prolong the infancy of the reason and the senility of the prejudices”. His report was titled “Report on the necessity to annihilate the vernaculars and to universalize the use of the French language”. The terminology used makes even Hitler’s worst and most vicious theories and discourses grow pale.

 

England: the focus of evil

What the gangsters of the successive US administrations did to the indigenous nations whose territory they confiscated, and what the Frankish nation of France’s North did to all the ethnic nations that were engulfed in the abominable, tyrannical state of the Nouveau Régime, the English did to the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. In fact, only the processes differed slightly.

 

English tyranny and monstrosity in Wales

For Wales (Cymru), the troubles started with the Treaty Aberconwy (1277); it was then proved that peace is not always better than the war. After numerous wars between Llewelyn ap Gruffudd and Edward I of England, the treaty granted end of hostilities, but also stipulated that after the death of the King of Wales, Welsh independence would end and the country would become part of England. The treaty was the result of the treachery of minor Welsh princes who had sided with the enemy; these potentates soon become disillusioned and started a revolt in 1282. Llewelyn ap Gruffudd led the revolt and after several battles, he rejected to abandon his nation that his forefathers had ruled since the ‘days of Kamber son Brutus’ (the heroic times’ King of Cambria that was the original name of Wales). He was killed in an ambush during the Battle of Orewin Bridge. As per the barbaric customs of the incestuous English gangsters, Llywelyn’s head was cut off, sent to London and there set up in the city pillory for a day and crowned with ivy (to dishonor the dead Welsh King as king of the outlaws) only to be later carried by a horseman on the point of his lance up to the Gate of the Satanic Tower of London where it was left for more than 15 years.

 

Llywelyn’s successor Dafydd continued fighting through 1283, until he was captured along with his family, transferred to England, condemned to death by the Satanic Parliament of England, and consecutively hanged, drawn and quartered (: cut into four pieces). Wales was then stripped of all royal insignia, regalia and relics, and Welsh royal properties were robbed and confiscated. The unprecedented English terror did not deter Welsh national feelings, and already in 1294 a revolt was led by Madog ap Llywelyn.

Meanwhile, the infamous Statute of Rhuddlan (1284) had imposed the alien English ‘common law’ to Wales. English authority was successively rejected by Llywelyn Bren (1316 – 1318), who led a rebellion, Owain Lawgoch, who planned twice to invade Wales with French support only to be assassinated by English agents in France (1378), and Owain Glyndwr (King of Wales / Tywysog Cymru 1400 – 1415), who repeatedly defeated the English armies and reunited Wales for some years. The villainous English did not succeed to capture him, and despite the mythical sums of money they promised, they failed to find one Welsh ready to betray Owain Glyndwr, who had opened the Welsh Parliament at Machynlleth and planned to establish two universities.

 

That’s why the biased, heinous and rancorous playwright William Shakespeare, who felt inferior to the Welsh legend, portrayed Owain Glyndwr negatively as a wild and ominous person with magical powers.

 

To address the situation in revolted Wales, the paranoid rulers of England passed silly and discriminatory laws in 1402 prohibiting the Welsh from carrying arms, inhabiting fortified towns, and holding any office. As per this aberration, even an Englishman married to a Welsh woman was not allowed to carry arms!

 

A later stage of English tyranny over Wales was promulgated by the outrageous Laws in Wales Acts (1535 – 1542) when the Welsh language was banned and the Welsh legal system abolished. In an acrimoniously contemptuous manner, this trash paper describes the Welsh language and the will of the Welsh nation to stick to it in this manner: “because that the People of the same Dominion have and do daily use a speche nothing like, ne consonant to the natural Mother Tongue used within this Realm, some rude and ignorant People have made Distinction and Diversity between the King’s Subjects of this Realm, and his Subjects of the said Dominion and Principality of Wales, whereby great Discord Variance Debate Division Murmur and Sedition hath grown between his said Subjects”.

 

An ethnic nation, when exposed to tyranny and persecution, naturally sticks to its language and religion to best preserve its identity. Similarly, the Welsh enthusiastically welcomed the first complete translation of the Welsh Bible in 1588, and overwhelmingly rejected Anglicanism when the heretic and murderous king Henry VIII broke with Rome and the Pope. Education in Welsh language was made available under different forms and become a basic means of resistance to English occupation in the 16th and the 17th centuries. Religion became also a means of resistance against English tyranny during the 18th c. Welsh Methodist revival and after the definite separation from the Anglican Church in the early 19th c.; in general, Wales remained predominantly Non-conformist, which is tantamount to rejection of Anglicanism.

 

Welsh nationalism was best manifested in the late 19th c. through the Cymru Fydd movement’s activities that garnered great support among the Welsh for having reinstated Welsh values and ideas; to best propagate the Welsh determination for National Independence, Welsh nationalists evoked Llewelyn ap Gruffudd, making of him the father of Welsh nationalism, and the National Hero of Wales. Late 19th c. and 20th c. socialism in Wales may be due to Wales’ heavy industrialization, but it was also another form of Welsh resistance to English occupation and of Welsh rejection of the English monarchy. The latest offspring of Cymru Fydd is Plaid Cymru, a political party established in 1925 to advocate independent Wales, which has to be declared in the years to come as the national homeland of the entire Welsh nation (6.5 million people worldwide whereas 16.3 million people have acknowledged Welsh ancestry).

 

English tyranny and monstrosity in Ireland

For Eire (Ireland, Roman Hibernia), divisions, invasions and epidemics have always been constant parameters of life; following the 9th c. Viking invasions, a mixed Irish-Norse ethnic group was shaped. However, after the decline of the Viking presence, the Norman invasion overwhelmed the numerous small Irish kingdoms and progressively involved the king of England for the first time in Ireland in the second half of the 12th c.; however, the Norman control never extended over the entire Irish territory and several indigenous rulers controlled other parts of the island. A certain Irish-Norman community was formed in the first century of Norman prevalence, but the Gaelic identity of the islanders was soon reasserted and re-strengthened. Decimated because the mid 14th c. plague epidemics, Ireland remained peaceful and divided until the middle of the 16th c. when Henry VIII decided to annex the island in 1536. This triggered successive waves of cataclysmic disasters for the Gaelic nation of Ireland and, although it took almost 400 years of struggles for the Irish to regain control over their country, still a part of the island is occupied by England. The English king’s pretext for the annexation (1541) was the fact that Ireland could serve as basis for future rebellions against his throne or for foreign invasions of England.

 

An early form of reaction against the English rule was attested already in 1569 – 1573 (the Deasmumhain/Desmond Rebellions in the South-Western part of the island); this event was the normal reaction to the biased attitude demonstrated by Elizabeth I in the case of the antagonism and clash between her cousin Thomas Butler (3rd earl of Ormonde) and the leaders of the Irish Gerald and John Fitzgerald. London’s racist policies in Ireland involved land confiscation, abolition of Irish armies, and severe religious oppression of the Catholic faith. Led by James Fitzmaurice, the Irish marked several victories until English barbarism prevailed in 1575; thousands of civilians were killed in the process, and the corridors that gave access to the English military camps used to be decorated with severed heads on permanent basis. Hundreds of Irish military leaders were executed in the years after the end of the rebellion. At the same time, another rebellion took place in England’s north as Catholic English nobles intended to replace the infamous bogus-queen Elizabeth I with Mary of Scotland; because of the intolerable English barbarism demonstrated in both rebellions, Pope Pius V excommunicated the rubbish queen of the English. Few years later, in 1579, the Second Desmond rebellion exploded to express rightful Irish indignation for the English barbarism and due hostility against the English settlers. It ended in 1583 when, after relentless scorched-earth tactics, the English managed to prevail. A clan chief who betrayed the leader of the rebellion, Gerald Earl of Desmond, was rewarded with 1000 pounds of silver from the English government for his high treason. In a typically English and inhuman manner, the earl’s head was sent to the demoniacal queen of England whereas his body was displayed on the walls of Cork.

 

During the War between Spain and England (1585 – 1604), Ireland became very often the place of brutal conflicts and battles. After the Spanish Armada failed to coordinate with the Irish and efficiently use Ireland as a basis to invade England in 1588, further colonization efforts took place in Ireland. This led to the Nine Years’ War of Liberation of Ireland (1594 – 1603), a liberation struggle that was undertaken by many Irish nobles who rejected the plantation (: colonization) policies at Ulster and marked many victories over the English armies. The island was then again extensively destroyed and scores of population died because of the scorched earth tactics pursued by the English beasts. More than 100000 Irish were killed and more than 30000 English soldiers died as per modest estimates. With a better coordination with the Spaniards, Ireland would have avoided the calamitous destiny it underwent for more than 300 years after the end of this war.

 

Land confiscation and plantations continued during the 17th c., involving full dispossession of the Irish Catholic landowners and promulgations of vicious, inhuman, anti-Christian, and purely Satanic laws that were shamelessly called ‘Penal Laws’. In the Irish History’s bloodiest century, two periods of revolution (1641 – 1653 and 1689 – 1691) plunged the country in further disaster and caused an unprecedented hecatomb. For seven years (1642 – 1649), the Cónaidhm Chaitliceach na hÉireann (Irish Catholic Confederation) tried to materialize the wishes and the dreams of the Irish nation. Based at Kilkenny, the Irish nobles, clergy and military leaders set up a General Assembly (parliament) and a Supreme Council (government); however, they pledged allegiance to the king of England, because they were naïve enough to imagine that an agreement could ever be reached. The tensions between moderates and radicals, and both sides’ narrow-mindedness proved to be catastrophic for Ireland. As the English king was engulfed in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland and Scotland / 1639 – 1651), it was only normal for him to make concessions to the Irish Confederates in exchange for the dispatch of Irish troops to England to fight for the royalists. This was evidently a serious mistake made by the Irish government. The divisions led to the English re-conquest of Ireland by Cromwell (1649 – 1653), which was the most brutal moment of foreign occupation that Ireland had ever experienced, and to the termination of the Confederation. All Catholic properties on the island were by then confiscated and scores of Irish ‘undesirables’ were sent to the Caribbean as slaves.

 

For one more time in the 17th c., Ireland became the theater of many battles engaged and many fights undertaken, when the disreputable English parliament dethroned the Catholic king of England James II and replaced him with a foreign swindler and disreputable crook, William of Orange (1688). This was a deliberate case of shameful sedition, which the perverse English eulogized as ‘the glorious revolution’ – which shows the extent of their collective corruption, immorality and deviousness. It was only normal for the Irish Catholics to express their support for the deposed king James II. The war of two kings (Cogadh an Dá Rí), which is called in England the ‘Williamite war in Ireland’, lasted two years (1689 – 1691). Rejected in England, James II was accepted in Ireland and appeared in front of a newly composed Irish Parliament (known as the Patriot Parliament) to restore to the Irish Catholics their long confiscated lands. Although supported by France, James II failed to prevail and was defeated after many fierce battles.

 

A period of unprecedented tyranny started in the aftermath of the Battle of Aughrim (the last fought by the Irish supporters of James II in 1691); the English euphemistically call this period ‘Protestant Ascendancy’, but in reality it constitutes one of the bleakest moments of European History, as it makes Hitler’s Germany grow pale. The inhuman ‘penal laws’ were reinforced, and the English colons took good care that the Irish fail to repeat their rebellions. Deliberate famine caused the death of ca. half a million Irish in 1740-1741. The Irish Parliament was available only for the English settlers to be elected in, and evil projects were constantly under discussion as to how best destroy the island nation in an irrevocable manner. The worst development was of course the fact that the descendants of the alien colons started viewing Ireland as their native country, which shows that the evil policy of ‘plantations’ had generated a counterfeit entity in Ireland, i.e. a new ‘civic nation’.

 

Following the Irish Revolution of 1798 and the subsequent Acts of Union (1801), the Irish nation deployed ceaselessly further, well-diversified efforts to achieve national independence in the 19th c. The major historical developments revolve around the following events: the rebellion led by Robert Emmet in 1803, Daniel O’Connell’s campaign to achieve emancipation for his nation (1823) and his establishment of the Repeal Association (1830), the Tithe War (1831 – 1838), the Young Irelanders’ rebellion in 1848 (in the middle of the great famine which was again deliberately caused by the English government in order to reduce the Irish population), the revolution of the Irish Brotherhood in 1867, and the longest and most effective of all, the great Cogadh na Talún (Land War), which was an endless agrarian agitation that was led by the Irish National Land League and lasted from 1870 to 1900. The various Land Acts that the English government was forced to promulgate in the very last years of the 19th c. and in the beginning of the 20th c. heralded the end of the colonial rule. Home Rule was stipulated by an act passed by the English Parliament in 1914. The famous Éirí Amach na Cásca (Easter Rising) in 1916, the ensuing period of upheaval (1916 – 1921), and the threat of Irishmen soldiers fighting for the English army in the Western Front during WW I ushered Ireland into the next stage, i.e. the declaration of independence of the Irish Republic, the Irish War of Independence (1919 – 1921), the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921 – 1922), the formation of the Irish Free State, the separation of the northern part of the island (the unionist descendents of the colons), and the Irish Civil War (Cogadh Cathartha na hÉireann; 28 June 1922 – 24 May 1923), which was the last of so many venomous presents that the pernicious English made to the Irish nation.

 

English tyranny and monstrosity in Scotland

 

For the Scottish Kingdom of Alba, interaction and mixed marriages with some of the English kingdoms go back to the 11th c., when King Mael Coluim (Malcolm) III (1058 – 1093) spent many years at the court of the English king Edward the Confessor before fighting and killing Mac Bethad mac Findlaích (Macbeth) to become king of Scotland in his stead. Malcolm III and William of Normandy, the bastard king and invader of England, fought several wars before finally meeting in 1072 and making a peace that justified later claims of sovereignty over Scotland by other English kings.

 

In the early 12th c. the so-called Davidian Revolution, launched by David I of Scotland, marked a stage of adjusting the government and the society to French and English norms, styles and practices. During the 12th and the 13th centuries, increased affinities and greater interaction between the two nations led several Scottish nobles to see in Edward I of England a possible arbiter for the succession of Alexander III of Scotland when 14 contenders to the throne were about the trigger a civil war in 1286. As Edward I tried to undermine Scottish sovereignty, John of Scotland entered into an alliance with France (Auld Alliance) and this ushered both countries into what is called ‘The Wars of Scottish Independence’ (1296 – 1328 and 1332 – 1357).

 

Scotland was first occupied by England in 1296, but revolt broke already 1297. The ensuing wars were inconclusive, involving many battles, Scottish raids in England, and English campaigns in Scotland, truces, and executions of the Scottish nobles {Uilliam Uallas (William Wallace) in 1305}; it all revolved around the succession to the throne of Scotland and the alliance of some of the pretenders with the English. Three declarations of Scottish independence dating between 1320 and 1328 were sent to the Pope, and finally in 1328, Edward III of England recognized the independence of Scotland by signing the Treaty of Edinburgh – Northampton.

 

The Second War of Scottish Independence was due to the alliance some Scottish nobles made with Edward III few years later in order to overthrow David II of Scotland and replace him with other pretenders, notably the disreputable thug Balliol who after crowning himself king of Scots declared that Scotland was a fief of England. The French – Scottish alliance was strengthened by the fact that France and England were then engaged in the Hundred Years’ War (1337 – 1453). When David II of Scotland was granted asylum in France (1334) by Philip VI of France, Scottish resistance was led by many Scottish nobles. Victories were marked by both sides until David II returned in 1341. However, in the Battle of Neville’s Cross, David II was captured (1346) and subsequently held prisoner in the Tower of London for eleven years. Released under the terms of the Treaty of Berwick (1357), David II agreed to pay an enormous amount for ransom, and this progressively alienated the Scottish nation from him; at the same time, the country was also devastated by the Black Death pandemics. After David II died (1371), an impoverished, exsanguine Scotland was still an independent nation, and so it remained until 1707 under the Stuart dynasty, a family of Breton origin that had earlier held the office of High Steward of Scotland and, in 1371, rose to the throne of Scotland (Robert II).

 

During Stuart reign, there were again many interactions and mixed marriages with the English, internal strife between the Scottish kings and the nobles, alliance with France and wars with England (notably the Battle of Flodden in 1513, the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542, and the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547). However, when James IV of Scotland married Margaret Tudor, daughter to Henry VII of England, in 1503, the perspective of a union between the two crowns appeared for the first time.

 

The Scottish Reformation movement influenced greatly the historical developments, and following the signature of the Treaty of Edinburgh (1560), the French and the English soldiers left Scotland’s territory and the Scottish Parliament abolished Roman Catholic Christianity. The Scots Confession of 1560 became the formational document of the Reformed Calvinist Christianity to which most of the Scots adhered; it was however enacted in 1567. The Battle of Langside (1568) and the persecution and execution of Queen Mary of Scotland demonstrated the rise of religious fanaticism in Scotland and the ensuing civil war (Scottish aristocrats supporting James VI against Scotland’s nobles who sided with his mother, Queen Mary of Scotland) lasted many years (1569 – 1573).

 

When James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England and became James I on England (1603), the two countries were found united under one monarch; however, this was a personal union that did not have the support of the Scottish nation. Quite contrarily, Scots firmly rejected every effort deployed by either James VI of his son, Charles I, to diffuse forms and rites related to Anglicanism, a most reviled and villainous doctrine in Scotland. Re-affirmation of the Scottish identity and cultural integrity was particularly noted in the famous St. Giles riots (1637) when a treacherous effort was made to introduce English-style prayer book into the Scottish Church.

 

In fact, the troubles had started earlier, when Charles I proceeded to St. Giles in 1633 for his Scottish coronation, using Anglican rites on Scottish territory. As the rejection was overwhelming, Scots were very watchful and when, on 23 July 1637, it became understood that another style was introduced in the Mass, a revolt took place. It started when a brave woman, the legendary Jenny Geddes, a merchant, noticed first the alien style, stood up, and hurled her folding stool toward the Dean of Edinburgh, because he had just started to read the unacceptable, alien text. As her ‘cuttie-stool’ was flying towards the Dean’s head, Jenny Geddes yelled:

 

  • Devil cause you colic in your stomach, false thief! Dare you say the Mass in my ear?

 

The religious service was interrupted by the ensuing riot, and although the rioters were removed by the soldiers, the news spread immediately across the city, and a revolt took place in Edinburgh, as the city magistrates were assailed in the City Chambers. The thunderous voice of the Scottish nation was heard, and the authorities were forced to negotiate; a Committee was appointed for the negotiations with the king’s council. As Charles I rejected to withdraw from Scotland the Anglican liturgy, the Scots revolted and the old National Covenant of 1581 was convened again in February 1638. Reformed religion was maintained in the form in which it was spelled out in 1580 and all innovations were rejected; however Scots expressed their loyalty to the king.

 

The members of the Covenant (also known as Covenanters) confronted the established church. In November 1638, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland deposed all bishops and banned the prayer book; this ushered Scotland into the Bishops’ Wars (Bellum Episcopale / 1639 – 1640) involving many battles between the Covenanters, the Scottish royalists, and the English army. Weakened in England, Charles I had to compromise and even went to Scotland in 1641 and accepted the decisions of the Scottish Parliament as he had already done with the decrees of the General Assembly of 1638. As per the terms of this compromise, the Scottish Parliament had the right to challenge the actions of his ministers.

 

During the ensuing Wars of the Three Kingdoms (parts of which are the Scottish Civil War, the Irish Confederate Wars, and the English Civil War / 1639 – 1651), Scotland was effectively ruled by the Covenanters. Scottish army was sent to Ireland against the Irish Rebellion of 1641 with the limited scope of protecting the Scottish settlers. In 1643, the Solemn League and Covenant was promulgated and, as per its terms, the preservation of the religious reform in Scotland was reconfirmed, whereas reformation of religion was demanded for England and Ireland. The Covenanters sent several armies to England to fight for the victory of the Parliament over the king, and the Scottish troops played an important role in inflicting a serious defeat to Charles I. However, this triggered the Civil War in Scotland (1644 – 1647), as the Scottish royalists rejected the Covenanters’ extremism and revolted. Following several battles and an early royalist success, the war ended with Charles I surrendering and being held captive. In a secret Engagement, the imprisoned king promised to help Scots implement Presbyterianism in England; an army was set up for this, but it was destroyed by Cromwell in 1648, and Charles I was subsequently executed (decapitated) in 1649.

 

Charles II was proclaimed as king by the Parliament of Scotland 6 days after the decapitation of his father, but this was rejected by the English Parliament. After defeating the Scottish royalist army loyal to the son of Charles I in the Battle of Dunbar (September 1650), Oliver Cromwell invaded Scotland; he sent the captives back to England where many of them died of starvation and exhaustion, whereas their survivors were sent further on to the Caribbean as slaves. To survive, Charles II had to fight the Battle of Worcester (1651), and after being defeated by Cromwell, he had to escape to Europe where he spent nine years in exile.

 

Scotland was under severe persecution when incorporated into the Puritan England; there was no independent church, no parliament, no government, and no legal system. The annexation was promulgated by the Tender Union (1652), which abolished the Scottish Parliament, offering Scotland 30 seats in the English Parliament. However, the Act of Union was approved only in 1657 due to the political turmoil.

 

Following the restoration (1660), Scotland became again an independent kingdom under Charles II, but the re-imposition of episcopacy and a series of other measures were greatly resented by the Scots (they were prevented from any lucrative business in English colonies as per the English Navigation Acts). Independent assemblies, known as conventicles, gathered the support of the majority and led to the revolt of 1679 which was defeated. Scotland was terribly persecuted until 1685 when James VII of Scotland (and James II of England) succeeded his brother; this period has been described as ‘The Killing Time’ and thousands were executed in excruciating manner.

 

The pro-Catholic measures and policies introduced by James VII led to the sedition of seven English high traitors who invited William of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, to rule England (a bleak moment of European History that the perfidious English shamelessly called ‘glorious revolution’). James VII had to flee, but after the imposition of the Dutch swindler and disreputable crook, supporters of James VII entered into several battles, fighting to overthrow the alien rule of the sexually perverse William of Orange (who ruled as William II of Scotland).

 

Economic disasters befell Scotland at the very end of the 17th c. due to various combined reasons and this forced the Scottish Parliament to take several measures like setting up the Bank of Scotland and financing a great colonial project (known as Darien scheme); the latter turned into a disaster particularly because the perfidious English of the ‘West Indies’ did not come to help the Scots colons when they were attacked by the Spaniards (1698).

 

The union with England (1707 at the times of the reign of Queen Anne, the daughter of James VII) was a desperate act taken without serious thought and after many years of economic adversity. By 110 to 69, the Scottish Parliament adopted the Treaty of Union in January 1707, making of Scotland a mere province of England and replacing all Scottish systems of laws, taxation and currency with the respective English practices. The union was a panacea for Scotland’s aristocracy and landowners, but it was widely reviled and loathed by the outright majority of the Scottish nation.

 

The three centuries of annexation failed to erase the Scottish national identity, cultural integrity, linguistic diversity, and behavioral difference. Scotland remained another nation, an ‘ethnic nation’ incorporated into the realm of the UK’s ‘civic nation’. The Scots tried many times to reject the English rule that so thoughtlessly a meager majority supported before 307 years.

 

The unpopularity of Scotland’s annexation to England generated many rebellions and already in 1708, James Francis Edward Stuart, son of James VII, attempted to land to Scotland with 6000 French soldiers and join forces with his supporters who became known as Jacobites. In 1715, the indignation against the rise of George I as successor to Anne of England led to generalized revolt in Wales, Scotland, and parts of England. The Jacobites lost several battles before James landed in Scotland, and he had therefore to flee back to France. In 1719, the Jacobites counted on Spanish assistance, but were finally defeated on the Battle of Glen Shiel. In 1745, James’ son, Charles Edward Stuart, landed in the Hebrides and, after gathering support, he sailed to Scotland and invaded Edinburgh. He did not only prevail over the English forces in the Battle of Prestonpans, but advanced into England, besieging and taking several cities as far as Derby. However, there he failed to get support for a Stuart Catholic restoration in the country, and he retreated to Scotland as an English army was approaching. Petty politics prevailed over the national Scottish case, and the liberals managed to regain control of Edinburgh. Following several battles and defeats, and after hiding for several months, Charles had to sail back to France in 1746. Genocidal practices were attested then, as the English army deliberately killed dozens of thousands of Scots, while sending scores to the English colonies as slaves. Gradually, Jacobitism waned and failed to gather support from the main Catholic courts of Europe. With the death of the last pretenders, this movement reached an end.

 

Terrible oppression matched with extensive corruption was the English method employed in order to preserve Scotland within the loathsome and tyrannical English state. By offering career opportunities and business chances to middle and upper-middle class Scots, the English government tried to make them expatriate to England and in the process lose their identity, language, and culture. In other words, they tried to turn Scotland’s ‘ethnic nation’ into a ‘civic nation’.

 

Lawless, evil legislation was then produced en masse in England for the purpose of Scotland’s disfigurement, identity destruction, language loss, and cultural disintegration. The Dress Act, the Act of Proscription, the Clan Act, the Disarming Act, and the Heritable Jurisdictions Act, all promulgated in 1746, prohibited Scottish language, forbidding every single aspect of Scottish culture, and crushing the Scottish clan system. In the process, it was prohibited for Scots to bear arms and wear tartans, whereas forced displacement deracinated hundreds of thousands of Scots from the Highlands where the rejection of the catastrophic union was overwhelming. It was an accomplished ethnic cleansing of the Scottish Highlands with full scale transportation of Scottish clans to other locations.

 

Scottish Law was abolished and jurisdiction by Scottish clan chief prohibited; English Law was imposed instead. ‘Justifying’ the destruction of an ‘ethnic nation’ and the Nazi-like imposition of a ‘civic nation’, Lord Hardwicke rejected the concept of multiple jurisdictions, stating that ‘private jurisdictions’ (as he described the Scottish traditional Law) would endanger liberty by encroaching on the legal authority of a constitutional monarchy. This is enough to make clear how fake a ‘civic nation’ is and how tyrannical it can be.

 

Pseudo-Christian school prayers for the king of England and his disreputable family were enforced throughout Scotland, whereas many other methods were devised to prevent children from being attached to their Scottish national identity, social organization, linguistic continuity, and cultural integrity (which were called in a typical Nazi-like manner ‘rebellious principles’).

 

The Highland Clearances are a shameful English euphemism for what is known among Scots as Fuadach nan Gàidheal, i.e. “the expulsion of the Gael”. They consisted in a century-long practice of forced displacement of Scotland’s most authentic, conscious, and traditional part of population. Under the pretext of setting up enclosures for sheep in order to revolutionize agriculture, the Nazi-like government of England expelled the indigenous inhabitants who represented a millennia long historical continuity in their homeland, i.e. Northern Scotland (the Highlands).

 

The main target was neither the land confiscation – expropriation to the benefit of some noble landowners nor the eviction of the inhabitants who relied on small scale agriculture, but the systematic destruction of the Scottish Gaelic culture. The forced emigration was of unprecedented scale, involving forced resettlement in the Scottish lowlands and the sea coast, and further on to North America or other English colonies in Asia and Australia. The series of events described as ‘clearances’ lasted from the mid 18th c. until the 2nd half of the 19th c. and the result was the total destruction of Scotland’s cultural topography; today, more descendents of the Highlanders live in America, Asia and Australia than in Scotland.

 

Some of the worst moments of the century-long ethnic cleansing occurred in the so-called Year of the Sheep (Bliadhna nan Caorach – 1792), when tenant farmers arranged a spectacular protest, removing more than 6000 sheep from the land around Ardross. Another particularly atrocious period was the decade 1811 – 1820, when it was common to evict 2000 families in one single day, fully expropriating them from their ancestors’ land. The disreputable and incestuous English aristocracy was the major accomplice in the process as they became the landowners of the confiscated lands; their racist, inhuman and Satanic mentality was epitomized by a sentence written by the filthy duchess of Sutherland in her correspondence with an Englishman: “Scotch people are of happier constitution and do not fatten like the larger breed of animals”. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-duchess-the-highland-clearances-the-housekeeper-and-a-story-to-make-you-weep.24229043)

 

Living in England at the time, Karl Marx described the Highland Clearances as spoliation, fraud, robbery and usurpation carried out under ‘reckless terrorism’. In the middle of the 19th c., an entire school of racist philosophers, theoreticians and ideologists rose to pro-eminence in England, trying to ‘prove’ in a ‘scientific’ manner that the Scottish Celtic race was inferior to the Anglo-Saxon; it gathered overwhelming support among the bastard ‘civic nation’ of England.

 

For Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, unveiling a 3 m high bronze named ‘Exiles’ in Helmsdale, Sutherland (July 2007) was a minimal contribution to the Immortalizing of the thousands of dead, emigrated and persecuted Scots.

Scottish literature became for centuries a means of anti-English resistance, and among many great poets of the Ossian circle, Robert Burns (1759 – 1796), Scotland’s national poet, proved to be the herald of the Gaelic Revival in the late 19th c., of the Scottish Renaissance in the 20th c., and of the Scottish Gaelic Renaissance in our times. The Scottish Covenant, proposed in 1930, promoted in 1939, and signed by two million people in 1951, exemplified these demands, whereas the Scottish Unionist Party declined and was duly dissolved finally in 1965. As devolution referenda strengthened Scots’ political consciousness, the Scottish National Party gathered momentum.

 

A higher stage was attained when Mike Russell, Member of the Scottish Parliament (SNP), spoke in Scottish Gaelic in a European Union meeting in May 2010. It became evident that full independence, and not mere home rule, is the demand of Scotland’s new generation. Alex Salmond’s defeat in the Independence Referendum (18/9/2014) reflects basically a wrong choice; instead of viewing Scots as a ‘civic nation’, SNP must rediscover and reassert Scotland’s ethnic nation in all its characteristics, dimensions and capacities.

 

 

 

 

Scotland – the Referendum for Independence, and the reasons of a temporary failure

1 2By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

 

 

When the first results were announced (as there were no exit polls), it became clear that Scotland had lost a once-in-a-generation chance to become independent. This does not mean that Occupied Scotland will stay within the so-called United Kingdom for another 20 or 30 years, but it makes clear that there will be no change for the next 5-6 years for sure.

 

What was the reason for No-vote to prevail?

 

Scottish independence leader Alex Salmond and his team underwent a great effort in which a great historical perspective was missing. The Yes-campaign supporters were offered too little of a vision to make of Scotland’s independence their basic need of existence.

 

Lack of Inspiring Vision & Disregard for Historical and National Identity

 

As per the details of a presentation elaborated by an outfit of the Yes-campaign (http://www.independentscotland.org/content/voting-YES-for-scottish-independence.htm), no 1 reason to vote Yes for an Independent Scotland was or should be “Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Scotland”; no 2 reason was or should be “Get the Government we choose”, and the minor reasons included financial benefits, irrelevant issues of international affairs (nuclear weapons), and a very weak denunciation of a ‘forced political marriage’ (the innocuous term was coined to describe the nefarious English annexation of Scotland).

 

A very simple Google search will remove the last doubts about the main reason for which the Yes-campaign failed to gather the support of more than 45% of the voters. If you write “Occupied Scotland” (in brackets), you have around 58000 results only (which is very low a number), and if you search for the contents, you realize that they are mainly historical of nature and they refer to Viking Crusaders, king Edward of England, who was known as the ‘Hammer of the Scots’, and Cromwell! Very scarce links to political analysis and/or editorials can be found in the search.

 

If Scotland is not viewed by Scots as ‘Occupied by England’, Scots will not find the need to do all that it takes to liberate their country.

 

This means in other words that, even for Yes-campaign supporters, today’s Scotland is NOT an Occupied country, which is of course very wrong. Certainly, the means and the conditions of Scotland’s foreign occupation are not similar to those attested in Occupied Palestine or Occupied Oromia in Africa, but this reality does not lessen the fact that Scotland has been occupied since 1707, after having been targeted and threatened, aggressed and attacked by England for centuries.

 

A country is always occupied by an enemy; this is an undeniable fact in World History. There is no such thing as a ‘friendly occupation’. Trying to minimize the inimical character and nature of a foreign occupation does never bode well with the occupied nation’s aspirations and chances to achieve liberation, independence and self-determination.

 

When a hostile country invades a nation, the occupying forces try to find immoral, corrupt, and idiotic persons that, placing their personal interests above the national interests of their Occupied Land, find it normal, easy and ethical to collaborate with the occupier. Outmaneuvering this plague is by definition one of the major targets and tasks of a national liberation effort.

 

In the case of Scotland, these catastrophic persons were very active indeed in the last weeks before the referendum, and they intend to remain as such thereafter simply because this issue did not end. The disreputable former prime minister (who was never elected to that post) Gordon Brown is one of them; as he knows how to be a loyal lackey to the City, he has just announced a new Scotland Act to be ready as draft legislation by the end of January 2015 (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/20/gordon-brown-timeline-scottish-devolution-independence-video). Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and their likes know very well that the spectrum of Scotland’s Independence will only become more forceful in the years ahead; and with ridiculous measures of advanced devolution, they try to appease and besot more Scots. These are the enemies who should have been denounced in the most stressed terms.

 

Unfortunately, First Minister Alex Salmond and the Yes-campaign supporters failed to duly, fully and irrevocably discredit Gordon Brown and his likes as they should. To do so, they should have first properly and adequately presented Scotland as an Occupied Land, and they should have underscored, and focused, on issues of Historical and National Identity. That they did not attempt anything in this direction is clearly shown in their way of presenting (http://www.independentscotland.org/content/voting-no-for-scottish-independence.htm) the possible reasons to vote No. As per their presentation, no 1 reason is: ‘believing England and Scotland are better off together’. However, for a Scot, this ‘belief’ is tantamount to high treason.

 

It is exactly the same as if Marshal Philippe Pétain said, after signing the Second Armistice at Compiègne on 22 June 1940, that he ‘believed France and Germany are better off together’. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that political correctness does not validate (neither does it invalidate) demands for national servility and submission. Simply, national capitulation is a matter of high treason – anytime anywhere.

 

The lack of an inspiring vision of an Independent Scotland dramatically reduced the scope of the Yes-campaign. National independence is something far higher than mere economic considerations, natural resources exploitation, and cheap anti-nuclear ideology.

 

What does it matter whether the divorce is going to be ‘messy’ (as per Jill Lawless here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Scottish-independence-could-mean-messy-divorce-5754503.php)? And if it is ‘complicated’ to divorce after a 300-year union, it is even more unacceptable to call a foreign occupation merely a ‘union’. Actually, it was not a union; it was a systematic burial of an entire nation, and a sophisticated, yet not brutal, genocide – mainly spiritual, not physical, of character.

 

Ill-conceived Eligibility

 

At the practical level, one should however begin pondering about a key issue that, if viewed and considered differently, would change – in and by itself – the result of the referendum automatically.

 

Who voted for Scotland’s Independence?

 

For the national independence of a country, only those, who belong to that nation, have a birth right to have a say, and therefore to vote. In this regard, it is paranoid to offer voting right to another nation’s citizens. And it is self-disastrous to offer voting right to the hostile nation’s citizens, who are to be considered as the first enemies of the occupied land, and as the most resolute opponents of the occupied nation’s right and will to achieve national independence.

 

Quite paradoxically, the 2010 Draft Bill extended the voting right in the referendum to all the British citizens who were resident in Scotland!

 

This is tantamount to offering the voting right to Nazi soldiers in a referendum held in Occupied France 1940-1944!

 

Occupiers have by definition no right to decide on anything about the future of the country that they hold captive.

 

However, a significant number of English, Welsh and North Irish live in Scotland; offering them the voting right in the referendum for Scotland’s independence was indeed the main reason for the calamitous result. According to an estimate, around 500000 English live in Occupied Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753400/Revealed-How-half-million-English-voters-living-Scotland-set-block-independence.html). They should have been blocked out of the referendum.

 

Another paranoid measure was to offer voting right to all the citizens of the 52 other Commonwealth countries and to all the citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who were resident in Scotland. This means that a Sri Lankan, a Nigerian, an Arawakan from Guyana, and a Bulgarian would have a say about the future of a nation to which they did not belong and even did not bother to belong. It should be anticipated that, if invited to participate, these foreigners would only care about per their own interests, and not about the genuine local interests – let alone the interests of Scotland as a nation. As it could be expected, in their majority, they voted against Scotland’s independence.

 

Another incredible measure was preventing ca. 800000 Scots living south of the borderline between England and Scotland from voting. In fact, all Scottish expatriates did not have a vote, which is a matter of indignation and outrage. As early as January 2012, Elaine Murray, a Labor party member of the Scottish Parliament, demanded that the voting right be extended to Scots living in other parts of the UK, but the debate was opposed by the Scottish government itself! Ridiculous excuses were advanced at the time such as that the UN Human Rights Committee suggested that other nations would question the legitimacy of a referendum if the franchise is not territorial, and the like!

 

Ill-defined Future

 

Except the lack of a great vision, the disregard for the National Identity, and the paranoid extension of voting right to the enemies of Scotland’s independence, Alex Salmond and his team made many wrong suggestions and decisions about what Independent Scotland would look like. In fact, they acted as if they intended to minimize as maximum as possible the otherwise shocking dimensions of a secession. This can be really detrimental in politics.

 

If something, which is shocking by its nature, ceases to be shocking for one reason or for another, people lose their appetite for it and disrespect it altogether. What follows is a list of mistakes ensuing from this very erroneous perception of politics.

 

If Scotland seceded from England, Elizabeth II would still be the monarch of the kingdom of Scotland. This is preposterous! The Republic of Scotland would be a far clearer vision and a far happier perspective; as such they would motivate a greater number of more enthusiastic supporters. Today, the fact that Scotland and England shared a monarch for almost a century before the two countries ‘united politically’ in 1707 does not matter much. And it certainly does not mean that, after separating from England, Scotland needs to be organized as a kingdom, and not as a republic.

 

  • Confiscate Balmoral!

 

This would be the correct slogan for a passionate debate among only Scots.

 

Another mistake of the Scottish government was to promise Scottish citizenship to non-Scottish, British citizens living in Scotland, as well as to Scotland-born Britons who live elsewhere. Although this measure showed a certain magnanimous spirit, it would not change in anything the vicious vote intension of the English residents in Scotland. So, as they should never be given a voting right, they should never be promised Scottish nationality.

 

In a materialistic world, mass media-guided, brainless and thoughtless populations are forced to consider economic issues as vitally important for their otherwise valueless lives. However, assuming that political pragmatism is necessary, one understands the reason economic issues are dealt with great concern by politicians, advocates, activists and campaigners.

 

But then it was a terrible mistake for Alex Salmond and his team to announce that the pound sterling would remain Scotland’s official currency after a Yes-victory in the referendum. Global mass media tried to portray an Independent Scotland as a small country in a dangerous global environment. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated even that ‘a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty’ in an indirect form of blackmailing. Yet, the only real economic danger is for Scotland to remain within a financially collapsed state, like England that has a 10 trillion external debt to serve. In reality, escaping from bankrupt England should have been reason good enough even for English residents in Scotland to vote in favor of Scotland’s independence. In this regard a clear language should have been articulated in total opposition to the global mass media and the criminal gangsters of the City.

 

In fact, there have been bloggers and writers who saw this reality, like Ian R. Crane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muiZCgC7QB4) and Ellen Brown (http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-public-bank-option-for-scotland/5402542). Ian R. Crane was very right in demanding an independent Central Bank of Scotland, a new currency for Scotland, strict currency controls for at least the first 3 years of Scotland’s independence, nationalization of the energy sector, and Scotland’s immediate withdrawal from EU and NATO. And Ellen Brown was quite correct in her prediction: “If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence”.

 

In fact, in the atmosphere that enveloped the referendum, there was too much of material concern and a very weak expression of national idealism; this does not constitute the correct combination to speak to the soul of the Scots. Another language will be needed in this regard in perhaps 5 or 10 years. What language? Pure Scottish! As the great Scottish poet and lyricist Robert Burns (1759 – 1796), the national poet of Scotland, put it: “We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation”!