From Jean Baptiste Duroselle (and His Book) To The Making (and Unmaking) Of Europe To (the Rise Of) The
From Jean Baptiste Duroselle (and his Book) to the Making (and Unmaking) of Europe to (the Rise of) the Final Empire in Russia
Several friends from different countries read with great interest and greater amusement my recent article about the Duroselle Affair back in 1990-1991:
Plea for Jean Baptiste Duroselle's Brilliant Book, Europe: A History of its Peoples
Most of them did not know either the late French academician or his book, let alone the ridiculous and ignominious reaction of the average Greeks and of the barbarian Modern Greek elite to the truths revealed in the book of the French academician.
Then, these friends of mine made their own research for some time; subsequently, they came back with plenty of questions as regards my wholehearted support for Jean Baptiste Duroselle and his book. Some of them asked me why I supported so fervently a book that does not reflect my approach and evaluation of the History of Europe. Others asked me at what point this affair stands in my progressive adhesion to Islam, because in reality 25-26 months after the moment I wrote the Plea, I took my final decision to become Muslim.
Their questions offer me therefore the opportunity of a retrospective view on my spiritual path, academic career, intellectual progress, and cultural development; they are therefore quite challenging for me as they force me to stand in front of the mirror of my life.
I - My view of Europe in the 1980s and now
Since my childhood, I have never been Euro-centric; I went to a French school during the primary and the secondary education, but this was not a reason for me to see France as the sole point of reference. I went to France for postgraduate studies, but this was only one of the countries where I pursued this level of studies. I spent my life's first 27 years in six European countries, also traveling to many other European states, but I was not Eurocentric at all. Until the end of 1983, my few travels to non-European lands were not the reason of my universalism. Certainly, this tendency must be attributed to aspects of inherent spirituality, to home culture and education, to my personal readings, and above all, to the fact that my parents and grandparents were -all- born in Anatolia, a major Asiatic land of civilization and eschatology.
Due to my strong European linguistic background (seven modern and two ancient European languages), I was well versed in European History; but I never viewed it as an autonomous historical knowledge, markedly delineated and clearly distinct from that about other lands or continents. In other words, I never felt and I never experienced, let alone accepted, the existence of borders; to me all borders are meaningless, useless and even profane. Therefore, I never considered Europe as a possibly standalone entity or land. My strong family connections with Turkey and Russia, my knowledge of these major European and Asiatic languages, and my intensive studies in Orientalist disciplines made me 'balance' and 'temper' what was absolute for many of the institutions that I frequented: the European culture and civilization.
This was my feeling at the time (and still is today): if you take off from Lisbon and land in Chelyabinsk, you will find an enormous cultural and behavioral difference; then you conclude that somewhere in-between there must be 'borders'. But in real terms, this is absolutely fictional. How can you understand that? If you travel by land, you will see the many similarities and the few dissimilarities that you will encounter every now and then from Lisbon to Valladolid, to Montauban and thence to Strasbourg, Dresden, Warsaw, Minsk, Moscow, Kazan, Ufa and Chelyabinsk. In reality, cultural continuity prevails over state borders.
My long years in the Middle East (where, while exploring the past, I extensively became acquainted with the local culture and the daily life of numerous nations and ethnic-religious groups) helped me shape my approach, corroborate my conclusions, and consolidate my conviction about the disappointing limits of the conventional modern scholarship (including my Greek, French, English, Belgian and German professors). Still, there was no systematic criticism of the European project of 'unification' from my side at the time; it simply did not interest me. Last, I did not express a straightforward rejection of the European colonial powers, of their deeds, and of the ensuing calamitous results back in the middle-late 1980s.
All the same; at the time, I did not approach the topic (History of Europe) in the same manner (as Jean Baptiste Duroselle did) either. To me, his approach was only one out of many possible approaches. I remember very well that at those days I was saying (as I do right now) that the History of Europe begins in Egypt and in Mesopotamia. This means automatically that I already did not accept either borders or continents.
II - Europe begins in Egypt and in Mesopotamia
There cannot be History of Europe without
- the Phoenician colonization of the Aegean Sea, South Balkans, and North Africa,
- the Carthaginian presence in Sicily, Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula,
- the Scythians, the Cimmerians, the Celts and the Teutons, who are of Asiatic origin,
- the Egyptian priests of Isis, Horus, Anubis and Sarapis, who propagated their cults,
- the Mithraic pirates who imposed Mithraism in South Balkans and South Italy,
- the Mithraic priests, who revealed Mithras' mysteries throughout Europe,
- the Aramaean origin Emperor Elagabalus, for whom Syria was holier than Europe,
- the Edict of Caracalla that turned Syrians, Egyptians & Berbers to Roman citizens,
- the Chaldean Oracles & the Babylonian spiritual heritage that they brought in,
- the Manicheans, whose faith was preached by an Iranian mystic in Mesopotamia,
- the Huns and all the other Turanian or not invaders who settled in Europe,
- the Muslims of Andalusia, who turned their land into Europe's scientific center,
- the Volga Bulgars who were Islamized before the Kievan Rus were Christianized,
- the Tatars & the Mongols (Golden Horde), who are Russia's vertebral column, and
- the Ottomans, whose European lands were larger than any other European empire's except for Napoleon's momentary state, Russia, and the Roman Empire.
Still, all this was missing in Jean Baptiste Duroselle's book.
Certainly, an academic criticism of Duroselle's book could be founded, but any perspicacious scholar would instantly understand the purpose of that book: it was not a strictly educational material. It was written to become (as it really did) the cornerstone of the European unification. Today many people forget that, when Duroselle was writing his book, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact were still there. As educational material, it was meant to be that of at least one generation.
Then, why should one write an academic criticism of a book that has an exclusively political purpose and scope (except the scope is nefarious and destructive)?
I never believed that Duroselle's book was written with bad intentions. As member of the same elite, which sought to establish the European Union on sound and solid bases, Jean Baptiste Duroselle advanced, at the academic/educational level, in the same manner statesmen and legislators did at the political level: step by step. Or if you prefer, one step at a time! The European Coal and Steel Community had only six (6) member states in 1952; but the European Communities had twelve (12) member states when, 37 years later, in 1989, Duroselle was writing his book.
Then, I realized that in the elaboration of the (demanded by the Commission of the European Communities) book, Duroselle proceeded in the same manner. Most probably, if everything went well, another historian 25-30 years later would compose another «Europe: A History of its Peoples» to incorporate material, facts, cultures and nations that I suggested (as per above) and which Duroselle fully omitted. Then, a fully successful European Union would incorporate Turkey and Russia, thus transforming its nature and changing its name (once more) into Eurasiatic Union. This would be a most propitious development – not only for Europe but for the entire world.
As I saw the entire project as an open-ended effort, I did not feel the need to criticize Duroselle's book at the time, hoping that things would progress beneficially to all, with the elimination of narrow-minded approaches, discriminatory theories, and racist schemes which help raise fictional barriers and fake borders, turning peoples and nations to conflicting parts in a destructive game.
III - Many different plans for a Unified Europe
One should not associate Jean Baptiste Duroselle and his book with today's calamitous and anti-European leadership of the European Union and of many of its countries. Duroselle belonged to a totally different elite, which simply failed to keep the evil forces out.
It is also erroneous to think that the problem is due to a divide between forces that intend to establish and consolidate a Unified Europe and those who intend to plunge the countries of the European Union into endless strives, fraternal conflicts, and catastrophic wars. I don't mean that there are not forces acting to damage the European Union; they certainly exist and they deploy every possible effort to harm the European project.
However, the greatest trouble has been the existence of several parallel agendas providing for different versions of the European project. There were plans which equated the European unification, not only with the fall of the Soviet system but also, with the split and destruction of Russia. Duroselle was a close associate of Jean Monnet and a French Freemason. But their plans about Europe included also the split and destruction of Russia (then known as USSR). This became fully evident with Charles de Gaulle, who did not say the words «Union soviétique» (or U.R.S.S.) even once. He used to call it «Russie». So, de Gaulle spoke about a Europe «de Lisbonne aux Ourals», which means a de facto split of Russia.
I beg you not to misunderstand me! I do not equate Charles de Gaulle with all those who wanted to destroy Russia. His idea reflected the targets and the agenda of only one group. That group wanted (and still wants) to include European Russia into the European project. But there are other groups with other targets and very different agendas, as per which Russia must not be cut to just two parts, but to ten or fifteen pieces.
With the aforementioned, I don't mean recent but old groups, secret societies, and long enduring, evil plans providing for Russia's pulverization. To add further perplexity to the already confusing story, I must add that there is no unity of purpose even among those who intend to fully pulverize Russia. There are some who are very cheerful for the European unification project and have malicious intentions toward Russia; and there are others who want to see both, Europe and Russia, plunged in division, turned to endless battlefields, and mercilessly destroyed.
IV - Serious mistakes committed by past European leadership
And the forces that were in charge committed many mistakes. Things did not go out of control with the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine in 2022; the real problems started at the time of Mitterrand (1916-1996), Kohl (1930-2017) and Gorbachev (1931-2022). The earliest form of these problems appeared in the minds of people like Jean Monnet (1888-1979), Pierre Renouvin (1893-1974), and Jean Baptiste Duroselle (1917-1994), who kept in their heads a pre-WW II image of the world. This fact prevented them from fully realizing that their project was in striking contrast with three different agendas:
- the Jesuit agenda providing for European unification and for Russia's division and subordination,
- the US-Zionist agenda implying US predominance in Europe, and Russia's final pulverization, and
- the UK-Fake Freemasonic agenda intending to cause conflict everywhere between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Of course, the existence of an agenda does not mean that it will be materialized, but for this to be done, mistakes must not be made. Unfortunately, the aforementioned three leaders made colossal mistakes. Their intention to advance in small steps only guaranteed that catastrophic errors would be produced in the process; they should have advanced in a very bold and most impulsive manner, which would change everything in the horizon so quickly that others would never be in a position to react. Many times, what does not change in a second, fails to evolve and, due to other changes occurred elsewhere, becomes obsolete.
Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev should make an agreement as per which the termination of the Soviet/Russian presence in East Germany would imply the immediate termination of French/English/ American presence in West Germany.
UK and US should be kept out of every discussion pertaining to Germany and France. Gorbachev's agreement with Helmut Kohl dates back to July 1990 (during their meeting on 14th July); but the Warsaw Pact was dissolved one year later (July 1991). East Germany's exit from the Warsaw Pact should occur at the same moment as West Germany's exit from NATO. The momentous advent of a neutral, united Germany should be the sole and undisputed target of Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the leading states of the European Communities, namely France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, should withdraw from NATO to become militarily neutral countries – just like Germany and all the former Warsaw Pact member states.
European Communities should then immediately start discussions with Russia and other Eastern European states for the establishment of a new European organization of security and military cooperation.
All the other European Communities member states that had not withdrawn from NATO should be asked to either follow the example of the major states or cease to be part of the European project.
Specific legislation in the European Parliament should be voted to permanently block academic exchanges with US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and with UK if the insular state did not withdraw from NATO), making it impossible for European students to ever study in US, Canadian, etc. universities. The relations between the European Communities and the US should be limited at the level of simple trade.
As a matter of fact, the mistakes of Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev were those of their mentors, and the reason for them was the fact that they kept having a pre-WW II world view in a post-WW II world. This was preposterous. They failed to accurately assess the deep seated hatred that post-WW II American elites had of Europe, and which was superbly encapsulated in John Kennedy's silly words about France ('a country the size of Texas' having the pretension of 'grandeur' and 'universal relevance').
Example of typically American trash that is absolutely impermissible on European soil: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/france-united-states-iraq/
Post WW II America evolved from a supportive friend of Europe to an encumbering ally only to dare finally assert her claim to world supremacy. It goes without saying that the rise of an empire is achieved either in parity with another or with the collapse of another. In fact, after the end of what is conventionally called WW II, any truthful vision of a United Europe is that of an Empire, and it cannot be achieved within the concept of a Res Publica. Consequently and by definition, the US and the UK are the 'enemies' and all the states of Asia and Africa are the potential allies.
V – The rise of a self-destructive establishment in Europe
Failing to understand that America is the enemy and not the ally or partner of Europe was not the only mistake of the last representatives of the old guard of European statesmen and politicians. They failed to identify a series of challenges, to come up with their own responses to them, to spot groups using a perverse language to corrupt European ideals and principles, to outmaneuver them, to eliminate subversive theories like today's biased and fake multiculturalism, to find various alternatives to the supposed 'need' of cheap labor force (which in turn translates to unnecessary millions of 'refugees'), to examine worldwide threats, notably the case of Islamic extremism, to avert the existing dangers, to address all major issues (Food and Water, Energy, Labor, Worldwide Competitiveness, Security, Health, Education, Internet-Mobile Telephony-Disruptive Technology, and the inevitable termination of the Welfare State), and to envision common national and supranational survival in an exceptionally different future.
The old guard of European statesmen and politicians proved to be too small, too mean, and too conventional to possibly stand the exam. Their traditional practice to please all the important groups of power by means of endless compromises, their unconditional relativism, their tactics to promise everything to everyone, and their absurd aversion to fix strict limits to their concepts, principles and values made them look absolutely useless. This situation was exemplified by Jacques Chirac, who was foolish enough not to realize that, when you don't stand for your values, you get supplanted. Elasticity is not a virtue for emperors.
And this is what really happened in Europe; the old guard of European statesmen and politicians, provenly useless, got effectively supplanted by valueless aliens and enemies of the European culture, who can easily promote by means of lawless laws any sort of bestial and villainous absurdity to a supposed 'value', only thanks to the long lasting relativism that corrupted the European societies.
The rise of a self-destructive establishment in Europe did not and will not end up with its subordination to the US; this is so because the American society collapsed too due to the rise of similar chaotic and inhuman elements and groups. And this is exactly what the old guard of European statesmen and politicians (Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl and Chirac) failed to understand: it they put strict limits, stated their purposes clearly, and clashed with the disparate, corrupt and chaotic elements of the Evil Left, there would be a thunderous clash and they would eliminate the evilness, preventing the corruption from spreading across their societies. Their conformism, compromises and conventionalism (superbly described and decried by the perspicacious Pope Benedict XVI as 'relativism') did actually ensure calmness and placidity in their time only to bring about corruption, disintegration, and dissolution 20-30 years later.
Now, alas, it will take extreme brutality, foremost violence, and overwhelming totalitarianism to save the European Union; but what will be saved will have nothing to do with 'democracy', 'human rights', 'civil rights', and 'republican' states. It will come with dozens of millions of dead on European soil and -above all- with fierce countenance. Many expect it to be based in Eastern Europe; they believe that the land of Russia, east of Moscow, the confines of Volga Bulgaria, the periphery of the Tatars, and Sibir (Siberia), as far as Chelyabinsk, are the world's most blessed Earth as past covenant and future pledge. It may appear to be like the Jack of all trades; what Christianity and Islam failed to achieve with their interminable wars, Tengrism and Shamanism may eventually achieve. And who knows? Those who wanted for more than 100 years to consecrate Russia may see their urban state desecrated forever! I guess one would even call it orbital deformity!
What was then Duroselle's error? I would not call it like that; as a matter of fact, it was an oversight. Although he fortunately avoided referring to nonsensical lines of division of which others were fascinated, he did not explicitly state that in Eastern Europe the only possibly peaceful borders are those between Austria-Hungary, Imperial Germany, and Czarist Russia.
---------------------
Download the article in Word doc.:
More Posts from S-afshar and Others
A depiction of iconoclasm, from a 9th-century psalter. The iconoclasts believed that praying to works of religious art was tantamount to idolatry. Several Byzantine rulers encouraged the destruction of religious icons, which helped to widen the gap between Byzantine Christians and the Popes.
{WHF} {Ko-Fi} {Medium}
It is may 29th, 1453. You are Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, and you have just taken the city of Constantinople. You’ve been scaring the daylights out of the Christian world for a while now, but now you’ve really gone and done it. Your little jaunt through Asia Minor is causing a bunch of greek theologians to pull up and run further west into europe. The catholic church already has their hands full with a whole mess of internal conflicts. You wonder how they’re gonna handle this influx of new ideas. Sure would be a shame if you accidentally contributed to some sort of protestant reformation or something. You can’t think about that right now though, you’ve got to think of a better name for your cool new city.
Meanwhile, back in the Catholic Church, a sin is being committed. A sin so grievous and dangerous that it will eventually tear the Christian world as we know it in two: people are translating the Bible into dutch.
Writing about Renaissance Esoterica on patreon today
Russia, Ukraine and the World-II by Megalommatis
Μίθρας, Μιθραϊσμός & Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια: Όλα τα Αρχαία Ελληνικά και Λατινικά Κείμενα που αναφέρονται στον Μίθρα και τους Μιθραϊστές
Mithras, Mithraism & Mithraic Mysteries: All Ancient Greek and Latin Texts Relating to Mithras and the Mithraists
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 7η Μαΐου 2019.
Αναδημοσίευση από το https://www.tertullian.org/ όλων των αρχαιοελληνικών και λατινικών κειμενικών αναφορών στον Μίθρα. Οι αρχαίες ιρανικές ιστορικές πηγές των αχαιμενιδικών, αρσακιδικών και σασανιδικών και οι αναφορές των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και Ρωμαίων στον Μίθρα μας βοηθούν τόσο στην ανασύσταση της τρομερής θρησκευτικής διαπάλης των αχαιμενιδικών χρόνων (550-330) ανάμεσα στον Ζωροαστρισμό και τον Μιθραϊσμό, όσο και στην κατανόηση της μεγάλης άγνοιας των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και Ρωμαίων σχετικά με τις θρησκείες του Ιράν. Με άλλα λόγια, οι Αρχαίοι Έλληνες και Ρωμαίοι δεν στάθηκαν ικανοί να διακρίνουν την τρομερή αντιπαλότητα των Ζωροαστριστών και Μιθραϊστών Ιρανών με τους οποίους συνδιαλέγοντο. Έτσι, η τεράστια σύγχυση σχετικά με το αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν διατηρήθηκε επί μακρόν και επέδρασε αρνητικά στις ρωμαιοϊρανικές σχέσεις κατά τα αρσακιδικά και τα σασανιδικά χρόνια. Αυτή η σύγχυση βρήκε την συνέχειά της στα χριστιανοϊσλαμικά χρόνια, όταν οι Ρωμιοί ιστορικοί δεν μπορούσαν να εννοήσουν τις θρησκευτικές, ψυχικές-πνευματικές, μυστικιστικές και θεολογικές έριδες οι οποίες εκδηλώθηκαν εντός του ισλαμικού χαλιφάτου.
-----------------------------------------
http://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/μίθρας-μιθραϊσμός-μιθραϊκά-μυστήρι/ ====================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Ύστερα από το μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον που προκλήθηκε σχετικά με την διάδοση του Μιθραϊσμού ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες, τους Ρωμαίους, την Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη εξαιτίας δύο πρώτων κειμένων μου σχετικά, δημοσιεύω σήμερα ένα πλήρη κατάλογο (στα αγγλικά) όλων των αποσπασμάτων αρχαίας ελληνικής και ρωμαϊκής γραμματείας που αναφέρονται στον Μίθρα και στους Μιθραϊστές.
Η επιστημονική εργασία αυτή δεν έχει βεβαίως γίνει από μένα, ούτε κι η ηλεκτρονική παρουσίαση του θέματος είναι δική μου. Παραθέτω τον σύνδεσμο. Είμαι όμως σίγουρος ότι όσοι ενδιαφέρονται σοβαρά θα βρουν εδώ όσα τους χρειάζονται για να κάνουν μόνοι τους την δική τους έρευνα.
Αποσπάσματα από τον Ηρόδοτο και τον Ξενοφώντα μέχρι τον Θεοφάνη και τον Φώτιο, περνώντας από τους Δίωνα Χρυσόστομο, τον Λουκιανό, τον Δίωνα Κάσσιο, τον Ψευδο-Καλλισθένη, τον Γρηγόριο Ναζιανζηνό, τον Ιουλιανό Παραβάτη, τον Ιερώνυμο, τον Κοσμά Ινδικοπλεύστη, τον Κοσμά Μελωδό, και πολλούς άλλους δείχνουν σε ποιον βαθμό είχε προχωρήσει ο πολιτισμικός εκπερσισμός των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και των Ρωμαίων. Οι φιλολογικές μαρτυρίες παρουσιάζονται καταταγμένες χρονολογικά.
Εννοείται ότι δεν περιλαμβάνονται εδώ οι επιγραφικές μαρτυρίες: οι χιλιάδες επιγραφών σε αρχαία ελληνικά και λατινικά που έχουν ανασκαφεί κι ανευρεθεί από την Κομμαγηνή και τον Πόντο μέχρι την Γερμανία και την Βρεταννία κι από την Αλγερία και την Ιβηρική μέχρι τις στέππες της Ουκρανίας.
Επίσης δεν περιλαμβάνονται εδώ κατάλογοι αναγλύφων, αγαλμάτων, μνημείων, ναών του Μίθρα (: ‘Μιθραίων’) και γενικώτερα αρχαιολογικών χώρων που έχουν εντοπισθεί δυτικά του Ιράν και μέχρι τον Ατλαντικό, ή από την Βόρεια Ευρώπη μέχρι το Σουδάν.
Τα τρία πρότερα κείμενά μου για το θέμα βρίσκονται εδώ:
Οι Ατελείωτες Επελάσεις του Μίθρα προς την Δύση κι ο Πολιτισμικός Εξιρανισμός Ελλήνων, Ρωμαίων κι Ευρωπαίων
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/οι-ατελείωτες-επελάσεις-του-μίθρα-προ/
(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/58627059/Οι_Ατελείωτες_Επελάσεις_του_Μίθρα_προς_την_Δύση_κι_ο_Πολιτισμικός_Εξιρανισμός_Ελλήνων_Ρωμαίων_κι_Ευρωπαίων)
Ταυροθυσίες και Μιθραϊκά Μυστήρια στην Κορυφή του Ολύμπου – Η Απόλυτη Επιβολή του Περσικού Πνεύματος ανάμεσα στους Έλληνες & το Τέλος της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/06/ταυροθυσίες-και-μιθραϊκά-μυστήρια-στ/
(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/62212919/Ταυροθυσίες_και_Μιθραϊκά_Μυστήρια_στην_Κορυφή_του_Ολύμπου_Η_Απόλυτη_Επιβολή_του_Περσικού_Πνεύματος_ανάμεσα_στους_Έλληνες_and_το_Τέλος_της_Αρχαίας_Ελλάδας)
και
Η Απόλυτη Κυριαρχία των Μιθραϊστών Πειρατών στο Αιγαίο, την Ελλάδα και τον Θεσσαλικό Όλυμπο στον 1ο Αιώνα π.Χ. – Τι λέει ο Πλούταρχος
http://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/η-απόλυτη-κυριαρχία-των-μιθραϊστών-πε/
(και πλέον: https://www.academia.edu/62228155/Η_Απόλυτη_Κυριαρχία_των_Μιθραϊστών_Πειρατών_στο_Αιγαίο_την_Ελλάδα_και_τον_Θεσσαλικό_Όλυμπο_στον_1ο_Αιώνα_π_Χ_Τι_λέει_ο_Πλούταρχος)
Για όσους έχουν δυσκολία στα αγγλικά, τονίζω ότι θα επανέλθω συχνά-πυκνά εστιάζοντας σε πολλά από τα παρακάτω κείμενα.
—————————————————-
Ο Μίθρας στο Ιράν, Ανάγλυφο του Ταγ-ε Μποστάν (Taq-e_Bostan): στέψη του Αρντασίρ Β’ 379-383 μ.Χ. (αριστερά, κραδαίνοντας το μπαρσόμ)
Ο Μίθρας στο Ιεροθέσιον Κορυφής (Νέμρουτ Νταγ) και άλλα μνημεία της Κομμαγηνής
Ο Μίθρας στην Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και την Ευρώπη
Ο Μίθρας στην Αυτοκρατορία της Μερόης (‘Αιθιοπία’: Αρχαίο Σουδάν), Αναπαράσταση των χρόνων του βασιλέως Σορκάρορ (Shorkaror – 20-30 μ.Χ.) από το Τζέμπελ Κέιλι (Jebel Qeili), ανατολικά του Χαρτούμ
——————————————————–
Mithras: all the passages in Graeco-Roman literature
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/literary_sources.htm
This page contains a list of all the passages in Greek or Latin literature that refer to “Mithra(s)”, in English translation. This includes all the material for both the ancient Persian cult of Mitra, and the Roman cult of Mithras, as it is sometimes not clear which is intended here, and the Romans themselves tended to suppose that Mithras and Mithra were the same, and used the same word for each.
I have indicated in each case, where possible, which is intended: the Persian cult by P, the Roman one by R. and those which could be either as ?.
The material here has mainly been gathered as follows:
· Use the bibliography from Manfred Clauss The Roman cult of Mithras.
· Use Geden Select passages illustrating Mithraism
· Use Cumont, Textes et Monuments 2. A number of passages which don’t mention Mithras, or else are from late saints’ lives, are omitted.
I have tried to link to complete English translations online where possible, and to indicate where the original language text can be found using {}. In some cases where more than one translation was available to me, I give both. Dates given for the works are approximate, for the convenience of the reader.
I have excluded Persian and Armenian material, which presumably would be inaccessible in the Greek and Roman world anyway. Geden translates a small selection of this.
· Herodotus (5th c. BC) P
· Ctesias (4th c. BC) P
· Xenophon (4th c. BC) P
· Duris of Samos (4th c. BC) P
· Strabo (20 BC) P
· Pliny the Elder (ca. 50 AD) P
· Quintus Curtius (40-50 AD) P
· Plutarch (c. 100 AD) P
· Dio Chrysostom (50-120 AD) P
· Statius (80 AD) R
· Justin Martyr (150 AD) R
· Lucian (120-200 AD) P
· Zenobius the Sophist (2nd century AD) ?
· Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) R
· Cassius Dio (ca. 200 AD) P
· Origen (200-254 AD) R
· Ps.Clement (200 AD) ?
· Porphyry (ca.270 AD) R
· Commodian (3rd c. AD) R
--------------------------
· Arnobius the Elder (295 AD) ?
· P.Oxy.1802 (2-3rd c. AD) P
· Ps.Callisthenes (300 AD) P
· Greek Magical Papyri (3rd c. AD) ?
· Acts of Archelaus (Early 4th c. AD) R
· Firmicus Maternus (350 AD) R
· Gregory Nazianzen (370 AD) R
· Julian the Apostate (361-2 AD) R
· Himerius (ca. 362 AD) R
· Libanius (ca. 362 AD) R
· Epiphanius (late 4th c.)
· Jerome (ca. 400 AD) R
· Eunapius (late 4th c. AD) R
· Augustan History (late 4th c. AD) R
· Ambrose of Milan (late 4th c. AD) P
· Claudian (ca. 400 AD) P
· Prudentius (ca. 400 AD) ?
· Ps.-Paulinus of Nola / Carmen ad Antonium (ca. 400 AD) R
· Carmen ad Flavianum / contra Paganos (ca. 400 AD) R
· Augustine (early 5th c. AD) R
· Ambrosiaster (5th c. AD) R
· Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th c. AD) P
-------------------------
· Martianus Capella (5th c. AD) ?
· Socrates Scholasticus (early 5th c. AD) R
· Sozomen (5th c. AD) R
· Proclus (5th c. AD) P
· Hesychius (ca. 400 AD) P
· Zosimus the alchemist (300 AD) ?
· Zosimus (6th c. AD) ?
· Nonnus of Panopolis (ca. 400 AD) P
· Lactantius Placidus (5th century AD) R
· John the Lydian (6th c. AD) R
· Damascius (6th c. AD) ?
· Cosmas Indicopleustes (ca. 550 AD) P
· Maximus the Confessor (7th c. AD) P
· Nonnus the Mythographer (6th or 7th c. AD) R
· John the Lydian (6th c. AD) R
· Theophylact Simocatta (ca. 600 AD) ?
· Cosmas of Jerusalem (ca. 750 AD) R
· Theophanes (650+ AD) R
· The Suda (9-10 c. AD) R
· Photius (9 c. AD) R
· Panegyrici Latini (9th c. AD) ?
================================
Herodotus (5th c. B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.16-17}
Histories, book 1, ch. 131 (Geden p.24):
Others are accustomed to ascend the hill-tops and sacrifice to Zeus, the name they give to the whole expanse of the heavens. Sacrifice is offered also to the sun and moon, to the earth and fire and water and the winds. These alone are from ancient times the objects of their worship, but they have adopted also the practice of sacrifice to Urania, which they have learned from the Assyrians and Arabians. The Assyrians give to Aphrodite the name Mylitta, the Arabians Alilat and the Persians Mitra.
Cumont notes that Ambrose of Milan also calls Mithra female.
————————————————–
Ctesias (after 398 B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.10}
Quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book 10, ch.45 (2nd c.). Geden p.25:
Ktesias reports that among the Indians it was not lawful for the king to drink to excess. Among the Persians however the king was permitted to be intoxicated on the one day on which sacrifice was offered to Mithra.
Cumont adds that the passage from Athenaeus is reproduced in part by Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey, XVIII, 3, p.1854; and Commentary on the Iliad, p.957.
—————————————————–
Xenophon (ca. 397-340 B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.51}
Oeconomicus, IV. 24. Cyrus the Younger, addressing Lysander:
Do you wonder at this, Lysander? I swear to you by Mithra that whenever I am in health I never break my fast without perspiring. (Geden)
Cyropaedia, VII. 5. Spoken by Artabazus to Cyrus the Elder.
By Mithra I could not come to you yesterday without fighting my way through many foes. (Geden)
———————————————————–
Duris of Samos (Mid. 4th c. B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.10}
Quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book 10, ch.45, immediately after the quote from Ctesias above. (2nd c. A.D.) Geden p.26.
In the seventh book of his Histories Duris has preserved the following account on this subject. Only at the festival celebrated by the Persians in honour of Mithra does the Persian king become drunken and dance after the Persian manner. On this day throughout Asia all abstain from the dance. For the Persians are taught both horsemanship and dancing; and they believe that the practice of these rhythmical movements strengthens and disciplines the body.
Cumont adds that the passage from Athenaeus is reproduced in part by Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey, XVIII, 3, p.1854; and Commentary on the Iliad, p.957.
——————————————————–
Strabo (20 B.C.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.49}
Geographica, XI. 14:
The country (i.e. Armenia) is so excellently suited to the rearing of horses, being not inferior indeed to Media, that the Nisaean steeds are raised there also of the same breed that the Persian kings were wont to use. And the satrap of Armenia used to send annually to Persia twice ten thousand colts for the Mithraic festivals. (Geden)
Geographica, XV. 3:
The Persians therefore do not erect statues and altars, but sacrifice on a high place, regarding the heaven as Zeus; and they honour also the sun, whom they call Mithra, and the moon and Aphrodite and fire and earth and the winds and water. (Geden)
Cumont notes that the second passage reproduces Herodotus.
—————————————————–
Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.32}
Natural History, book 37, chapter 10: (Jewels derived from the name)
Mithrax is brought from Persia and the hill-country of the Red Sea, a stone of varied colours that reflects the light of the sun. … The Assyrians prize Eumitren the jewel of Bel their most honoured deity, of a light-green colour and employed in divination. (Geden)
—————————————————–
Quintus Curtius (40-50 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.10}
Geden p.27. History of Alexander, book 4, chapter. 13. The scene is before the battle of Arbela.
The king himself with his generals and Staff passed around the ranks of the armed men, praying to the sun and Mithra and the sacred eternal fire to inspire them with courage worthy of their ancient fame and the monuments of their ancestors.
Cumont adds that there is a variant here: mithrem rather than mithram.
—————————————————–
Plutarch (ca. 100 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.33-36}
De Iside et Osiride, ch. 46. Theopompus lived in the 4th c. B.C.
The following is the opinion of the great majority of learned men. By some it is maintained that there are two gods, rivals as it were, authors the one of good and the other of evil. Others confine the name of god to the good power, the other they term demon, as was done by Zoroaster the Magian, who is said to have lived to old age five thousand years before the Trojan war. He calls the one Horomazes, the other Areimanius. The former he assserts is of all natural phenomena most closely akin to the light, the latter to darkness, and that Mithra holds an intermediate position. To Mithra therefore the Persians give the name of the mediator. Moreover he taught men to offer to Horomazes worthy and unblemished sacrifices, but to Areimanius imperfect and deformed. For they bruise a kind of grass called molu in a trough, and invoke Hades and Darkness; then mixing it with the blood of a slaughtered wolf they carry it to a sunless place and throw it away. For they regard some plants as the property of the good god, and some· of the evil demon; and so also such animals as dogs and birds ,and hedgehogs belong to the good deity, and the water rat to the evil. Of these last therefore it is meritorious to kill as many as possible.
They have also many stories to relate concerning the gods, for example that Horomazes was born of the purest light, Areimanius of the darkness, and these are hostile to one another. The former created six gods, the first three deities respectively of good-will, truth, and orderliness, the others of wisdom, wealth, and a good conscience. By the latter rivals as it were to these were formed of equal number. Then Horomazes extended himself to thrice his stature as far beyond the sun as the sun is beyond the earth, and adorned the heaven with stars, appointing one star, Sirius, as guardian and watcher before all. He made also other twenty-four gods and placed them in an egg, but Areimanius produced creatures of equal number and these crushed the egg . . . wherefore evil is mingled with good.
At the appointed time however Areimanius must be utterly brought to nought and destroyed by the pestilence and famine which he has himself caused, and the earth will be cleared and made free from obstruction, the habitation of a united community of men dwelling in happiness and speaking one tongue. Theopompus further reports that according to the magi for three thousand years in succession each of the gods holds sway or is in subjection, and that there will follow on these a further period of three thousand years of war and strife, in which they mutually destroy the works of one another. Finally Hades will be overthrown, and men will be blessed, and will neither need nourishment nor cast a shadow. And the deity who has accomplished these things will then take rest and solace for a period that is not long, especially for a god, and moderate for a sleeping man. To this effect then is the legendary account given by the magi.
Life of Alexander, c. 30:
If thou art not false to the interests of the Persians, but remainest loyal to me thy lord, tell me by thy regard for the great light of Mithra, and the royal right hand ….
Life of Artaxerxes Memnon, c.4:
Presenting a pomegranate of great size a certain Omisus said to him: By Mithra you may trust this man quickly to make an insignificant city great.
Vita Pompei (Life of Pompey) c.24, 5, 632CD. (This is often quoted as if it had some connection with Mithras of the legions; but surely relates to Mithridates and Persian Mithra in Asia Minor?).
There were of these corsairs above one thousand sail, and they had taken no less than four hundred cities, committing sacrilege upon the temples of the gods, and enriching themselves with the spoils of many never violated before, such as were those of Claros, Didyma, and Samothrace; and the temple of the Earth in Hermione, and that of Aesculapius in Epidaurus, those of Neptune at the Isthmus, at Taenarus, and at Calauria; those of Apollo at Actium and Leucas, and those of Juno in Samos, at Argos, and at Lacinium. They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them. (Dryden)
They were accustomed to offer strange sacrifices on Olympus and to observe certain secret rites, of which that of Mithra is maintained to the present day by those by whom it was first established. (Geden)
(Ps.Plutarch) De fluviis, XXIII. 4.
Clauss says that the story is that Mithras spilled his seed onto a rock, and the stone gave birth to a son, named Diorphos, who, worsted and killed in a duel by Ares, was turned into the mountain of the same name not far from the Armenian river Araxes.
Near it also (i.e. the Araxes) is a mountain Diorphus, so called from the giant of that name, of which this story is told: Mithra being desirous of a son, and hating the female race, entered into a certain rock; and the stone becoming pregnant after the appointed time bore a child named Diorphus. The latter when he had grown to manhood challenged Ares to a contest of valour, and was slain. The purpose of the gods was then fulfilled in his transformation into the mountain which bears his name. (Geden)
———————————————–
Dio Chrysostom (ca. 50-120 A.D.) [=Mithra] {Cumont, ii, p.60-64}
Oration 36. Marked as doubtful by Cumont.
In the secret mysteries the magi relate a further marvellous tradition concerning this god (Zeus) that he was the first and faultless charioteer of the unrivalled car. For they declare that the car of the sun is more recent, but on account of its prominent course in the sky is familiar to all. Whence is derived, it would seem, the common legend adopted by almost all the leading poets who have told of the risings and settings of the sun, the yoking of the steeds, and his ascent into the car. But of the mighty and perfect car of Zeus none of our writers hitherto has worthily sung, not even Homer or Hesiod, but the story is told by Zoroaster and the descendants of the magi who have learnt from him.
Of him the Persians relate that moved by love of wisdom and righteousness he separated himself from men and lived apart on a certain mountain, that fire subsequently fell from heaven and the whole mountain was kindled into flame. The king then with the most illustrious of the Persians approached wishing to offer prayer to the god. And Zoroaster came forth from the fire unharmed and gently bade them be of good courage and offer certain sacrifices, since it was the divine sanctuary to which the king had come.
Afterwards only those distinguished for love of the truth and who were worthy to approach the god were permitted to have access, and to these the Persians gave the name of magi, as being adepts in the divine service; differing therein from the Greeks who through ignorance of the name call such men wizards. And among other sacred rites they maintain for Zeus a pair of Nisaean steeds, these being the noblest and strongest that Asia yields, but one steed only for the sun. Moreover, they recount their legend not like our poets of the Muses who with all the arts of persuasion endeavour to carry conviction, but quite simply. For without doubt the control and government of the Supreme are unique, actuated always by the highest skill and strength, and that without cessation through endless ages.
The circuits then of the sun and moon are, as I said, movements of parts, and therefore readily discernible; most men however do not understand the movement and course of the whole, but the majestic order of its succession removes it above their comprehension. The further stories which they tell concerning the steeds and their management I hesitate to relate; and indeed they fail to take into account that the nature of the symbolism they employ betrays their own character. For it may be that it would be regarded as an act of folly for me to set forth a barbarian tale by the side of the fair Greek lays.
I must however make the venture. The first of the steeds is said to surpass infinitely in beauty and size and swiftness, running as it does on the outside round of the course, sacred to Zeus himself; and it is winged. The colour also of its skin is bright, of the purest sheen. And on it the sun and the moon are emblematically represented; I understand the meaning to be that these steeds have emblems moon-shaped or other; and they are seen by us indistinctly like sparks dancing in the bright blaze of a fire, each with its own proper motion. And the other stars receive their light through it and are all under its influence; and some have the same motion and are carried round with it, and others follow different courses. And the latter have each their own name among men, but the others are grouped together, assigned to certain forms and shapes.
The most handsome and variegated steed then is the favourite of Zeus himself, and on this account is lauded by them, receiving as is right the chief sacrifices and honours. The next to it in rank bears the name of Hera, being tractable and gentle, greatly inferior however in strength and swiftness. Its colour is naturally black, but that which is illuminated by the sun is always resplendent, while that which is in shadow during its circuit reveals the true character of the skin. The third is sacred to Poseidon, and is slower in movement than the second. His counterpart the poets say is found among men, meaning I suppose that which bears the name of Pegasus; a spring, according to the story, breaking forth in Corinth when the ground was opened.
The fourth is the strangest figure of all, fixed and motionless, not furnished with wings, named Hestia; but they do not hesitate to declare that this also is yoked to the car, remaining however in its place champing a bit of steel. And the others are on each side closely attached to it, the two nearest turning equally towards it, as though assailing it and resenting its control; but the leader on the outside circles constantly around it as though around a fixed centre post. For the most part therefore they live in peace and amity unhurt by one another, but eventually after a long time and many circuits the powerful breath of the leader descends from above and kindles into flame the proud spirit of the others, and most of all of the last.
His flaming mane then is set on fire, in which he took especial pride, and the whole universe. This calamity which they record they say that the Greeks attribute to Phaethon, for they refuse to blame Zeus’ driving of the car, and are unwilling to attach fault to the circuits of the sun … and again when in the course of further years the sacred colt of the Nymphs and Poseidon rouses itself to unaccustomed exertion, and incommoded with the sweat that pours from it drenches its own yokefellow, it gives rise to a destruction the contrary of the preceding, a flood of water. This then is the one catastrophe of which the Greeks have record owing to their recent origin and the shortness of their memory, and they relate that Deucalion reigned over them at that time before the universal destruction.
And in consequence of the ruin brought upon themselves men regard these rare occurrences as taking place neither in harmony with reason nor as a part of the general order, overlooking the fact that they occur in due course and in accordance with the will of the preserver and ruler of all. For it is just as when a charioteer chastises one of his steeds by checking it with the rein or touching it with the whip; the horse gives a start and is restless before settling down into its accustomed order. This earlier control then of the team they say is firm and the universe suffers no harm; but later a change takes place in the movement of the four, and their natures are mutually altered and interchanged, until they are all subdued by the higher power and a uniform character is imposed on all.
Nevertheless they do not hesitate to compare this movement to the conduct and driving of a car, for lack of a more impressive simile. As though a clever artificer should fashion horses out of wax, and should then smooth off the roughnesses of each, adding now to one and now to another, finally reducing all to one pattern, and forming his whole material into one shape. This however is not the case of a Creator fashioning and transforming from the outside the material substance of things without life, but the experience is that of the very substances themselves, as though they were contending for victory in a real and well-contested strife; and the crown of victory is awarded of right to the first and foremost in swiftness and strength and in every kind of virtue, to whom at the beginning of our discourse we gave the name of “chosen of Zeus.”.
For this one being the strongest and naturally fiery quickly consumed the others as though they had been really wax in a period not actually long, though to our limited reasoning it appears infinite; and absorbing into himself the entire substance of all is seen to be far greater and more glorious than before, having won the victory in the most formidable contest by no mortal or immortal aid, but by his own valour. Raised then proudly aloft and exulting in his victory, he takes possession of the widest possible domain, and yet such is his might and power that he craves further room for expansion. Having reached this conclusion they shrink from describing the nature of the living creature as the same; for that it is now no other than the soul of the charioteer and lord, or rather it has the same purpose and mind. (Geden)
————————————————–
Statius (ca. 80 A.D.) [=Mithras] {Cumont, ii, p.46}
Thebaid, book 1, v.719-20:
(Mithras) ‘twists the unruly horns beneath the rocks of a Persian cave’ (Clauss)
717 …… seu te roseum Titana vocari Gentis Achaemeniae ritu, seu praestat Osirim Frugiferum, seu Persei sub rupibus antri Indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram.
Or:
Whether it please thee to bear the name of ruddy Titan after the manner of the Achaemenian race, or Osiris lord of the crops, or Mithra as beneath the rocks of the Persian cave he presses back the horns that resist his control. (Geden)
Geden suggests the horns must be those of the bull.
The scholia on Statius are attributed to a certain Lactantius Placidus.
—————————————————–
Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) [=Mithras] {Cumont, ii.20-21}
1st Apology, ch. 66
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; “and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; “and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (ANF)
Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 70
70. And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah’s words? For they contrived that the words of righteousness be quoted also by them. But I must repeat to you the words of Isaiah referred to, in order that from them you may know that these things are so. They are these: `Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might.
The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water [shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counsellors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,-the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not.
The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were foreknown to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding.
And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, “that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this. (ANF)
78. … I have repeated to you,” I continued, “what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.” Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. … (ANF)
Geden (p.39-40) renders these passages as:
(Apol. 1, 66) Accordingly in the mysteries of Mithra also we have heard that evil spirits practise mimicry. For at the initiatory rites bread and a cup of water are set out accompanied by certain formulae, as you know or may ascertain.
(Dial. 70) And when in the tradition of the Mithraic mysteries they relate that Mithra was born of a rock, and name the place where his followers receive initiation a cave, do I not know that they are perverting the saying of Daniel that “a stone was hewn without hands from a great mountain,” and likewise the words of Isaiah, all whose sayings also they endeavour to pervert? Noteworthy sayings too besides these they have artfully contrived to use.
(Dial. 78) According to the tradition of the Mithraic mysteries initiation takes place among them in a so-called cave, … a device of the evil one.
———————————————–
Lucian (120-200 A.D.) [=?] {Cumont, ii.22}
The Gods in Council, chapter 9.
Momus. Ah; and out of consideration for him I suppose I must also abstain from any reference to the eagle, which is now a God like the rest of us, perches upon the royal sceptre, and may be expected at any moment to build his nest upon the head of Majesty?–Well, you must allow me Attis, Corybas, and 9 Sabazius: by what contrivance, now, did they get here? and that Mede there, Mithras, with the candys and tiara? why, the fellow cannot speak Greek; if you pledge him, he does not know what you mean. The consequence is, that Scythians and Goths, observing their success, snap their fingers at us, and distribute divinity and immortality right and left; that was how the slave Zamolxis’s name slipped into our register. However, let that pass. But I should just like to ask that Egyptian there–the dog-faced gentleman in the linen suit — who he is, and whether he proposes to establish his divinity by barking?
Or:
And Attis too, by heaven, and Korybas and Sabazius with what a flood have these deluged us, and your Mithra with his Assyrian cloak and crown, maintaining even their foreign tongue, so that when they give a toast no one can understand what they say. (Geden)
The Tragic Zeus, ch. 8:
There is Bendis herself and Anubis yonder and by his side Attis and Mithra and Men, all resplendent in gold, weighty and costly you may be sure.
Menippus, ch. 6:
Once as with these thoughts I was lying awake I determined to go to Babylon and there make inquiry of one of the magi, the disciples and successors of Zoroaster. I had heard that by incantations and magic rites they open the gates of Hades, and lead thither in safety whom they will, and restore him again to the upper world . . . so I arose at once, and without delay set out for Babylon.
On arrival I betook myself to a certain Chaldaean, a man skilled in the art of the diviner, grey-haired and wearing an imposing beard, whose name was Mithrobarzanes. With much trouble and importunity I won his consent, for whatever fee he liked to name, to be my guide on the way. He took me under his charge, and first for twenty-nine days from the new moon he conducted me at dawn to the Euphrates and bathed me, reciting some long invocation to the rising sun, which I did not fully understand; for like the second-rate heralds at the games he spoke in obscure and involved fashion. It was clear however that he was invoking certain deities.
Then after the invocation he spat thrice in front of me and conducted me back without looking in the face of any whom we met. For food we had acorns, and our drink was milk and honey-mead and the waters of the Choaspes, and we made our couch upon the grass in the open air. These preliminaries concluded he took me about midnight to the Tigris, cleansed and rubbed me down and purified me with resinous twigs and hyssop and many other things, reiterating at the same time the previous invocation. Then he threw spells over me and circumambulated me for my defence against the ghosts and led me back to the house, as I was, on foot; and the rest of the journey we made by boat. He himself put on some sort of a Magian robe, not unlike that of the Medes. And he further equipped me with the cap and lion’s skin and put into my hands the lyre, and bade me if I were asked my name not to answer Menippus, but to say Herakles or Odysseus or Orpheus ….
Arrived at a certain place, gloomy and desolate and overgrown with jungle, we disembarked, Mithrobarzanes leading the way, and dug a pit, and sacrificed the sheep, pouring out the blood over it. Then the Magian with lighted torch in his hand, no longer in subdued tones but exerting his voice to the utmost, invoked the whole host of demons with the Avengers and Furies, “and Hecate the queen of night and noble Persephone,” joining with them some foreign names of inordinate length. (Geden)
Cumont adds that the name of Mithras is explained in two of the scholia on Lucian. The second is similar to Hesychius. Scholia, c. 1. 1 (p.173 ed. Jacobitz), Cumont p.23. Translated by Andrew Eastbourne:
Cumont cites two scholia on Lucian which discuss Mithra(s), from the edition of Jacobitz. For a more recent edition, see Rabe, Scholia in Lucianum (1906).[1]
Scholion on Lucian, Zeus Rants / Jupiter tragoedus 8 [cf. Rabe, p. 60]
This Bendis…[2] Bendis is a Thracian goddess, and Anubis is an Egyptian [god], whom the theologoi[3] call “dog-faced.” Mithras is Persian, and Men is Phrygian. This Mithras is the same as Hephaestus, but others say [he is the same as] Helios. So then, because the barbarians would take pride[4] in wealth, they naturally also outfitted their own gods most expensively. And Attis is revered by the Phrygians…
Scholion on Lucian, The Parliament of the Gods / Deorum concilium 9 [cf. Rabe, p. 212]
Mithrês [Mithras]… Mithras is the sun [Helios], among the Persians.[5]
[1] I have noted points where Rabe’s edition differs in substance from the text printed by Cumont. Rabe’s edition is available online at http://www.archive.org/details/scholiainlucianu00rabe
[2] Lucian’s text here mentions Bendis, Anubis, Attis, Mithrês [Mithras], and Mên.
[3] The Greek term normally refers to poets who wrote about the gods, like Hesiod or Orpheus. Note that this is an emendation; the mss. read logoi (“words / discourses / accounts”), which Rabe adopts in his edition.
[4] Gk. ekômôn; lit., “wore their hair long / let their hair grow long.”
[5] Rabe’s text: “Mithras is the same as Helios, among the Persians.”
——————————————————–
Zenobius the Sophist (2nd century A.D.) [=?]
A Greek sophist of the reign of Hadrian. His collection of proverbs is partly extant.
Proverbia, book 5, 78 (in Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum vol. 1, p.151). Quoted in Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin literature, p.309:
Evander said that the gods who rule over everything are eight: Fire, Water, Earth, Heaven, Moon, Sun, Mithras, Night.
Not in Geden or Cumont.
Clauss p.70 n.84 also mentions literary evidence of syncretism of Mithras with the Orphic creator-god Phanes (no citation). This refers to a similar list from Iranian sources appearing in Theon of Smyrna’s Exposition of mathematical ideas useful for reading Plato, ch. 47 (from Exposition des connaissances mathematiques utiles pour la lecture de platon, J. Dupuis in 1892, p.173):
47. The number eight which is the first cube composed of unity and seven. Some say that there are eight gods who are masters of the universe, and this is also what we see in the sayings of Orpheus:
By the creators of things ever immortal, Fire and water, earth and heaven, moon, And sun, the great Phanes and the dark night.
And Evander reports that in Egypt may be found on a column an inscription of King Saturn and Queen Rhea: “The most ancient of all, King Osiris, to the immortal gods, to the spirit, to heaven and earth, to night and day, to the father of all that is and all that will be, and to Love, souvenir of the magificence of his life.” Timotheus also reports the proverb, “Eight is all, because the spheres of the world which rotate around the earth are eight.” And, as Erastothenes says,
“These eight spheres harmonise together in making their revolutions around the earth.”
The real basis for identification of Mithras and Phanes is some inscriptions.
........
Continue in the Word doc. that you can download (see below!)
---------------------------
Bibliography
· Manfred CLAUSS, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries. Edinburgh University Press (2000). Tr. Richard GORDON.
· Franz CUMONT, The Mysteries of Mithra. London: Kegan Paul (1910). Tr. Thomas J. McCORMACK from the second French edition.
An Image of the Tauroctony
[Museo Nazionale, Roma. Photographed by R.Pearse, February 2004]
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/literary_sources.htm
--------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250716152
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/mithra_mithraism_and_mithraic_mysteries.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621839366
https://www.docdroid.net/5YzE1Mw/mithras-mithraismos-mithraika-mistiria-docx
Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Φιλόσοφος, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Αυτοκράτορας, Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, Θεμελιωτής της Δυναστείας των Γκορκανιάν από την Κεντρική Ασία στην Ινδία
Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Philosopher, Poet, Historian, Emperor, Descendant of Tamerlane, Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty from Central Asia to Hindustan, Bengal and the Dekkan
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 18η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019.
Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης χρησιμοποιεί τμήμα ομιλίας μου, την οποία έδωσα στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 με θέμα τους παράλληλους βίους μεγάλων στρατηλατών και αυτοκρατόρων των Ακκάδων, των Χιττιτών, των Ασσυρίων, των Ιρανών, των Ρωμαίων, των Τουρανών-Μογγόλων, και των Κινέζων.
-------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/μπαμπούρ-1483-1530-στρατηλάτης-φιλόσοφος-πο/ =================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αρκετοί φίλοι με ρώτησαν τελευταία για το Τατζ Μαχάλ, για την Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Γκορκανιάν / Μουγάλ-Mughal) της Ινδίας, και τις σχέσεις των Σουνιτών Γκορκανιάν με τους Σιίτες Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν και τους Σουνίτες Οθωμανούς. Με δεδομένη την ιρανο-οθωμανική αντιπαλότητα (στην οποία αναφέρθηκα στα κείμενά μου σχετικά με την Μάχη του Τσαλντιράν το 1514), ένας φίλος με ρώτησε πως και δεν συμφώνησαν Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν να μοιράσουν το Ιράν ανάμεσα στην Σταμπούλ και την Άγκρα.
Η απάντηση είναι απλή: σε μια εποχή που δεν υπήρχαν εθνικισμοί και που η Πίστη αποτελούσε τον βασικό (αλλά όχι τον μόνο) δείκτη ταυτότητας, οι φυλετικές διαφορές βάραιναν σημαντικά. Αν ανάμεσα σε δυο κλάδους της ίδιας φυλής είχε χυθεί αίμα, αυτό θα ήταν πολύ δύσκολο να ξεχαστεί ακόμη και εκατό χρόνια αργότερα.
Οθωμανοί, Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν, και Γκορκανιάν της Νότιας Ασίας (όχι μόνον ‘Ινδίας’) ήταν όλοι τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.
Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν ήταν Σουνίτες, ενώ οι Σαφεβίδες ήταν Σιίτες.
Αλλά ο Ταμερλάνος, πρόγονος των Γκορκανιάν, είχε χύσει οθωμανικό αίμα το 1402 στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας. Αυτό ξεπεράστηκε σε κάποιο βαθμό αλλά δεν ξεχάστηκε ποτέ.
Η Ιστορία της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας της Νότιας Ασίας είναι γεμάτη από πλούτο, τέχνες, γράμματα, εντυπωσιακά μνημεία και μυστικισμό. Νομίζω ότι ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να την προσεγγίσει κάποιος είναι να μάθει μερικά βασικά στοιχεία για τον εντελώς ξεχωριστό άνθρωπο που ήταν ο ιδρυτής αυτής της δυναστείας. Παρά την μεταγενέστερη επέκταση των Γκορκανιάν, κανένας απόγονος του Μπαμπούρ δεν τον ξεπέρασε στην στρατιωτική τέχνη.
Έφηβος οδηγούσε εμπειροπόλεμα στρατεύματα στις μάχες. Για σχεδόν τρεις δεκαετίες διέσχισε όλα τα κακοτράχαλα βουνά ανάμεσα στο ιρανικό οροπέδιο, τις στέππες της Σιβηρίας, την Τάκλα Μακάν και τις κοιλάδες του Ινδού και του Γάγγη. Πριν κατακτήσει το Χιντουστάν (: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία), άλλαζε βασίλεια σχεδόν σαν τα πουκάμισα. Παράλληλα, συνέγραφε ιστορικά κείμενα και ποιήματα, έπινε, χαιρόταν την ζωή, και διερχόταν περιόδους ασκητισμού.
Παρά το ότι ο μεγάλος θρίαμβος ήλθε στο τέλος, ο Μπαμπούρ δεν ξέχασε ποτέ την γη που του συμπαραστάθηκε στα χρόνια των δοκιμασιών: την Καμπούλ του σημερινού Αφγανιστάν. Έτσι, αν και πέθανε στην Άγκρα της Ινδίας, θέλησε να ταφεί στην Καμπούλ. Ένας τεράστιος κήπος περιβάλλει το μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ και μπορείτε να το δείτε σε δυο βίντεο, στις εισαγωγές των οποίων δίνω ένα γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της ζωής και των ενδιαφερόντων, των κατορθωμάτων και των μαχών του Τίγρη (Μπαμπούρ σημαίνει Τίγρης στα τσαγατάι τουρκικά που ήταν η μητρική του γλώσσα κι αυτή των στρατιωτών του).
Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ στην Καμπούλ του Αφγανιστάν
Στο θέμα θα επανέλθω για να επεκταθώ στο Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ, το ‘Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’ το οποίο συνέγραψε ο ίδιος ο στρατηλάτης και αυτοκράτορας. Το αντίστοιχο θα υπήρχε, αν συγχωνεύονταν σε ένα πρόσωπο ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος και ο Αρριανός, ή ο Ιουστινιανός και ο Προκόπιος.
Μπορείτε να δείτε και αλλοιώς: το Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ είναι το ανατολικό, ασιατικό De Bello Civili και De Bello Gallico. Ή, πιο απλά, ο Μπαμπούρ είναι ο Μογγόλος Καίσαρ. Αλλά ο Καίσαρ είχε μόνιμο σημείο αναφοράς την Ρώμη. Ο Μπαμπούρ μετεκινείτο ως βασιλιάς από την Φεργάνα στην Σαμαρκάνδη, από κει στην Καμπούλ και τελικά στην Άγκρα. Δεν όριζε το στέμμα του το σπαθί του, αλλά το σπαθί του το στέμμα του.
Νόμισμα που έκοψε ο Μπαμπούρ το 1507-1508
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Кабул: Сады и Мавзолей Бабура, Могольского Императора (Горкани) Индии
https://www.ok.ru/video/1509854481005
Περισσότερα:
Баги Бабур (пушту باغ بابر, перс. باغ بابر; также встречаются названия сад Бабура и сады Бабура) — парковый комплекс в Афганистане, расположен неподалеку от города Кабула. Назван в честь своего владельца Бабура, основателя империи Великих Моголов. Бабур, помимо этого, увлекался разведением садов. Баги Бабур является одной из достопримечательностей страны. Отличается тщательной продуманностью посадок; в прошлом в нём выращивались многие уникальные растения. Среди них были различные сорта фруктов, бахчевых и многое другое, что ранее вовсе не встречалось на данной территории.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур
The Garden of Babur (locally called Bagh-e Babur, Persian: باغ بابر/ bāġ-e bābur) is a historic park in Kabul, Afghanistan, and also the last resting-place of the first Mughal emperor Babur. The garden are thought to have been developed around 1528 AD (935 AH) when Babur gave orders for the construction of an “avenue garden” in Kabul, described in some detail in his memoirs, the Baburnama.
The original construction date of the gardens (Persian: باغ – bāġ) is unknown. When Babur captured Kabul in 1504 from the Arguns he re-developed the site and used it as a guest house for special occasions, especially during the summer seasons. Since Babur had such a high rank, he would have been buried in a site that befitted him. The garden where it is believed Babur requested to be buried in is known as Bagh-e Babur. Mughul rulers saw this site as significant and aided in further development of the site and other tombs in Kabul. In an article written by the Aga Khan Historic Cities Programme, describes the marble screen built around tombs by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1638 with the following inscription:
“only this mosque of beauty, this temple of nobility, constructed for the prayer of saints and the epiphany of cherubs, was fit to stand in so venerable a sanctuary as this highway of archangels, this theatre of heaven, the light garden of the god forgiven angel king whose rest is in the garden of heaven, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur the Conqueror.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur
Ένα από τα πιο ενδιαφέροντα μνημεία της Καμπούλ είναι οι τεράστιοι κήποι και το μαυσωλείο του απογόνου του Ταμερλάνου βασιλιά της Φεργκάνα (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), ο οποίος αφού κατέκτησε την Σαμαρκάνδη, το σημερινό ανατολικό Ιράν και την Καμπούλ, κατέλαβε την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και όλη την Ινδία (Χιντουστάν: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία).
Εκεί κατέλυσε το ισλαμικό Σουλτανάτο του Δελχίου, θεμελίωσε την Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ – Mughal, όπως είναι γνωστοί στις δυτικές γλώσσες) την οποία οι ίδιοι αποκαλούσαν Γκορκανιάν.
Η λέξη αυτή (گورکانیان, Gūrkāniyān) είναι περσική και σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’. Έτσι ονόμαζαν τους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους της Νότιας Ασίας οι Ιρανοί στα φαρσί (περσικά) επειδή οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι διατήρησαν την μογγολική παράδοση να ανεβαίνει στον θρόνο και γενικώτερα στην ιεραρχία της αυτοκρατορίας ένας ταπεινής καταγωγής αλλά γενναίος στρατιωτικός μετά από τον γάμο του με μια από τις κόρες ενός ευγενή ή ενός αυτοκράτορα.
Ο Μπαμπούρ ήταν μια στρατιωτική μεγαλοφυία, ένας πολυμαθής φιλόσοφος, ένας ποιητής και ιστορικός που άφησε ένα τεράστιο βιογραφικό ιστορικό έργο γραμμένο σε τσαγατάι τουρκικά με αρκετούς περσισμούς που λέγεται Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ (το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ).
Η Ισλαμική (Σουνιτική) Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων ήταν συχνά ισχυρώτερη και πλουσιώτερη από την Σαφεβιδική (Σιιτική) Αυτοκρατορία του Ιράν και την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, συνένωσε εκτάσεις από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι την Ινδονησία, προξένησε μια μεγάλη μετανάστευση τουρκομογγολικών πληθυσμών στην Ινδία και στο Ντεκάν, κι αποτελεί την περίοδο της μεγαλύτερης ανάπτυξης Γραμμάτων, Τεχνών και Πολιτισμού στην Ινδία, το Ντεκάν, και γενικώτερα στην Νότια Ασία.
Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν είχαν έντονα επηρεαστεί από τον ιρανικό πολιτισμό.
Στην αυτοκρατορία τους, τα περσικά ήταν η γλώσσα της τέχνης και της λογοτεχνίας, τα αραβικά η γλώσσα των επιστημών, και τα ουρντού η γλώσσα του στρατού.
Τα ουρντού είναι στη βάση τους μια τουρκική γλώσσα (σήμερα στα τουρκικά της Τουρκίας ordu σημαίνει ‘στρατός’) μεικτή με ινδοευρωπαϊκό λεξιλόγιο.
Αν και πέθανε και τάφηκε στην βόρεια Ινδία ο Μπαμπούρ (στα τουρκικά το όνομά του σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’), ζήτησε να ταφεί σε μια πόλη που του χρησίμευσε ως βάση για την κατάκτηση της βόρειας Ινδίας.
Γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της πορείας του Μπαμπούρ από την Κεντρική Ασία προς την Ινδία
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Kabul: Gardens and Mausoleum of Babur, Mughal Emperor (Gorkani) of India
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240305
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Καμπούλ: Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ, Μεγάλου Μογγόλου (Γκορκανιάν) Αυτοκράτορα της Ινδίας
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Бабур (1483-1530): военный гений, поэт, историк и император, основатель Горканской династии (Великих Моголов) Индии
https://www.ok.ru/video/1510072388205
Περισσότερα:
Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель.
Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.
Бабур — основатель династии, выходец из города Андижан. Родным языком Бабура был турки (староузбекский). Писал в своих мемуарах: “Жители Андижана — все тюрки; в городе и на базаре нет человека, который бы не знал по-тюркски. Говор народа сходен с литературным”. “Мемуары Бабура написаны на той разновидности тюркского языка, которая известна под названием турки, являющегося родным языком Бабура”, — писал английский востоковед Е. Дениссон Росс.
За свою 47-летнюю жизнь Захириддин Мухаммад Бабур оставил богатое литературное и научное наследие. Его перу принадлежит знаменитое «Бабур-наме», снискавшая мировое признание, оригинальные и прекрасные лирические произведения (газели, рубаи), трактаты по мусульманскому законоведению («Мубайин»), поэтике («Аруз рисоласи»), музыке, военному делу, а также специальный алфавит «Хатт-и Бабури».
Бабур переписывался с Алишером Навои. Стихи Бабура, написанные на тюркском, отличаются чеканностью образов и афористичностью. Главный труд Бабура — автобиография «Бабур-наме», первый образец этого жанра в исторической литературе, излагает события с 1493 по 1529 годы, живо воссоздаёт детали быта знати, нравы и обычаи эпохи. Французский востоковед Луи Базан в своём введении к французскому переводу (1980 г.) писал, что «автобиография (Бабура) представляет собой чрезвычайно редкий жанр в исламской литературе».
В последние годы жизни тема потери Родины стала одной из центральных тем лирики Бабура. Заслуга Бабура как историка, географа, этнографа, прозаика и поэта в настоящее время признана мировой востоковедческой наукой. Его наследие изучается почти во всех крупных востоковедческих центрах мира.
Можно сказать, что стихи Бабура — автобиография поэта, в которых поэтическим языком, трогательно излагаются глубокие чувства, мастерски рассказывается о переживаниях, порожденных в результате столкновения с жизненными обстоятельствами, о чём красноречиво говорит сам поэт:
Каких страданий не терпел и тяжких бед, Бабур?
Каких не знал измен, обид, каких клевет, Бабур?
Но кто прочтет «Бабур-наме», увидит, сколько мук
И сколько горя перенес царь и поэт Бабур.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Poet, Historian and Emperor, the Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty (Great Mughal) of India
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240306
Περισσότερα:
Babur (Persian: بابر, romanized: Bābur, lit. ‘tiger’] 14 February 1483 – 26 December 1530), born Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad, was the founder and first Emperor of the Mughal dynasty in South Asia. He was a direct descendant of Emperor Timur (Tamerlane) from what is now Uzbekistan.
The difficulty of pronouncing the name for his Central Asian Turco-Mongol army may have been responsible for the greater popularity of his nickname Babur, also variously spelled Baber, Babar, and Bābor The name is generally taken in reference to the Persian babr, meaning “tiger”. The word repeatedly appears in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and was borrowed into the Turkic languages of Central Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur#Ruler_of_Central_Asia
Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель. Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Πρώτος Αυτοκράτορας των Γκορκανιάν της Ινδίας
Περισσότερα:
Ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους στρατηλάτες όλων των εποχών, ένας από τους ελάχιστους ηγεμόνες που δεν έχασαν ποτέ μάχη, ένας στρατιωτικός με μεγάλη μάθηση, γνώση και σοφία, συγγραφέας ενός μεγαλειώδους ιστορικού έργου (Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ: ‘το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’), ποιητής και μυστικιστής, με ενδιαφέρον για την καλοζωΐα σε σύντομα όμως χρονικά διαστήματα αλλά και με ασκητικές τάσεις, ήταν ο θεμελιωτής της μεγάλης μογγολικής δυναστείας της Νότιας Ασίας που οι δυτικοί αποκαλούν Μουγάλ (Μεγάλους Μογγόλους).
Όταν ο Μπαμπούρ γεννήθηκε στο Αντιτζάν της Κοιλάδας Φεργάνα της Κεντρικής Ασίας (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), τίποτα δεν έδειχνε ότι θα γινόταν ό ίδιος ο ιδρυτής μιας τεράστιας αυτοκρατορίας.
Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, ήταν γιος του ηγεμόνα ενός μικρού από τα πολλά τιμουριδικά βασίλεια των χρόνων του.
Έμεινε ορφανός και συνεπώς ηγεμόνας ενός μικρού βασιλείου στα 11 του χρόνια. Ακολούθησαν τρεις τρομερές δεκαετίες στην διάρκεια των οποίων ο Μπαμπούρ άλλαξε τον χάρτη της Κεντρικής και της Νότιας Ασίας.
Ήταν μια σειρά πολέμων, κατακτήσεων και διαδοχικών βασιλείων από τα οποία ο ίδιος με τους στρατιώτες του μετεκινούνταν, συχνά εν μέσω φονικών μαχών, τρομερών κακουχιών και φυσικών αντιξοοτήτων.
Μόνον στα 43 του, το 1526, κατάφερε ο Μπαμπούρ επιτέλους να επιβληθεί στην βόρεια Ινδία και να θεμελιώσει την δυναστεία – θρύλο της Νότιας Ασίας.
Έτσι, ο Μπαμπούρ διαδοχικά χρημάτισε:
1494-1497: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα
1497-1498: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1498-1500: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα
1500-1501: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1504-1530: βασιλιάς της Καμπούλ
1511-1512: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1526-1530: αυτοκράτορας του Χιντουστάν (πρωτεύουσα: Άγκρα)
Οι μάχες του Πανιπάτ (1526), της Χάνουα (1527), και του Τσαντερί (1528) στερέωσαν την κυριαρχία του στην βόρεια Ινδία (Χιντουστάν).
Μέχρι τότε, αν και σουνίτης μουσουλμάνος, δεν δίστασε να συνεργαστεί με τους Κιζιλμπάσηδες (όταν ο Οθωμανός Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ προτίμησε να συνεργαστεί με τους Ουζμπέκους εχθρούς του), με τον Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ (βασ. 1501-1524), και στην συνέχεια (μετά το 1513) με τον Σελίμ Α’ (βασ. 1512-1520), ο οποίος νωρίς κατάλαβε ότι ο Μπαμπούρ θα μπορούσε να στήσει ό,τι χρειαζόταν η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: μια μεγάλη σουνιτική ισλαμική αυτοκρατορία από την άλλη, ανατολική, πλευρά των συνόρων της σιιτικής ισλαμικής ιρανικής αυτοκρατορίας των Σαφεβιδών.
Αυτό ήταν μεγάλος ρεαλισμός: το 1402 (ένα αιώνα νωρίτερα) ο Βαγιαζίτ Α’, πρόγονος του Σελίμ Α’, είχε συλληφθεί αιχμάλωτος από τον Ταμερλάνο (πρόγονο του Μπαμπούρ), ο οποίος είχε χύσει άφθονο οθωμανικό αίμα στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας.
Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν (όπως αποκαλούνταν οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι οι ίδιοι στα περσικά) κράτησαν μια ισορροπία στις σχέσεις τους ανάμεσα σε Σαφεβίδες και Οθωμανούς.
Πριν από 500 χρόνια, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ (1470-1520), ο Σάχης Ισμαήλ Α’ (1487-1524), και ο Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530) ήταν οι τρεις ισχυρώτεροι αυτοκράτορες του κόσμου.
Και ήταν, ασχέτως θρησκευτικών διαφορών, και οι τρεις τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.
Με περισσότερη κλίση στην θεολογία και στην στρατιωτική πειθαρχία ο πρώτος, με έντονη τάση στην ποίηση και την συγγραφή οι άλλοι δύο που επίσης διέπρεπαν και στον έκλυτο βίο – ο Ισμαήλ Α’ συνεχώς κι ο Μπαμπούρ περιστασιακά.
Ο Μπαμπούρ θυμίζει τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο: αλλού γεννήθηκε (Φεργάνα), αλλού πέθανε (Χιντουστάν), αλλού τάφηκε (Καμπούλ).
-------------------------------
Διαβάστε:
Bābor, Ẓahīr-al-dīn Moḥammad
(6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530) Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India
His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.
Bābor’s father, ʿOmar Šayḵ Mīrzā (d. 899/1494), ruled the kingdom of Farḡāna along the headwaters of the Syr Darya, but as one of four brothers, direct fifth-generation descendants from the great Tīmūr, he entertained larger ambitions. The lack of a succession law and the presence of many Timurid males perpetuated an atmosphere of constant intrigue, often erupting into open warfare, between the descendants who vied for mastery in Khorasan and Central Asia, but they finally lost their patrimony when they proved incapable of cooperating to defend it against a common enemy.
It was against that same enemy, namely, the Uzbeks under the brilliant Šaybānī Khan (d. 916/1510), that Bābor himself learned his trade as a military leader in a long series of losing encounters. Bābor’s mother, Qotlūk Negār Ḵanūm, was the daughter of Yūnos Khan of Tashkent and a direct descendant of Jengiz Khan. She and her mother, Aysān-Dawlat Bēgam, had great influence on Bābor during his early career. It was his grandmother, for instance, who taught Bābor many of his political and diplomatic skills (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 43), thus initiating the long series of contributions by strong and intelligent women in the history of the Mughal Empire.
Ο Μπαμπούρ (δεξιά) με τον γιο και διάδοχό του Χουμαγιούν
Bābor presumed that his descent from Tīmūr legitimized his claim to rule anywhere that Tīmūr had conquered, but like his father, the first prize he sought was Samarqand. He was plunged into the maelstrom of Timurid politics by his father’s death in Ramażān, 899/June, 1494, when he was only eleven. Somehow he managed to survive the turbulent years that followed. Wars with his kinsmen, with the Mughals under Tanbal who ousted him from Andijan, the capital city of Farḡāna, and especially with Šaybānī Khan Uzbek mostly went against him, but from the beginning he showed an ability to reach decisions quickly, to act firmly and to remain calm and collected in battle. He also tended to take people at their word and to view most situations optimistically rather than critically.
In Moḥarram, 910/June-July, 1504, at the age of twenty-one, Bābor, alone among the Timurids of his generation, opted to leave the Central Asian arena, in which he had lost everything, to seek a power base elsewhere, perhaps with the intention of returning to his homeland at a later date.
Accompanied by his younger brothers, Jahāngīr and Nāṣer, he set out for Khorasan, but changed his plans and seized the kingdom of Kabul instead.
In this campaign he began to think more seriously of his role as ruler of a state, shocking his troops by ordering plunderers beaten to death (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 197).
The mountain tribesmen in and around Farḡāna with whom Bābor had frequently found shelter had come to accept him as their legitimate king.
He had no such claims upon the loyalty of the Afghan tribes in Kabul, but he had learned much about human nature and the nomad mentality in his three prolonged periods of wandering among the shepherd tribes of Central Asia (during 903/1497-98, 907/1501-02, and 909/1503-04).
He crushed all military opposition, even reviving the old Mongol shock tactic of putting up towers of the heads of slain foes, but he also made strenuous efforts to be fair and just, admitting, for instance, that his early estimates of food production and hence the levy of tributary taxes were excessive (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 228).
At this point Bābor still saw Kabul as only a temporary base for re-entry to his ancestral domain, and he made several attempts to return in the period 912-18/1506-12. In 911/1505 his uncle Sultan Ḥosayn Mīrzā of Herat, the only remaining Timurid ruler besides Bābor, requested his aid against the Uzbeks—even though he himself had refused to aid Bābor on several previous occasions.
His uncle died before Bābor arrived in Herat, but Bābor remained there till he became convinced that his cousins were incapable of offering effective resistance to Šaybānī Khan’s Uzbeks.
While in Herat he sampled the sophistication of a brilliant court culture, acquiring a taste for wine, and also developing an appreciation for the refinements of urban culture, especially as exemplified in the literary works of Mīr ʿAlī-Šīr Navāʾī.
During his stay in Herat Bābor occupied Navāʾī’s former residence, prayed at Navāʾī’s tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet’s vast corpus of Torkī verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be “flat and poor” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 272).
Navāʾī’s pioneering literary work in Torkī, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Bābor’s own efforts to write in that medium.
In Rajab, 912/December, 1506, Bābor returned to Kabul in a terrible trek over snow-choked passes, during which several of his men lost hands or feet through frostbite. The event has been vividly described in his diary (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 307-11). As he had foreseen, the Uzbeks easily took Herat in the following summer’s campaign, and Bābor indulged in one of his rare slips from objectivity when he recorded the campaign in his diary with some unfair vilification of Šaybānī Khan, his long-standing nemesis (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 328-29).
Bābor next consolidated his base in Kabul, and added to it Qandahār. He dramatically put down a revolt by defeating, one by one in personal combat, five of the ringleaders—an event which his admiring young cousin Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥaydar Doḡlat believed to be his greatest feat of arms (Tārīḵ-erašīdī, tr., p. 204).
Here again it seems that Bābor acted impetuously, but saved himself by his courage and strength; and such legend-making deeds solidified his charismatic hold on the men whom he had to lead in battle. Uncharacteristically, Bābor withdrew from Qandahār and Kabul at the rumor that Šaybānī Khan was coming.
It was apparently the only time in his life when he lost confidence in himself. In fact, the Uzbek leader was defeated and killed by Shah Esmāʿīl Ṣafawī in 916/1510, and this opened the way for Bābor’s last bid for a throne in Samarqand.
From Rajab, 917 to Ṣafar, 918/October, 1511 to May, 1512, he held the city for the third time, but as a client of Shah Esmāʿīl, a condition that required him to make an outward profession of the Shiʿite faith and to adopt the Turkman costume of the Safavid troops.
Bābor’s kinsmen and erstwhile subjects did not concur with his doctrinal realignment, however much it had been dictated by political circumstances. Moḥammad-Ḥaydar, a young man indebted to Bābor for both refuge and support, exulted at the Uzbek defeat of Bābor, thus demonstrating how unusual in that time and place were Bābor’s breadth of vision and tolerance, qualities that became crucial to his later success in India. Breaking away from his Safavid allies, Bābor dallied in the Qunduz area, but he must have sensed that his chance to regain Samarqand was irretrievably lost.
It was only at this stage that he began to think of India as a serious goal, though after the conquest he wrote that his desire for Hindustan had been constant from 910/1504 (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 478). With four raids beginning in 926/1519, he probed the Indian scene and discovered that dissension and mismanagement were rife in the Lodi Sultanate. In the winter of 932/1525-26 he brought all his experience to bear on the great enterprise of the conquest of India. With the proverb “Ten friends are better than nine” in mind, he waited for all his allies before pressing his attack on Lahore (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 433).
His great skills at organization enabled him to move his 12,000 troops from 16 to 22 miles a day once he had crossed the Indus, and with brilliant leadership he defeated three much larger forces in the breathtaking campaigns that made him master of North India. First he maneuvered Sultan Ebrāhīm Lōdī into attacking his prepared position at the village of Panipat north of Delhi on 8 Rajab 932/20 April 1526. Although the Indian forces (he estimated them at 100,000; Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 480) heavily outnumbered Bābor’s small army, they fought as a relatively inflexible and undisciplined mass and quickly disintegrated.
Bābor considered Ebrāhīm to be an incompetent general, unworthy of comparison with the Uzbek khans, and a petty king, driven only by greed to pile up his treasure while leaving his army untrained and his great nobles disaffected (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 470). Yet Bābor ordered a tomb to be built for him.
He then swiftly occupied Delhi and Agra, first visiting the tombs of famous Sufi saints and previous Turkish kings, and characteristically laying out a garden.
The garden provided him with such satisfaction that he later wrote: “to have grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindustan filled my measure of content” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 686).
His new kingdom was a different story. Bābor first had to solve the problem of disaffection among his troops.
Like Alexander’s army, they felt that they were a long way from home in a strange and unpleasant land.
Bābor had planned the conquest intending to make India the base of his empire since Kabul’s resources proved too limited to support his nobles and troops.
He himself never returned to live in Kabul.
But, since he had permitted his troops to think that this was simply another raid for wealth and booty, he had to persuade them otherwise, which was no easy chore (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 522-35).
The infant Mughal state also had to fight for its life against a formidable confederation of the Rajput chiefs led by Mahārānā Sangā of Mewar.
After a dramatic episode in which Bābor publicly foreswore alcohol (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 551-56), Bābor defeated the Rajputs at Khanwah on 13 Jomādā I 933/17 March 1527 with virtually the same tactics he had used at Panipat, but in this case the battle was far more closely contested.
Bābor next campaigned down the Ganges River to Bengal against the Afghan lords, many of whom had refused to support Ebrāhīm Lōdī but also had no desire to surrender their autonomy to Bābor.
Even while rival powers threatened him on all sides—Rajputs and Afghans in India, Uzbeks at his rear in Kabul—Bābor’s mind was turned to consolidation and government.
He employed hundreds of stone masons to build up his new capital cities, while winning over much of the Indian nobility with his fair and conciliatory policies.
He was anxiously grooming his sons to succeed him, not without some clashes of personality, when his eldest son Homāyūn (b. 913/1506) fell seriously ill in 937/1530.
Another young son had already died in the unaccustomed Indian climate, and at this family crisis his daughter Golbadan wrote that Bābor offered his own life in place of his son’s, walking seven times around the sickbed to confirm the vow (Bābor-nāma, translator’s note, pp. 701-2).
Bābor did not leave Agra again, and died there later that year on 6 Jomādā I 937/26 December 1530.
Bābor’s diary, which has become one of the classic autobiographies of world literature, would be a major literary achievement even if the life it illuminates were not so remarkable. He wrote not only the Bābor-nāma but works on Sufism, law and prosody as well as a fine collection of poems in Čaḡatay Torkī. In all, he produced the most significant body of literature in that language after Navāʾī, and every piece reveals a clear, cultivated intelligence as well as an enormous breadth of interests.
His Dīvān includes a score or more of poems in Persian, and with the long connection between the Mughals and the Safavid court begun by Bābor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Bābor-nāma translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty’s founder.
Bābor did not introduce artillery into India—the Portuguese had done that—and he himself noted that the Bengal armies had gunners (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 667-74). But his use of new technology was characteristic of his enquiring mind and enthusiasm for improvement. His Ottoman experts had only two cannons at Panipat, and Bābor personally witnessed the casting of another, probably the first to be cast in India, by Ostād ʿAlīqolī on 22 October 1526 (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 536-37).
The piece did not become ready for test firing till 10 February 1527 when it shot stones about 1,600 yards, and during the subsequent campaigns against the Afghans down the Ganges, Bābor specifically mentions Ostād ʿAlīqolī getting off eight shots on the first day of the battle and sixteen on the next (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 599). Quite obviously then it was not some technical superiority in weaponry, but Bābor’s genius in using the discipline and mobility which he had created in his troops that won the crucial battles for him in India.
Bābor, however, was generally interested in improving technology, not only for warfare but also for agriculture. He tried to introduce new crops to the Indian terrain and to spread the use of improved water-lifting devices for irrigation (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 531). His interest in improvement and change was facilitated by his generous nature. Though he had faults, they were outweighed by his attractive personality, cheerful in the direst adversity, and faithful to his friends.
The loyalties he inspired enabled the Mughal Empire in India to survive his own early death and the fifteen-year exile of his son and successor, Homāyūn. The liberal traditions of the Mughal dynasty were Bābor’s enduring legacy to his country by conquest.
Τις βιβλιογαφικές παραπομπές του κειμένου θα βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din
==============================
Επιπλέον:
Μπαμπούρ και Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Империя_Великих_Моголов
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур
Οικογενειακό υπόβαθρο:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Shaikh_Mirza_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutlugh_Nigar_Khanum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sa%27id_Mirza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate
Τοπογραφικά για την καταγωγή του Μπαμπούρ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana_Valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhsikath
Ιστορικό υπόβαθρο:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khanid_Khanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Ilkhanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalairid_Sultanate
-----------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/14831530
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/babur.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_622328060
https://www.docdroid.net/JWgxJAd/mpampour-1483-1530-stratilatis-filosofos-poiitis-istorikos-autokratoras-apoghonos-toy-tamerlanoy-docx
Το Ιράν των Αγιατολάχ: ένα Μασωνικό Παρασκεύασμα - αποκαλύπτει ο Έλληνας Ιρανολόγος καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτης
Ayatollahs' Iran: A Freemasonic Fabrication, reveals the Greek Iranologist Prof. Mohammad Samsaddin Megalommatis
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 27η Σεπτεμβρίου 2018.
----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/το-ιράν-των-αγιατολάχ-ένα-μασωνικό-παρ/ =============================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αναδημοσιεύω εδώ ένα εντυπωσιακό άρθρο του Έλληνα ανατολιστή ιστορικού και πολιτικού επιστήμονα, καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτη, ο οποίος διαλύει πολλούς μύθους που υπάρχουν στην κοινή γνώμη σχετικά με το Ιράν ως τάχα ‘αντίπαλο’ της δυτικής Νέας Τάξης Πραγμάτων.
Αρχικά δημοσιευμένο το 2007, το ανατρεπτικό άρθρο αναδημοσιεύθηκε σε πολλά ιρανικά πόρταλς της Διασποράς επειδή οι Ιρανοί κατάλαβαν εύκολα το τι έλεγε για την χώρα τους ο εξαίρετος Έλληνας ιρανολόγος, ο οποίος έχει μελετήσει την ιστορία του Ιράν και έχει περιπλανηθεί στην χώρα εκείνη όσο ελάχιστοι άλλοι ειδικοί.
Ayatollahs’ Iran: a Nationalistic Theocracy as Freemasonic Machination
By M. Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Saturday 22 December 2007
http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article411
and https://www.academia.edu/24267250/Ayatollahs_Iran_a_Nationalistic_Theocracy_as_Freemasonic_Machination
======================
The current theocratic and utterly unrepresentative regime of Iran was not the choice of the peoples and nations of Iran. The events that triggered the fall of Shah and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini were all machinated by an Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that controls part of the French and the English establishments and through them part of the American establishment.
The danger that the late Shah of Iran represented for their eschatological plans was absolutely tremendous. This does not imply that they intended to help establish a pseudo-Shia theocracy in Iran; simply they were not able to completely control the developments. As a matter of fact, the late Shah intended to modernize, industrialize and westernize Iran in the 70s; one could compare his attempt to that of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, 50 years earlier.
A strong Iran next to a strong Turkey is enough to make the Anglo-French colonial establishments spend years without an easy sleep. Although this would look good for Western geo-political and geo-strategic interests, particularly in containing Tsarist Russia / USSR / Putin’s oligarchy, in real terms of Western Freemasonic conspiracy in the Middle East it is abominable because it would hinder all Freemasonic plans and projects for the Middle East, the area of their primary concern par excellence.
Mossadegh received by Truman
Mossadegh was a Freemason Islamist. His supporters became later the supporters of Khomeyni and founders of the Islamic regime.
It sounds awkward but it is absolutely real: the late Shah of Iran tried with a delay of 17 years (as of 1970) to implement the basic concepts of the Iranian nationalistic policies of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, a great Iranian statesman whom the Freemasonic mass media of the West did their ingenious best to defame and ridicule, while falsely portraying him as … related to the Iranian Communist party!
[In fact, Mohamad Mossadegh was himself a Freemason and an Islamist. His so-called nationalism was no more than an International-Islamism inspired by Freemasonry — Fravahr]
When Madeleine Albright, decades later, admitted that the Eisenhower administration was involved in the Operation Ajax that ended with the Mossadegh’s removal, she did not state any other reason except geopolitical considerations. In fact, these considerations were Freemasonic eschatological approaches to the Middle East, covered by English economic interests, and involved volumes of falsified information produced in order to mislead the gullible and deeply unaware American establishment — through use of pro-English agents who were active in Washington D.C.
The Shah himself must have felt in the early and mid 70s how right Mohammed Mossadegh was. In his last days in Tehran, the Shah must have also remembered his father’s last days in the throne, when in September 1941 the English had forced him to abdicate in favour of his young son, as they could not accept Iran’s neutrality in WW II.
The Freemasonic anti-Iranian conspiracy played on the Iranian peoples’ feelings against the Shah, and involved the return of Ayatollah Khomeini who had spent some months in France. In fact, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge pushed to the political forefront Iranians who had already lived and studied in France where they had become Freemasons, like Mehdi Bazargan, Khomeini’s first Prime Minister, and Abolhassan Banisadr, the first Iranian President.
They were joined in their effort to canalize the Iranian Revolution by Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who had studied in America, and had travelled with Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Tehran on February 1st 1979 to become later Foreign Minister (after Banisadr) and then be arrested and executed (September 1982) as betrayed by President George H. W. Bush. After 1983, Freemasonic influence on Iranian policies has been indirect.
Indirect manipulation involves the mental, spiritual, philosophical, ideological, and therefore political engulfment of the targeted establishment into erroneous perception of the present realities and the future targets of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge within a context that can be rather parallelized with an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Shia Eschatology in contrast with Freemasonic Messianism
Worship of Isis
Freemasonic ritual as on the walls of the Isiac Freemasonic Lodge (Temple of Isis) at Pompeii
The worship of Isis is depicted in this wall-painting from Herculaneum. The high priest stands at the entrance to the temple and looks down on the ceremony beneath him, which is supervised by priests with shaven heads. In the case of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Freemasonic establishment’s arsenal reaches its limits. Drawing from a late Sassanid Zervanism that survived within Shia Islam since the early days of the Islamic conquest of Iran (636: Sassanid defeat at Qadisiyah, 641 Sassanid defeat at Nihavent, 651: arrival of Islamic armies at Merv in Central Asia), Shia Eschatology revolves around the prevalence of Time as determinant element in the Mystic History of the Mankind; this is utterly alien to Western Freemasonic dogmas and doctrines that draw from Late Antiquity’s Gnosticisms, Hermetism, and Messianic Isidism.
With Khomeini’s doctrine based on the termination of the Ghaybah (“Occultation”) of the Shia Islamic Twelfth Imam (the Shia version of the Messiah) by means of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we reach one step closer to what is called in Islam Al Yom al Ahar (“the End of Time”).
Despite the fact that Iran and most of the Islamic World are engulfed in ignorance and confusion due to the academic systems that Freemasonic Europe produced to facilitate the advent of the Freemasonic Messianic, namely the Hellenism, the Orientalism, the Pan-Arabism, and the (Sunni) Islamism, the Shia establishment of Iran, sticking to the completion of the work initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini, have little chance to be misguided and deceived.
Contrarily to the Freemasonic concept of a Horus — Messiah, creation of Isis (as Freemasonry is symbolized within the Freemasonic eschatological doctrine), a Zervan — Twelfth Imam hinges on the absorption of all into a New Aeon with little concern about an Elected People to be saved.
Contrarily to a Horus — Victorious King and Pacifier, the concept of Zervan — Twelfth Imam involves the liberation of every person from the negative energy therein encrusted through various ways; as Zervan Akarana promises a monstrous appearance, yet able to embody the Loftiest of the Divine, the Shia Islamic Twelfth Imam promises no peace and no return for any elected people, but heralds the miraculous transformation of the miserable into luminous sources in the present world (after Al Yom al Ahar) and the Hereafter (Al Yom al Qiyamah).
There is certainly a Manichaean influence on the late Sassanid Zervanism (and through this system on the Shia Islam) but the Western stern rejection of Manichaeism proliferated only confusion and dire practices among the Apostate Freemasons. In fact, the Freemasonic Apostasy is a repetition of an earlier Apostasy that took place in the Late Antiquity, and caused the disastrous descent into the Middle Ages.
Unable to transcend, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge seems set for disastrous developments that will now cover the entire surface of the Earth. Determined to continue an evil process started by Napoleon and sped up by Edmund Allenby, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge seems today unable to perceive the impending domino effect that will ensue from an attack on Iran. The Apostate Lodge machinated the Anglo-French colonialism in order to create a false and precarious Israel (for Jews, not Israelites), thus exterminate both Jews and Palestinians (after a supposed final peace), and then set up a true Israel able to accommodate the migrating — because of expected ominous natural phenomena — English, Irish, Scots, French, Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavians (namely the true descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel). That final Israel that would span between the rivers Euphrates (Assyria) and Nile (Egypt) may simply never come to existence because of the rise of a New Era for the Middle East triggered by an attack on Iran.
The Advent of the End of Time
If Ahmadinejad referred to Mahdi’s advent (which means automatically the End of Time) already in his first speech at the UN (in September 2005), what happened meanwhile that indicates that by now an apocalyptic scenario would follow an American attack on Iran? Why what could happen in March 2006 should not occur in December 2007?
The answer to such a question is at the same time a full response to a great number of eschatological interpretations. The History of the Mankind can also be viewed as a History of missed opportunities. More recently, after 2001, to give an example, the US could have pacified Iraq, if they had the knowledge and the courage to do what it would take. Simply, they were either unaware or misled. Usually, to know how a solution can be found to a historical — political problem, one has to transcend; this mainly means that one has to see the problem in question as a non-problem, or place it within wider frame, or view it through different standpoints, or apply all these methods. Basically, a historical — political problem’s solution involves the non-consideration of a part’s interests.
An answer to the aforementioned question is at the same time a complete rejection of numerous approaches to historical texts of eschatological contents. As a matter of fact, there has always been a vast interpretational literature of the Prophetic books of the Bible, of the Revelation, of the Apocalyptic Hadith, and of the eschatological traditions of various peoples from India to Mexico. With the inception of the web, and the rise of spiritual interest in a post-Communist world, the interpretational interest only multiplied. Specifications and clarifications about the time of the arrival of Mahdi, the Messiah, Jesus as Islamic Prophet, Jesus as Christ of the Christian religion, etc. can be found in great number.
All these approaches emanate from a world plunged into the swamp of Time, a world whereby all people take for granted that Time exists. Yet, the Mankind existed for several thousands of years without shaping the concept of Time. For many great thinkers and wise elders in Sumer, Akkad, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, Hittite Anatolia, and Biblical Israel, Time simply did not exist. The interaction of Being and Becoming was perceived completely differently, particularly by peoples who used the same word for “day” and “time” (e.g. umu in Assyrian — Babylonian). In a world viewed, perceived, sensed, and experienced diachronically, there is little place for fanaticism and empathy, as all reflect an eternal recapitulation of everything.
In that world, great diachronic (and therefore apocalyptic and eschatological) Epics were compiled for a first and original occasion, and their elements, data, concepts and details were later diffused among later epics, mythical texts and apocalyptic literature. As a matter of fact, there is nothing original that was not already said before Moses. To give an example, it is sheer ignorance for anyone to believe that the concept of the Antichrist goes as back as the Revelation and Daniel.
More than 1500 years before the Revelation, for the Anatolian Hittites the Antichrist (Ullikummi) would rise from the Sea. The author of the Revelation reassessed the same topic, adding only an effort of identification of the Messiah (Tasmisu for the Ancient Hittites — Jesus as Christ for the Christians). More than 2000 years before Isaiah, the concept of the Messiah existed in the Egyptian Heliopolitan Doctrine.
Viewing the present world through the eyes of an Egyptian, Assyrian or Hittite erudite scholar would offer a completely different perspective, and certainly more authoritative as emanating from a diachronic consideration of the Mankind’s and the World’s existence. In most of the cases, this was avoided because of the salacity of Western Orientalists, who instead of serving truth, did promote preconceived ideas either of Freemasonic or Christian Catholic nature. What would destroy pillars of their false faiths had to be covered by silence; this is the “veracity” of the Western universities’ professors.
2007: A Changed World and Iran
In fact, many things have changed over the past 21 months; they are not easily visible to average people and supposed leaders. Even worse, it seems that they are not ostensible to panicked establishments and elites either.
Losing a unique opportunity to be the sole superpower and thus accomplish the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the US will have to become familiar with the reality of a multi-polar world.
If we exclude the nonsensical nuclear mutual destruction, which will be always a possibility, as long as nuclear weapons exist, America’s interests can be hit at any moment. America lost considerably because America allied itself with the only country they should never work together: England.
Discrediting America, exposing the US, while mobilizing others’ forces to contain America and finally avert a long perspective Pax Americana, England convinced the US leadership to pursue the only way that can truly damage the US interests: action against the Moral Principles that the Founding Fathers stipulated so clearly for the then young and promising, Anti-Colonial, nation that would diffuse Freedom, Justice and Democracy to the rest of the world.
The US leadership failed to assess that it would be detrimental to pursue after 1991 immoral practices employed at the times of the Cold War. The policy of double standards (two measures and two weights) would convince all possible adversaries that the US represents a threat, and would mobilize many against America. The enumeration could be very long.
Vice-president Cheney’s trip to Saudi Arabia in November 2006 was certainly taken very seriously by the Iranians — within eschatological context, I mean. The Islamic Messiah will certainly exterminate a cursed, Satanic regime in charge of Haramayn, the two holy cities of Mekka and Madinah.
One would not ask America to believe the Islamic eschatological literature; but one would anticipate America to take it into account, and shape its policy accordingly. The rest is just inane.
Saudi Arabia cannot exist — if Israel is to survive!
It was a pathetic American effort to continue English Colonial policies of division and strife in the Middle East; these policies targeting the existence of the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Iran, if pursued by America, against Turkey and Iran, can guarantee the total disaster of America.
Yet, Prof. Huntington, in a moment of truth, exposed the truth plainly, when he attributed the Islamic Extremism and Terrorism to the lack of a core State for the Muslim world. This was precisely the work of the Anglo-French Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that we already mentioned. America should not be confused with the Anglo-French secondary conflicts, as highlighted by the San Remo arguments between Clemenceau and Lloyd George.
For America’s interests to prevail, for the present state of Israel to survive, for a solution of the quasi-permanent Palestinian problem to be found, America should avoid any direct interference in the affairs of the Muslim World.
Any US attack against Iran would trigger an unexpected and unsuspected reaction that would certainly have a lot to do with Islamic eschatological expectations.
The explosion would immediately bring in other, sizeable, non-Islamic countries that are ready for a severe collapse of the present global economic structures, as their economies are better suited for barter trade. These countries would not necessarily help Iran militarily; they would simply make impossible for America to sustain the cost of a conflict spanning from Yemen and Israel to Afghanistan and Pakistan, at a moment Saudi and Emirati oilfields would not be anymore functional.
America should keep itself outside the Muslim World, and following the instructions of Prof. Huntington, help (with the cooperation of Israel) the rise of a core Muslim country in the Middle East that would eradicate the nefarious colonial deeds of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge.
This country should be a secular and humanist, democratic country that would be committed to the elimination of Pan-Arabism and Islamic Extremism. To support the rise of a vast Oriental State, America should fervently oppose France and England.
This would redraw the map of the Middle East, but ultimately save the present state Israel, offer peace to the Palestinians, and grant concord to the other Middle Eastern countries. Only a vast Oriental State would have no problem in containing Iran and outmanoeuvring the Ayatollah regime.
Otherwise the Death will hit America — in an irrevocable and precipitated way.
Europe would be affected too; and that Apostate Freemasonic Lodge would be severely persecuted in a new — unrecognizable — Europe ruled by a new Iron Man of the North.
---------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250701066
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/iran_of_the_ayatullahs.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621631094
https://www.docdroid.net/HEpNSXC/to-iran-ton-aghiatolakh-ena-masoniko-paraskeuasma-docx
Αφρο-Ευρασιατική Γεωπολιτική, οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, το Ινδο-Ειρηνικό Σύμπλεγμα, η Διάλυση της Δύσης και το Τέλος της Ψευτο-Ιστορίας του ‘Ελληνο-Ρωμαϊκού Πολιτισμού’
Afro-Eurasiatic Geopolitics, the New Silk Roads, the Indo-Pacific Region, the Collapse of the West, and the End of the Fake History of ‘Greco-Roman Civilization’
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 30 Αυγούστου 2019.
Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης παρουσιάζει ορισμένα από τα δεδομένα τα οποία παρουσίασα σε μια ομιλία μου στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019. Κατά την ομιλία μου περιέγραψα τρόπους αντι-αποικιοκρατικής συνεργασίας των εθνών της Αφρο-Ευρασίας και του Ινδο-Ειρηνικού Συμπλέγματος πάνω στην κοινή τους πολιτισμική κληρονομιά και πολιτιστική παράδοση. Αυτές βρίσκονται στους αντίποδες εκείνων των αποικιοκρατικών χωρών (Γαλλία, Αγγλία, Ολλανδία, ΗΠΑ, Αυστραλία) και αντιστρατεύονται τα ρατσιστικά δόγματα και τις ιστορικές διαστρεβλώσεις που οι εν λόγω χώρες χρησιμοποιούν ως εργαλεία διαφθοράς και εξάρτησης. Επίσης, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης προσθέτει πολλά ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία για το Eastern Economic Forum 2019, το οποίο είναι ένα εξαιρετικό βήμα ανταλλαγής γνωμών, αναλύσεων και προοπτικών ανάμεσα σε αρχηγούς κρατών, στελέχη κυβερνήσεων, επιχειρηματίες, στρατιωτικούς, βουλευτές, ακαδημαϊκούς και δημοσιογράφους από τις χώρες της Ασίας και του Ινδο-Ειρηνικού συμπλέγματος.
-----------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/30/αφρο-ευρασιατική-γεωπολιτική-οι-νέοι/ ===================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Τίποτα δεν υπογραμμίζει καλύτερα την αποδυνάμωση και αποσύνθεση του δυτικού κόσμου καλύτερα από την οικτρή εικόνα της τελευταίας συνάντησης των αρχηγών κρατών μελών της οργάνωσης G-7 στο Μπιαρίτς της Γαλλίας. Το 45ο G7 summit αναφέρθηκε στο ενδεχόμενο επιστροφής της Ρωσσίας στην οργάνωση και συνεπώς μετατροπής της και πάλι σε G -8, αλλά την καλύτερη απάντηση σ’ αυτή την ιδέα έδωσε το ρωσσικό think tank Valdai Club που πρόσκειται στον Ρώσσο πρόεδρο.
Σημειώνοντας ότι το G-7 δεν έχει πλέον την σημασία που είχε προ 20 ετών, το εν λόγω ίδρυμα σε σχετική δημοσίευσή του (δείτε παρακάτω) αναρωτήθηκε τι έχει πλέον σημασία, το G-7 ή το G-20!
Λεπτομέρειες υπάρχουν πολλές (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_G7_summit), αλλά η πραγματικότητα φαίνεται σε λίγους μόνον αριθμούς:
Οι χώρες του G-7 (ΗΠΑ, Ιαπωνία, Γερμανία, Αγγλία, Γαλλία, Ιταλία και Καναδάς) με 766 εκ. πληθυσμό διαθέτουν μαζί το 30.1% του παγκοσμίου ΑΕΠ (σε αντιστοιχία αγοραστικής δύναμης / purchasing power parity).
Αλλά οι πέντε χώρες των BRICS (Κίνα, Ινδία, Ρωσσία, Βραζιλία, Νοτιοαφρικανική Ένωση) με 3165 εκ. εκπροσωπούν το 32.7% του παγκοσμίου ΑΕΠ, όντας έτσι πιο σημαντικές από το G-7, το οποίο είναι πολιτικά διαιρεμένο και οικονομικά κλυδωνιζόμενο.
Από την άλλη πλευρά, οι υπόλοιπες 7 χώρες του G-20 (το οποίο αποτελείται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και 19 χώρες, οι οποίες απαρτίζονται από τους BRICS, το G-7 και άλλες 7 χώρες), ήτοι Ινδονησία, Μεξικό, Τουρκία, Νότια Κορέα, Αργεντινή, Σαουδική Αραβία, και Αυστραλία, με 633 εκ. πληθυσμό έχουν το 10.8% του παγκοσμίου ΑΕΠ.
Με άλλα λόγια το G- 20 εκπροσωπεί το 75% της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας, μη αφήνοντας εκτός καμμιά παγκοσμίως σημαντική χώρα.
Αλλά το πολύ εντυπωσιακό δεδομένο (συγκριτικά με τον κόσμο προ 20 ή 30 ετών) είναι ότι μαζί οι Ινδονησία, Μεξικό, Τουρκία, Νότια Κορέα, Αργεντινή, Σαουδική Αραβία, και Αυστραλία διαθέτουν ήδη περισσότερο από το 1/3 του ΑΕΠ των χωρών μελών του G-7. Αυτό από μόνο του δείχνει πόση ισχύς έχει χαθεί από τις παλιές μεγάλες οικονομίες της Δυτικής Ευρώπης, Βόρειας Αμερικής, και Ιαπωνίας (που κάποτε απεκαλούντο ‘ο πρώτος κόσμος’). Για το G- 20 θα βρείτε λεπτομέρειες εδώ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20
Αν στα παραπάνω συνυπολογιστούν η δυναμική της οικονομίας των εκτός του G-7 χωρών, το δημογραφικό πρόβλημα (το οποίο είτε είναι πολύ σοβαρό είτε προξενεί πολιτικές αναταραχές στην αντιμετώπισή του) και ο εκπαιδευτικός – επιστημονικός – μορφωτικός παράγοντας, τότε συμπεραίνουμε ότι η καταβαράθρωση της Δύσης θα είναι γρήγορη και απόλυτη. Αυτή η διάλυση θα είναι μάλιστα γενική και όχι μόνον οικονομική-πολιτική. Μαζί με την Δύση, θα βουλιάξει όλο το ιδεολόγημα που προέκυψε από την Αναγεννησιακή Ευρώπη και έφθασε στις μέρες μας.
Άλλωστε, η Γερμανία είναι η Γερμανία του αφηγήματος του ‘ελληνορωμαϊκού ή ιουδαιοχριστιανικού πολιτισμού’, όσο παραμένει πληθυσμιακά όπως την ξέρουμε μέχρι σήμερα. Το ίδιο κι η Γαλλία, η Ιταλία ή η Αγγλία. Αλλά μια Γερμανία κατακλυσμένη από Τούρκους, Ιρανούς, Αφγανούς, Τουρκμένους κι Ιρακινούς αναγκαστικά χρειάζεται άλλο αφήγημα – κάτι που να την φέρνει κοντά στον Ταμερλάνο, στην Χρυσή Ορδή και στον Χουλάγκου Χαν.
Όλα αυτά φαίνονται ήδη πολύ καθαρά από τους κινητήριους μοχλούς σκέψης, τις γενικώτερες θεωρήσεις της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας, τις μεγάλες αναζητήσεις, και τις βασικές κατευθυντήριες γραμμές των κυριωτέρων σχεδίων που υλοποιούν οι εκτός του G-7 μεγάλες δυνάμεις. Η ανάδειξη της Κίνας σε πρώτη υπερδύναμη βγάζει αυτόματα τον Περικλή, τον Θουκυδίδη και τον Ιούλιο Καίσαρα από το επίκεντρο της Ιστορίας και εκεί τοποθετεί τον Κινέζο αυτοκράτορα Σουζόν (Suzong), ο οποίος έγραψε στον χαλίφη της Βαγδάτης ζητώντας του βοήθεια και στρατό για να καταστείλει την επανάσταση Αν Λουσάν ή τον ιδρυτή της δυναστείας Μιν αυτοκράτορα Χουνβού (Hongwu), ο οποίος το 1368 έγραψε ένα ποίημα 100 λέξεων για να εξυμνήσει τον Μωάμεθ Προφήτη του Ισλάμ.
Δεν είναι θέμα καν επιλογής ανάμεσα σε μια αλήθεια κι ένα ψέμμα. Είναι κάτι πολύ πιο μακριά από αυτό. Είναι θέμα ότι ‘αυτό’ ήταν η δική ‘σου’ αλήθεια και ‘εκείνο’ ήταν η δική ‘του’ αλήθεια, και τελικά αποδεικνύεται ότι η δική ‘σου’ αλήθεια (ακόμη κι αν είναι αληθινή) δεν είναι η πιο σημαντική, ή η πιο καθοριστική.
Πάρτε για παράδειγμα την βασική γεωπολιτική της Κίνας! Η Ευρώπη, ιδωμένη από το Πεκίνο, γίνεται νοητή ως μία χερσόνησος της Ασίας, δηλαδή κάτι σαν μια άλλη Ινδία, ενώ η Ασία κι η Αφρική νοούνται ως μία ενότητα γης της οποίας τα πολλά τμήματα είναι αλληλεξαρτώμενα, αλληλοσυνδεόμενα και αλληλοσυνεργαζόμενα, καθώς αποτελούν μια ενότητα. Και ακριβώς αυτή την θεώρηση αλλά και μέθοδο έρευνας κι ερμηνείας της Ιστορίας υλοποιεί το μεγαλόπνοο σχέδιο της Κίνας που εν συντομία αποκαλείται Νέος Δρόμος του Μεταξιού {Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ή One Belt One Road (OBOR); Один пояс и один путь; 一带一路}. Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/一带一路
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Один_пояс_и_один_путь
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Belt,_One_Road
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRACECA
Η ιστορική επιστροφή στους – κατά ξηράν, έρημον και θάλασσαν – Δρόμους του Μεταξιού ντε φάκτο συνενώνει την αφρο-ευρασιατική γήινη έκταση, σβύννοντας ψεύτικες κι αναθεωρητικές γραμμές που είχαν επιβάλει οι διάφοροι αποικιοκράτες και οριενταλιστές. Ψευτο-γεωπολιτικές παρουσιάσεις που χωρίζουν την Αφρο-Ευρασία πετιούνται εκ των πραγμάτων στα σκουπίδια ως ιστορικά ανυπόστατες και ως οικονομικά – πολιτικά άχρηστες και βλαβερές. Η Ενδιάμεση Περιοχή του Δημήτρη Κιτσίκη δεν υπάρχει: ήταν μια στρεβλή κι άχρηστη επινόησή του.
Το ίδιο έχει να κάνει και με το ρατσιστικό αφήγημα των αποικιοκρατών του 18ου και του 19ου αιώνα. Άγγλοι και Γάλλοι αποικιοκράτες, ακριβώς για να επιβάλλουν την αποικιοκρατία τους, επιχείρησαν να αναθεωρήσουν την Ιστορία και να αρνηθούν το τι μέχρι τότε είχε συμβεί.
Η αναθεώρηση της Ιστορίας που οι Αγγλογάλλοι ελληνιστές, λατινιστές κι οριενταλιστές επέβαλαν είχε να κάνει με
α. μια παρά φύσιν και ψεύτικη διαίρεση του κόσμου σε Ανατολή και Δύση,
β. μια ανιστόρητη κι αυθαίρετη ταύτιση της Δύσης με πολιτισμό και πρόοδο και της Ανατολής με βαρβαρότητα κι ‘απολυταρχία’ (λες κι η ‘απολυταρχία’ είναι κάτι το οπωσδήποτε κακό!),
γ. μια παρανοϊκή κι εξωπραγματική αναγωγή του λεγόμενου ‘ελληνορωμαϊκού πολιτισμού’ σε επίκεντρο της Παγκόσμιας Ιστορίας, κάτι που αντιστρατευόταν τις ίδιες τις ιστορικές πηγές, και
δ. μια ολότελα αφελή ταύτιση των νεώτερων Ευρωπαίων με τους αρχαίους Ρωμαίους, Έλληνες και ακόμη τους Μυκηναίους και τους Μινωΐτες της 2ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας σε μια οικτρά ρατσιστική απόπειρα να παρουσιασθεί το παρελθόν των Ευρωπαίων αποικιοκρατών ως ‘ανώτερο’ και ‘αρχαιότερο’ εκείνου των εθνών των αγγλικών και γαλλικών αποικιών.
Όλα αυτά τα ψευδή, αυθαίρετα κι ανιστόρητα ‘αξιώματα’ επιβλήθηκαν με τυραννικές μεθόδους στην Ασία, την Αφρική κι ακόμη την Ευρώπη, αλλά εις μάτην.
Με την αναφορά στην αλήθεια των Ιστορικών Δρόμων του Μεταξιού, η Ιστορία επιστρέφει, οι αναθεωρητικές και ρατσιστικές απόψεις των νεώτερων Ευρωπαίων για ‘ελληνορωμαϊκό’ ή ‘ιουδαιοχριστιανικό’ πολιτισμό σβύννονται, και η ισότιμη συμμετοχή όλων των εθνών στο μελλοντικό γίγνεσθαι στηρίζεται στην πραγματική Ιστορία, την έρευνά της, την εκμάθησή της, την διάδοσή της, χωρίς τους εθνοκεντρικούς και ιδεολογικούς, παραποιητικούς φακούς.
Ποια ήταν λοιπόν η Ιστορική Αλήθεια των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού που επιστρέφει για να γίνει κτήμα όλων όσων θα συμμετέχουν στην εξέλιξη της Ανθρωπότητας;
Ένα πλήθος εθνών συμμετείχαν στις εμπορικές, μορφωτικές, θρησκευτικές και γενικώτερα πολιτισμικές ανταλλαγές μεταξύ Ρώμης, Συρίας Αλεξάνδρειας, Ανατολικής Αφρικής, Ινδίας, Ινδοκίνας-Ινδονησίας, Μεσοποταμίας, Ιράν, Κεντρικής Ασίας, Σιβηρίας και Κίνας.
Έλληνες, Ρωμαίοι και γενικώτερα οι ευρωπαϊκοί λαοί επηρεάστηκαν κατακλυσμικά από ανατολικές λατρείες, μυστικισμούς, θρησκείες, θεουργίες, τέχνες, τρόπους ζωής και πολιτισμούς, και μάλιστα είχαν συνείδηση αυτού του συμβάντος.
Η αυτοκρατορική Ρώμη ήταν μια ασιατική πρωτεύουσα, ένα αντίγραφο της Περσέπολης, της Βαβυλώνας, ή ακόμη της Νινευή. Κάθε αρχαιοελληνική ‘επίδραση’ στην Ρώμη είχε πλέον ολότελα σβυσθεί.
Αν και μεγάλο κράτος, η Ρώμη πολύ περισσότερο επηρεάστηκε παρά επηρέασε άλλα έθνη πάνω στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Αρωμάτων (Λιβανωτών). Έθνη που έπαιξαν καθοριστικό ρόλο στην ανάπτυξη αυτού του ιστορικού φαινομένου ήταν οι Ιρανοί, οι Αραμαίοι, οι Τουρανοί, οι Σογδιανοί, κι οι Υεμενίτες.
Οι Έλληνες αποδέχθηκαν τον Μιθραϊσμό, τις Ισιακές Λατρείες, Μυστήρια και Θεολογία, τον Μανιχεϊσμό, την Χριστιανωσύνη, και άλλα ανατολικά θρησκευτικά συστήματα.
Κανένας Αιγύπτιος, Βαβυλώνιος, Αραμαίος, Ιρανός ή Τουρανός δεν ενδιαφέρθηκε να μεταφράσει τα έπη του Ομήρου ή τους πλατωνικούς διαλόγους στα προχριστιανικά χρόνια.
Και κανένας Αιγύπτιος Βαβυλώνιος, Αραμαίος, Ιρανός ή Τουρανός δεν ελάτρευσε τον Ποσειδώνα ή την Αθηνά.
Αλλά η αποικιοκρατική και ρατσιστική, ευρωπαϊκή ακαδημαϊκή τάξη του 19ου και του 20ου αιώνα, αντί να αποκαλέσει την περίοδο από τον Αλέξανδρο έως τον Οκταβιανό ‘ανατολιστικά χρόνια’ (επειδή τότε σημειώθηκαν ανατολικές επιδράσεις πάνω σε Έλληνες, Ρωμαίους κι άλλους Ευρωπαίους), την ονόμασε ‘ελληνιστικά χρόνια’ (επειδή ορισμένοι ασιατικοί λαοί, όπως οι Φρύγες, οι Λυδοί, οι Κάρες, οι Λύκιοι κι οι Καππαδόκες εξελληνίστηκαν γλωσσικά).
Οι Ευρωπαίοι αποικιοκράτες έβλεπαν εαυτούς στην Ασία ως συνεχιστές εκείνων από τους Έλληνες στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου που έμειναν σε διάφορα σημεία της Ασίας, ανήγειραν πόλεις, διατήρησαν την τέχνη τους.
Αλλά αυτό ήταν μια αυθαίρετη ασυναρτησία που δεν δημιουργεί Ιστορία.
Αντίθετα από την ρατσιστική, εθνοκεντρική διαστροφή της Ιστορίας που ήταν το επακόλουθο του αποικιοκρατικού αφηγήματος, η νέα αφρο-ευρασιατική γεωπολιτική πραγματικότητα και οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού δεν αφήνουν κανένα περιθώριο – ειμή μόνον τον εξευτελισμό – σε όσους επιμένουν να μιλάνε εθνοκεντρικά και να βλέπουν μια ‘ιστορική ανωτερότητα’ για τους προγόνους τους.
Όσοι άθλιοι κι αμόρφωτοι στην Ελλάδα μιλάνε υποτιμητικά για Μογγόλους μόνο γελοιοποιούν την Ελλάδα και δείχνουν ότι η χώρα είναι ένα άχρηστο σκουπίδι μιας περασμένης εποχής.
Άλλωστε οι πρόγονοι αυτών των σημερινών αμορρφώτων Ελλήνων πήγαιναν πριν από 600 χρόνια στην Κεντρική Ασία για να σπουδάσουν σε αστεροσκοπεία με Μογγόλους καθηγητές.
Όταν υλοποιείται ένα τόσο σημαντικό, κοσμοϊστορικό σχέδιο, όπως οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, ισχυρές χώρες προσπαθούν να βρουν καλύτερους τρόπους να ενταχθούν σ’ αυτό και προς τούτο η ιστορία κι η γεωγραφία μελετούνται υπό διαφορετικά πρίσματα, αναπτύσσονται νέες συνθέσεις, και επινοούνται συμπληρωματικές ερμηνείες και προσεγγίσεις.
Το Ινδο-Ειρηνικό Σύμπλεγμα είναι μια καθαρά ινδική θέση που επινοήθηκε για να ενισχύσει την θέση της Ινδίας μέσα στους Νέους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού.
Ιστορικά στηρίζεται στους τεκμηριωμένους θαλάσσιους εμπορικούς δρόμους, οι οποίοι κυρίως χρησίμευαν για την μετακίνηση μπαχαρικών, λιβανωτών και άλλων προϊόντων και είχαν φέρει κοντά την Ανατολική Αφρική, την Ινδία, την Ινδοκίνα και την Ινδονησία.
Στα σύγχρονα πλαίσια, μια τέτοια προσέγγιση συμφέρει την Ινδία, επειδή το Δελχί, βάζοντας έτσι στο αφρο-ευρασιατικό παιχνίδι σημαντικές οικονομίες όπως η Ινδονησία κι η Αυστραλία αλλά κι η Ανατολική Αφρική, λειτουργεί εξισορροπητικά απέναντι στην εμφανή κυριαρχία της Κίνας στο καθαρά ηπειρωτικό ευρασιατικό επίπεδο.
Αυτό είναι μια πολύ γνωστή τακτική στις διεθνείς σχέσεις: διευρύνεις το πεδίο ανταγωνισμού, όταν σε πιο ‘στενά’ όρια γίνεσαι ουραγός. Αλλά δείχνει ότι η Ινδία καταλαβαίνει ότι οι Νέοι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού είναι μονόδρομος των παγκοσμίων εξελίξεων. Και όπως είναι εύκολο να καταλάβει ο οποιοσδήποτε, είτε μουσουλμάνοι είτε ινδουϊστές, οι Ινδοί περιμένουν ανυπόμονα την ημέρα που οι παλιές αποικιοκρατικές δυνάμεις Γαλλία κι Αγγλία θα έχουν απομείνει με τόση ισχύ διεθνώς όση και η Σρι Λάνκα ή η Μαλαισία.
Αντίθετα, το σύνολο του αμόρφωτου, άρρωστου και ουσιαστικά σάπιου ελληνικού πολιτικού, πανεπιστημιακού και δημοσιογραφικού κατεστημένου εξακολουθεί να νομίζει ότι η Ελλάδα μπορεί να επιβιώσει μέσα στον σημερινό κόσμο είτε με προσήλωση στις παλιές συμμαχίες (Γαλλία, Αγγλία, ΕΕ, ΗΠΑ, ΝΑΤΟ), είτε με ελπίδες στηριγμένες στην ξεκάρφωτη, έωλη κι ανυπόστατη συμμαχία με το Ισραήλ και την Αίγυπτο.
Η αλήθεια είναι ότι η Ιστορία θα κτυπήσει τραγικά το νεώτερο αναθεωρητικό ψευτοκράτος Ελλάδα, όταν οι δημιουργοί του (Γαλλία, Αγγλία) παύσουν να υφίστανται.
Τόσο θα καταλάβουν όλοι οι Ρωμιοί ότι η Ελλάδα, αποσχισμένη από την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, στερημένη από τη ρωμέικη ορθόδοξη ταυτότητά της, κι εκμαυλισμένη λόγω εκδυτικισμού, πίστευε για δική της μια ‘ελληνοκεντρική’ ψευτοϊστορία τόσο ψεύτικη όσο και το κρατίδιο του Όθωνα.
Με τον επερχόμενο θάνατο και διάλυση των δημιουργών του ψευτοκράτους, θα σβύσουν και τα ρατσιστικά αποικιοκρατικά αφηγήματα για την τάχα σημασία του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού, την δήθεν κοσμοϊστορική απήχησή του, και την υποτιθέμενη επίδρασή του σε άλλα έθνη.
Δηλαδή, κοντά είναι η μέρα που, αν κάποιοι κομπλεξικοί, υστερικοί και διεστραμμένοι σκατόψυχοι ισχυριστούν ότι υπήρχαν Έλληνες στην Αρχαία Κίνα, ότι η επαρχία Γιουν-νάν της Κίνας είναι ελληνική (επειδή οι Έλληνες λέγονται ‘Γιουνάν’ στα αραβικά!!!!!), κι ότι τα αγάλματα (από τερακότα) του κινεζικού στρατού στο Σιάν (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army) είναι φτειαγμένα από Έλληνες, θα τρώνε κι ένα σκεπάρνι στο κεφάλι για να ξεμπερδέψουμε μια και καλή από τους ψευτομασώνους της κακιάς ώρας.
Στην προώθηση κι εμπέδωση των μακρόπνοων σχεδίων της αφρο-ευρασιατικής επανασύνδεσης συμμετέχει με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση και η Ρωσσία, επειδή έχει καταλάβει ότι αυτή η εξέλιξη συμφέρει και στην Μόσχα.
Το Eastern Economic Forum-2019, το οποίο λαμβάνει χώρα σε λίγες μέρες στο Βλαδιβοστόκ, είναι μια κορυφαία εκδήλωση απ’ αυτή την άποψη.
Ως μείζον γεγονός φέρνει μαζί αρχηγούς κρατών, υπουργούς, βουλευτές, διευθυντές κρατικών οργανισμών, εκπροσώπους της ιδιωτικής πρωτοβουλίας και του επιχειρηματικού κόσμου, πανεπιστημιακούς, ειδικευμένους επιστήμονες, και δημοσιογράφους οι οποίοι εξετάζουν δυνατότητες και παρουσιάζουν προτάσεις για την υλοποίηση του φιλόδοξου προγράμματος των Νέων Δρόμων του Μεταξιού.
Είναι μια κοσμογονία που στην Ελλάδα δυστυχώς θα μείνει ολότελα άγνωστη και δεν θα καλυφθεί από τα διαπλεκόμενα ΜΜΕ και τα social media των κρετίνων αρχαιολατρών κι ελληνο-αυνανιστών.
Παράλληλα και εντός των πλαισίων της οργάνωσης του Eastern Economic Forum-2019, κορυφαία think tanks οργανώνουν ιδιαίτερα σεμινάρια και συζητήσεις που φωτίζουν όψεις της αφρο-ευρασιατικής αναγέννησης.
Στην συνέχεια θα βρείτε μια σειρά από παρουσιάσεις εκ μέρους του ρωσσικού think tank Valdai Club το οποίο συμμετέχει επίσης στο γεγονός.
Στο τέλος, σύνδεσμοι σας παραπέμπουν στο σάιτ του Eastern Economic Forum. Επίσης επισυνάπτω μια έκδοση του Valdai Club για το Μέλλον του Πολέμου (The Future of War) για να δείτε πόσο διαφορετική μορφή θα έχουν οι αυριανοί πόλεμοι: κανένας στρατός δεν θα μπορεί να τους αντιμετωπίσει και μόνον οι επί τούτω οργανωμένες ιδιωτικές στρατιωτικές εταιρείες θα είναι ικανές να τους διεξαγάγουν επιτυχώς.
---------------------
Valdai Club at the Eastern Economic Forum-2019
This year, the Valdai Club will take part in the Eastern Economic Forum for a fourth time. On September 4, at 10:00 the Club will hold a session titled “The Asian Mirror: The Pivot to the East Through the Eyes of our Asian Partners” and on the same day, at 14:30, it is due to present a book titled “Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East”.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/own/valdai-club-at-the-eastern-economic-forum-2019/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
------------------
Valdai Club at the EEF-2019: The Asian Mirror: The Pivot to the East Through the Eyes of Our Asian Partners. Special Session
This year, the Valdai Discussion Club will take part in the Eastern Economic Forum for the fourth time. On September 4, at 10:00 the Club will hold a session titled “The Asian Mirror: The Pivot East Through the Eyes of Our Asian Partners”.
Logically and thematically, the session is a continuation of a series of events dedicated to the key focus of the Club’s work in 2019 – Russian politics in the East.
Our interest in the topic is due to the strengthening of Russia’s position in the East, the ambition of the country’s leaders to enhance the Eastern aspect of foreign policy, and the geopolitical events in the region, which have had an effect on the entire world.
The Valdai session’s main goal won’t be to discuss plans for the development of the Far East and its integration in the Asia-Pacific Region, but rather the things that have already been achieved. Russia’s turn to the East is gaining momentum.
The time has come to summarise its interim results and to hear the position of our Asian partners on how successful Russian policy has been, from their point of view.
The session will feature prominent experts and public opinion leaders from Russia and several Asian countries.
Together, they will answer: how do they regard the results of Russia’s turn to the East? What has it managed to do? What role does Asia want Russia to play?
Speakers:
To Anh Dung, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam
Fan Weiguo, Chief of Eurasian Bureau of Xinhua News Agency
Lee Jae-Young, President, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Michael Tay, Founder and Director of the Foundation for the Arts and Social Enterprise, Ambassador of Singapore to Russia (2002-2008); Founder of the Russia-Singapore Business Forum
Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for the Development and Support of the International Valdai Discussion Club
Apurva Sanghi, Lead Economist, World Bank in Russia
Moderator:
Timofei Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club; Academic supervisor of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
Working languages: Russian, English.
Venue: Vladivostok, Far Eastern Federal University, Building B, Conference Hall 6.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/announcements/valdai-club-at-the-eef-2019-the-asian-mirror-the-pivot-to-the-east/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
-------------------
Valdai Club at the EEF-2019: Presentation of a Book ‘Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East’
On September 4, at 14:30, in the framework of Eastern Economic Forum-2019, the Valdai Discussion Club is going to present a book titled “Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East”.
For years, the Valdai Discussion Club has been Russia’s leading analytical centre for discussing and developing the agenda for Russia’s turn to the East. Since 2013, when Russia’s leaders proclaimed that the development of the Far East is “a national task for the 21st century”, this project has become the most important engine of the country’s foreign and domestic policy.
Since 2012, the Club has published six analytic papers under the general title “Toward the Great Ocean”, which refers to the credo used by Russian pioneers from the 16th century until the early 20th century. The papers aim to both summarise the achievements and challenges of Russia’s turn to the East, and make suggestions for its development.
“Toward the Great Ocean: A Chronicle of Russia’s Turn to the East” is a collection of all the six analytic papers (2012–2018), as well as detailed comments by project manager Sergei Karaganov on each of its parts, as well as essays on the topic, delivered by prominent Asian scholars.
During the presentation of the book, attendees will also learn about the research work carried out by the Valdai Club and its plans for future publications.
Speakers:
Timofei Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club; Academic supervisor of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE
Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for the Development and Support of the International Valdai Discussion Club
Sergei Karaganov, Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the National Research University Higher School of Economics; Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy
Thomas Graham, Senior Director, Kissinger Associates
Moderator:
Victoria Panova, Vice-President for International Affairs, Far Eastern Federal University
Working languages: Russian, English.
Venue: Vladivostok, Far Eastern Federal University, Roscongress & Governors ’Club, Building A, Level 4.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/announcements/valdai-club-at-eef-2019-presentation-of-a-book-toward-the-great-ocean/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
------------------------
The Indo-Pacific Concept First Hand: Indian Foreign Minister Speaks at Valdai Club
On Tuesday, August 27, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met with the Valdai Discussion Club’s experts. During the open part of the meeting, he spoke about the concept of the Indo-Pacific, as New Delhi sees it, about the key trends in modern international relations and the prospects for bilateral cooperation.
The day before, Mr. Jaishankar had arrived in Russia on his first visit as Minister of External Affairs in preparation for the Eastern Economic Forum, whose main foreign guest will be Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It is worth noting that the professional career of Subrahmanyam Jaishankar took him to Moscow almost forty years ago: for two years he worked at the Embassy of India as the third, and then the second secretary. At the beginning of the meeting at the Valdai Club, the Minister optimistically said that much has changed in the world over the years, but the Russian-Indian relations remain one of the stable factors in international life.
According to the minister, the most important trend in international relations is a movement towards multi-polarity. This is due to the weakening of US dominance, established after the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of new centres of power. “We believe that economic, political and technological power is more distributed around the world than ever before in history after 1945,” he said.
“Now there are more sources of influence in the world order, and the idea that one country can play a decisive role is out-dated.” This process is accompanied by the weakening of established rules and the growth of uncertainty. According to Mr. Jaishankar, the world goes from a system of alliances to a system of convergences, when countries join forces to solve common problems without entering into formal alliances.
As one example of such convergence, he named the concept of the Indo-Pacific region, which has become the hallmark of Indian foreign policy in recent years.
According to the minister, the connection between the regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans have existed for centuries: five hundred years ago, India’s cultural, political and economic presence was felt in Southeast Asia and on the coast of China, and the policy of the British, who made India the centre of their colonial empire in Asia, can be described as Indo-Pacific project.
Everything changed after the Second World War, when the United States, which became the hegemon in the region, shifted its focus to the Pacific Ocean and made Northeast Asia the centre of gravity. Mr. Jaishankar believes that the concept of the Indo-Pacific region has allowed for the restoration of the artificially-broken connection between the regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
The minister welcomed the fact, that the problems of the Indo-Pacific are beginning to be discussed more and more widely in Russia. According to him, it would be good if Russia formulates its own vision toward the Indo-Pacific region. “India is a strong power in the Indian Ocean with a serious interest in the Pacific Ocean, Russia is a strong Pacific power with an interest in the Indian Ocean,” he said.
‘How can we harmonize these interests – that’s the matter. We have such experience in the Eurasian space. It is important today to see where our interests in maritime cooperation can be translated into real interaction.”
Mr. Jaishankar emphasized that the concept of the Indo-Pacific is not directed against any countries, particularly China. According to him, the opinion that this concept is being promoted by Washington to contain Beijing’s influence is out-dated and reflects the Cold War paradigm. “India views the Indo-Pacific region in a more comprehensive manner,” he said.
Presentation of the Valdai Discussion Club’s Analytical Report “The Future of War”
On August 27, at 11.00, the Valdai Discussion Club hosted a presentation of Club’s new analytical report titled “The Future of War”.
http://valdaiclub.com/events/own/presentation-of-report-the-future-of-war/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
The Big Seven: The West Can No Longer Solve All Problems Alone
What is the “West”? Does the West still exist as such – in light of Britain’s exit from the EU and the US drift towards unilateral approaches? This question concerns many people now – mainly in Old Europe, writes Arnaud Dubien, head of the Observo Franco-Russian Analytical Centre.
Today, the G7 is going through difficult times – and even, perhaps, suffering a real existential crisis. This is due to at least two factors.
First, there is the presence in this club of an element that contrasts itself with the rest of the member countries – this, of course, is the United States. Since the US is the largest Western power, it has made the work of the organisation problematic: many experts say that on many issues it’s incorrect to think of the group as the G7, but rather “six plus one”.
Second, the weight and legitimacy of the Seven has been called into question, not only in connection with the absence or possible return of Russia to the group, but also because it is impossible to seriously discuss the fate of the world without China, India and other major world powers.
It would be more appropriate here to return to the idea of another French president – Giscard d’Estaing, who launched this project in the 1970s and saw what would become the “seven” as an informal conversation among Western democracies.
Now it better resembles something between the old “seven” and the current G20 with a joint agenda, which does not contribute to a better understanding of the group’s current tasks.
Even though, in order to avoid disagreements, the leaders of the G7 didn’t attempt to publish a joint communique, the benefits of the Biarritz summit were more than expected. Emmanuel Macron showed considerable energy and a lot of questions were brought up for discussion – these not only concerned the fate of the West, but also trade wars and Brazil’s fires.
As for Macron’s discussions about the future of the West and the role the G7, one can see here that the development of those thoughts surrounded his meeting with Vladimir Putin: the French president understands that the West can no longer solve all problems alone and that its influence is diminishing, although this does not need to be overestimated.
On the other hand, what is the “West”? Is there still the West as such – in light of Britain’s exit from the EU and the US drift towards unilateral approaches? This question is of concern to many now – mainly in Old Europe. If initially the European Union was created out of fear of the USSR, now it has to dissociate itself from the United States. If Europe, as Macron says, wants to be sovereign, it will have to assert itself and go against the ideas that have dominated for sixty years. Therefore, this process is becoming harder.
Whether negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif following his somewhat unexpected appearance at the summit have succeeded in influencing the fate of the JCPOA is not known, and one can only hope for that. However, in general, this once again shows that even within the G7, the United States has adopted an isolated stance on this issue.
Although this initiative originally belonged to Macron, it seems to have been supported by all other countries in Europe and even Japan. In other words, this is an attempt to show that Europe, at least on this issue, can assert its identity, take a unified position and force the United States to talk, and maybe even make concessions.
As for the question of Russia’s return, Moscow has little interest in re-creating the G8, because it never felt comfortable there; on the contrary, it often found itself alone against everyone else.
However, the very fact that this issue is being discussed, that new watersheds have appeared and frictions have arisen, is positive for Russia: this means that the topic is big and important for discussion in a club where Moscow does not represent itself.
This confirms Macron’s thesis that without Russia, serious global problems cannot be solved. For Moscow, at this stage, this is the most positive development.
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/the-west-can-no-longer-solve-all-problems/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
---------------------
G7 Summit in Biarritz: The End of Westernization
Biarritz was, if we must believe the French media, the centre of the world, on the occasion of the G7 summit this weekend (24th – 26th August). It was a summit that was dedicated, officially, to fighting inequality, but one where contentious topics were discussed: the GAFA tax, which had the unusual effect of uniting the French and the British against the Americans, the environment, the trade dispute between the United States and China, and the question of Iran, regarding which the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA agreement has been widely criticised among European countries.
But this G7 summit, despite communications operations – like the arrival, presented as a “surprise,” by the Iranian Foreign Minister – could well turn out to be a failure. The member countries have taken action so that national policies and bilateral relations now outweigh multilateralism. In addition, it should be added that we are no longer where we found ourselves during the 1980s or 1990s. The G7, which claims to be the “club” of the richest and most powerful countries, has today been overtaken by the BRICS. In fact, it is the G20 that is increasingly emerging as the legitimate institution for dealing with the interweaving of economic, financial and strategic affairs.
The G7, official and unofficial agenda
Officially, therefore, the expected decisions concerned the reduction of inequality, an important topic in a world torn apart by inequalities. However, it is a subject on which we can expect a lot of beautiful words and very little concrete action. The issue of the environment has taken some urgency because of the devastating forest fires ravaging the Amazon.
This is obviously an important question, but also an issue where there is a lot of hypocrisy. This is because the Amazon isn’t just burning in Brazil (fires have also ravaged Bolivia, Paraguay and other countries), and also because the Amazon is not the only major forest to burn: forest fires that today rage in Africa are equally important, but no one speaks of it.
Similarly, this summer’s fires, which are certainly disastrous, are only slightly more numerous than those of 2016: 75,336 fires versus 69,310. It is true that the problem of deforestation, induced by the pressure of livestock and the cultivation of soybeans, is a major issue today in the Amazon. But it was, perhaps, an even more pressing problem twenty years ago.
Source:
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html#content
The issue of trade negotiations and the role of multilateralism were also discussed. The United States and other countries differ on this point in important ways. We can also note that some issues which were not explicitly on the agenda were addressed: the instrumentalisation of trade in dollars for political purposes by the United States is a major problem, as well as the growing risks of recession and global crisis.
The United States has clearly expressed dissatisfaction with multilateral negotiations. The countries of the European Union are, rightly or wrongly, more attached to it. The membership of the United States in the WTO has therefore been called into question; it is indeed a central issue. If the US government were to decide to walk out of the WTO, it would probably sound the death toll for the organisation.
The question of Iran was also raised at the summit. The European countries have denounced the US decision to walk away from the agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons and technology. They have also denounced the US sanctions policy, which is hurting the European countries much more than Iran. The arrival of the Iranian Foreign Minister testifies to Emmanuel Macron’s willingness to restart negotiations at this point.
The challenges of this summit
Emmanuel Macron, who happens to be the President of the G7 this year, was playing a high-stakes game with this meeting. A clear failure, as in 2018 in Canada, would have lastingly compromised his claims to present himself as a great negotiator. He is also aware that the influence of the G7 has greatly diminished over the last ten years. The G7 is the distant heir of the G5, which was formed to try to coordinate the monetary policies of the major Western powers following the dissolution in 1973 of the Bretton Woods agreements.
Originally, the G7 was the brainchild of French President Giscard d’Estaing (1974-1981). The G7 has been tasked with coordinating currency movements as exchange rates have become flexible. Called first informally the G5, then provisionally the G6 when it was formally established in 1975, and later the G7 with Canada’s integration in 1976, its influence soon spread to other aspects of the economy, beyond mere monetary policy problems.
The G7 nations still had, at the end of the twentieth century, a dominant role in the world economy. This is no longer the case today. The process of the emergence of new economies has clearly changed the whole ball game. The expulsion of Russia from the G8 in 2014, an expulsion that is now regretted by both the Japanese and Italian leaders as well as Donald Trump, has certainly hastened its decline. Moreover, if we calculate in purchasing power parity terms, the G7’s share of global GDP is today lower than that of the BRICS, a forum which brings together five emerging market countries.
It is obvious that Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to invite other countries, such as Australia, India, South Africa and Chile, is a recognition of this state of affairs. However, it must be noted here that China and Russia were not invited, despite the major role they play. The invitations that were made were therefore intended to mask the G7’s loss of influence and prestige in comparison with the G20.
G7 or G20?
It is clear today that any closed club of rich countries no longer has any legitimacy making decisions on behalf of the emerging market countries or even just proposing them. The United States, for its part, has understood that it would like to re-invite Russia to participate in the G7, according to a statement mirroring one made by the Japanese prime minister. But it is unlikely that Russia would really be moved by such a proposal. It knows full well that the G7 is an institution that is nearing the end of its life. The G7 is thus being overtaken by the BRICS not only in terms of its percentage of world PPP-adjusted GDP, but also in terms of the proportion of investment being made worldwide.
This reflects not only the rise of investments being made in China, India and Russia, both internally and worldwide, but also the significant slowdown in investments made in the G7 countries, whether they be German or US investments. Again, it can be seen that until 2000, the G7 countries accounted for about 60% of global investment. The turning point therefore dates from the 21st century. Emerging market countries have significantly increased their share of investment. They caught up with the G7 countries in 2009, and they overtook them.
In fact, a comparison of the G20 with the G7 shows that the first group has taken precedence over the second. It is the G20 that has become the global forum that really counts. And this is true when you compare the weight of the G7 with that of the G20.
The G20 currently accounts for 73.6% of global GDP. The group is comprised of the G7 nations, the European Union, the BRICS and six other countries. It is this set of countries (along with the EU) that is most economically relevant.
What are final results of this summit?
The record that we can draw today from this summit is very mixed. Clearly, we have not gone beyond rhetoric in addressing the question of inequality or the environmental emergency. It could not have been otherwise, given the significant differences among the G7 countries.
The trade dispute between China and the United States, meanwhile, is more beautiful. On Friday, August 23rd, China re-launched the escalation of the trade war, with further tariff increases on products imported from the United States. The US administration immediately responded by increasing duties on products imported from China.
All this has been observed, by the European G7 countries, which have not reacted. Germany, in particular, fears being dragged into this trade war, as its economy is on the verge of a recession. Regarding the GAFA tax, which both the French and British governments are pushing for, an agreement could possibly be reached, but at the probable price of making a mockery of the very idea of taxing Internet giants.
With respect to the Iranian issue, it is clear that the discussions will continue. Both the United States and Iran want to find a way out of the current crisis. It is perhaps on this issue that progress is possible.
However, this summit has rammed home an important lesson. So we are witnessing the end of the Westernisation of the world, a process that took place between the late eighteenth century and the end of the twentieth century. We must make note of this. It is why Russia does not particularly want to return to the G7, even though it has been pleased to hear Donald Trump’s statements about its possible return.
The centre of gravity of the global economy is indeed no longer the Atlantic Ocean. It has moved to Asia with the rise of China, the world’s second largest economy (and even first if we calculate in Purchasing Power Parity terms) and a direct interlocutor of the United States. And this is not to mention India, which is also gaining strength and is now in 5th place, ahead of France. This is why the meeting of the G7 in Biarritz was no longer able to decide for the world, whatever the major French media and its journalists think.
The G7 countries, since the summit held in Canada in 2018, have measured what it would be like to show off their differences. At the same time, never have the latter been so important, and above all, seemed irremediable and irreconcilable. So, we cannot exclude the notion that the group is witnessing open failure. However, it is more likely that diplomats will find some beautiful hollow formulas that proclaim that the “club” still works even though it is patently acknowledged that the group is paralyzed and, above all, that it no longer has the importance it had 20 years ago.
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/g7-summit/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=137&utm_medium=email
Goodbye Pacific Rim, Hello Indo-Pacific?
THE EASTERN PERSPECTIVE
01.07.2019
By Anton Bespalov
In recent years, the term “Indo-Pacific” has been used more and more frequently. According to some analysts, it is replacing the well-established concept of the Asia-Pacific region, reflecting a new balance of power in Asia. Beijing is suspicious of the fact that the Indo-Pacific concept is being actively promoted by Washington, believing that its ultimate goal is to contain China.
We are investigating whether or not this is so – and whether Russia should be wary of the emergence of a new regional construct.
“Indo-Pacific” appeared for the first time as a geostrategic concept in a January 2007 article by analyst Gurprit Khurana for the magazine Strategic Analysis. The author, an Indian naval captain, postulates that for India, the safety of sea routes has become more and more important, since almost all of its foreign trade, including the import of energy resources, is by sea. Japan is in a similar situation – and therefore, in his opinion, the interests of the two countries will increasingly converge, which will lead to the creation of a special political and economic community uniting the two oceans.
The Indo-Pacific notion immediately gained recognition in India – if only because the concept of “Asia-Pacific” categorically did not suit Indians. In a publication dedicated to the tenth anniversary of the article “Safety of sea routes: prospects for Indian-Japanese cooperation,” Khurana quoted the former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, Aruna Prakash, who, speaking in 2009 at the Shangri-La Dialogue forum, said:
Every time I hear about the Asia-Pacific region, it seems to me, as an Indian, that my country is left out of the box. This region seems to include northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, and ends at the Strait of Malacca. But the whole world begins west of the Strait of Malacca.
The new term appeared at an opportune time: India was becoming increasingly aware of itself as an independent actor in the global arena, which was reflected in the national consciousness. As for Japan, at the beginning of the 21st century, it was already headed for rapprochement with India. Also in 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke about the special role of the two countries in Asia in an address to the Indian parliament.
He called for the creation of an “arc of freedom and well-being” along the outer rim of the Eurasian continent. The Indo-Japanese partnership, according to Abe, should be built on “common values, such as freedom, democracy and respect for fundamental human rights, as well as strategic interests”.
The Japanese prime minister painted a grand picture – through their joint efforts, the two countries would create a new “open and transparent” community of freedom and democracy that will unite the entire Pacific region, including the United States and Australia, and ensure the free movement of people, goods, capital and knowledge.
“CONFLUENCE OF THE TWO SEAS” SPEECH BY H.E.MR. SHINZO ABE, PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN AT THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
By Japan and India coming together in this way, this “broader Asia” will evolve into an immense network spanning the entirety of the Pacific Ocean, incorporating the United States of America and Australia. Open and transparent, this network will allow people, goods, capital, and knowledge to flow freely.
The word “China” was not heard in Abe’s speech even once, but both parties understood each other perfectly. The “arc of freedom” neatly bypasses the PRC, and the Asian giant remains outside the brackets of the “wide open Asia” that the Japanese prime minister spoke of.
During his second term in office, Abe perfected this concept, making Indo-Pacific a central theme of Japan’s security policy, economic aid and investment, writes Robert Manning, author of the Valdai Paper “United States Indo-Pacific Strategy: Myths and Reality.”
In a 2016 speech, Abe defined this concept, explaining that “the goal of this strategy is to turn the Indo-Pacific region into a zone free from violence and coercion, where the rule of law reigns and where the market economy rules, ensuring regional prosperity”. The three main pillars, according to Tokyo, are: values and principles – democracy, the rule of law, free markets and the improvement of physical and institutional connectedness; safety and stability; and ensuring freedom of navigation.
Another country where the new concept was adopted with enthusiasm was Australia, which is logical, given that the country is actually washed by the waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, despite being on the periphery of the newly-imagined region.
For more than a decade, the economic development of the country has relied on trade with China, and in recent years Australian policymakers have been increasingly talking about the influence of Beijing on the nation’s domestic policy. Becoming overly dependent on “undemocratic” and “unfree” China is the main nightmare of the elites of one of the most “Western” countries in the southern hemisphere..
In 2013, the country’s White Paper on Defence noted: “The continuing rise of China as a global power, the growing economic and strategic weight of East Asia, and India’s imminent transformation into a global power are all key trends affecting the development of the Indian Ocean region as being of heightened strategic importance. Taken together, these trends contribute to the formation of the Indo-Pacific region as a single strategic arc.”
As for the United States, the first mention of the Indo-Pacific by their officials was in 2010. “We understand how important the Indo-Pacific basin is for global trade,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, emphasising the importance of the interaction between the US Navy and India in the Pacific. At long last, “Indo-Pacific” entered the American foreign policy lexicon with Donald Trump.
It was during his presidency that the format of the quadrilateral security dialogue (QUAD), proposed by Shinzo Abe back in 2007, was revived. In November 2017, Trump took part in two important East Asian forums over the course of several days: the APEC summit in Da Nang, Vietnam and the ASEAN summit in Manila, Philippines.
As Valdai Club expert Viktor Sumsky wrote, in public statements, Trump made no mention of the Pacific Rim, a key feature of APEC rhetoric, speaking instead about the Indo-Pacific region. A working meeting among the diplomats of four countries on the sidelines of the East Asian Summit caused a wave of publications about the formation of a new security configuration in the region – directed against China.
It must be said that Beijing perceived the very first consultations in the quadrilateral format as being directed against China, and reacted with lightning speed. On the eve of the meeting, the representatives of Australia, India, the US and Japan in Manila on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum in May 2007, China sent a note to each of the four countries. Beijing’s attitude toward the Indo-Pacific concept was and remains negative, and is characterised by Valdai club expert Zhao Huasheng as one of “coldness and suspicion.”
But can it really be considered anti-Chinese? To what extent are the QUAD members attempting to contain China or confront it? Looking ahead, let’s say: no one wants confrontation, but there are nuances.
The idea of the Indo-Pacific has an anti-Chinese sound only as interpreted by Washington, says Valdai Club expert Alexei Kupriyanov, a researcher at IMEMO RAN. “In the US interpretation, the Indo-Pacific is structured around the QUAD as a prototype of a defensive alliance that operates in the most acceptable form to other participating states – without commitments and exclusively through informal consultations,” he says. “The United States wants to demonstrate its interest in this project without extra spending and commitment, by trying to establish an anti-China alliance with the participation of India and Australia.”
In turn, India seeks to maximize the use of Americans as a counterweight to China, the expert said. Delhi does not want to get too close to Washington and commit itself – and at the same time wants to increase its economic and political ties with Japan. “India is trying to maintain a balance between the US and China,” says Kupriyanov. “Although India’s political and military leaders are emphatically anti-China, its economic interests require cooperation with China. Although India bluntly rejects the idea of becoming China’s junior partner, it does not intend to take part in any anti-Chinese actions outside the Indian Ocean. ”
Japan is in a similar situation. According to Kupriyanov, it has to simultaneously cooperate and compete with China. “In addition, Japan is interested in access to the promising markets of the African countries and preserving its positions in Southeast and South Asia.
In August 2018, Indonesia announced its own vision of Indo-Pacific, and this was an interesting turn in the development of the concept. “ The importance of this step is hard to overestimate,” writes Kupriyanov. “For a decade, the ASEAN states denied the Indo-Pacific region the right to exist, fearing that the new geopolitical construct would destroy the familiar, well-known Asia-Pacific region, in which ASEAN had already staked out a key role.
The decision of Indonesia, which claims to be the unofficial leader of the Association, to abandon this practice and henceforth build its policy within an Indo-Pacific framework means that one of the most serious opponents of the Indo-Pacific construct has moved to the camp of its supporters, and others will follow. ”
This step was quite logical, since it is Indonesia that serves as a link between the Indian and Pacific oceans. It is noteworthy that its vision of the Indo-Pacific region has no anti-Chinese overtones. As can be seen, the US desire to create an alliance against Beijing contradicts the objective interests of other countries of the region being created. They not only do not want confrontation with China, but also realize that trade and economic ties with the Asian giant are the key to their successful development.
However, Washington is aware of the reluctance of Asian countries to enter direct confrontation with China. Therefore, the system of restraining China’s regional ambitions will be “elegant and subtle”, rather than taking the form of a defensive alliance, wrote Valdai club expert Anton Tsvetov in March 2018. Despite the continuing statements about shared values, the nature of the union, the backbone of which will remain the QUAD, will be pragmatic.
This is quite natural, given that a number of states that are concerned about the strengthening of China do not fall into the category of “free” and “democratic” at all. We are talking primarily about Vietnam, which is actively developing relations with the United States and with India, despite the differences in political systems. This transition to pragmatism is reflected in the fact that the Indo-Pacific region is less and less often categorized in terms of “maritime democracies”, notes Tsvetov: “instead of this phrase, the expression ‘like-minded states’ is used.”
It is interesting to look at how countries from this still largely imaginary region look at Chinese infrastructure projects as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In Asia, this initiative is perceived ambiguously: both as a chance for development, and as a means of promoting Beijing’s influence.
In February 2018, the QUAD member countries first addressed the creation of alternatives to the Chinese initiative, and the development of “quality infrastructure” was among the themes during the Japanese presidency of the G20.
The term “quality”, as you might guess, means infrastructure created not under the leadership of China or with Chinese money. So far, the results have been rather modest, but this does not mean that in the future the two projects will not be able to compete, for the benefit of the countries which receive infrastructure assistance.
“Currently, the BRI and the ‘free and open’ Indo-Pacific region are competing initiatives,” says Samir Saran, President of the Indian Observer Analytical Centre Research Foundation. However, the real choice will be made by developing states, who are currently leveraging both initiatives to obtain better deals.
It’s not inconceivable that in the long term, some multilateral arrangement will accommodate both initiatives. The ‘viability’ of these competing propositions will depend on which resonates more with the development and security needs of developing states in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific. In the short term, both will co-exist and compete.”
Japan, despite being one of the key countries interested in creating an alternative to the Belt and Road, is “inclined to cooperate with China on the BRI to advance its own commercial interests,” adds Saran. As for India, it does not plan to participate in the BRI, believing that this project undermines its sovereignty and makes it difficult to defend interests in other areas. “On the other hand, China can become the largest investor in the economy of India. Delhi will have to pursue a steadfast course in foreign policy and develop economic cooperation with China,” the expert emphasises.
The Indo-Pacific project is only considered by Washington as a zero-sum game, says Alexei Kupriyanov: “For the US, freezing or liquidating all Chinese infrastructure and trade initiatives is beneficial, as it undermines China’s economic and political opportunities, destroys its safe rear, and forces resources and funds to be removed from the main, from the American point of view, theatre – the Pacific Ocean.”
For the rest of Asia, Indo-Pacific offers an alternative to the land projects of the Belt and Road. “It is quicker and easier to transport some goods by land and others by sea. If there is a problem with one, the other could compensate. The Indo-Japanese-Indonesian version of the Indo-Pacific and the Belt and Road project could be integrated if both sides are interested and have the political will: both initiatives increase Eurasia’s transport potential.”
That is why Russia should closely monitor the implementation of the Indo-Pacific concept, seeing in it not as a threat, but a chance for itself. “Russia should support the Indo-Japanese-Indonesian view of the Indo-Pacific as a maritime Eurasia to counterweigh the US concept of it as a space for an anti-China alliance. It is necessary to uphold the inclusive character of the Indo-Pacific (probably including renaming the concept the Indo-Asia-Pacific) and to facilitate China’s involvement in it,” Kupriyanov says.
“The Indo-Pacific project gives Moscow leverage with China in Eurasia,” believes Samir Saran, reflecting India’s traditional concern about the close ties between Moscow and Beijing. “Currently, Russia is subservient to China’s economy and, by consequence, its political vision. Moscow should recognize that while China may seek a multipolar world, its vision for Eurasia is unipolar. Russia will only benefit if both the Indo-Pacific and Eurasia are truly multipolar in their power structures.”
In this regard, questions arise regarding the quality of Russia’s relations with India and the ASEAN countries, as key participants in the region being created. This topic was discussed during two important events held by the Valdai Club in 2019: the Russia-India and Russia-Vietnam conferences. The participants have stated that there is a “demand for Russia” both in India and in Southeast Asia, but Russia’s ability to increase its economic and political presence in the region is limited. Moreover, the existing bias towards military technology cooperation (especially in relations with India) may result in the loss of strategic positions in the long run.
Therefore, it is time for Russia to form its own vision of Indo-Pacific and, importantly, bring it to the countries of the region. “A provision to the effect that Russia’s regions in the Far East (Primorye Territory and Kamchatka) are an inalienable part of the Indo-Pacific should play a key role in this respect,” Kupriyanov says.
“These regions should be viewed as gates to the north that can provide access to the wealth of northern Eurasia and the joining of great Eurasian overland routes with the sea routes along its southern coast. They should also be seen as gates to the Arctic, a storehouse of resources. The Far East should be positioned as one of the centers of attraction in the Indo-Pacific, its resource, scientific and, in perspective, also its production base.”
Thus, connecting to the Indo-Pacific project could provide for Russia an addition to its large-scale turn to the East. By providing an alternative to the main sea trade route of Eurasia, Indo-Pacific also fit into the logic of building a Greater Eurasia, as Moscow advocates. Washington’s attempts to “encircle” China run up against the resistance of regional powers that do not want confrontation with Beijing, as well as excessive US influence in Asia. The geostrategic landscape is changing rapidly, and the main thing for Russia is to keep up with these changes, taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/goodbye-pacific-rim-hello-indo-pacific/
Σχετικά με το Eastern Economic Forum-2019, 4-6 Σεπτεμβρίου 2019:
https://forumvostok.ru/en/about-the-forum/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/cultural/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/organizing-committee-reception/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/combat-night/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/sport-programme/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/social-platform/
https://forumvostok.ru/en/programme/partner-events/
-------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250591302
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/afro-eurasiatic_geopolitics_30_8_2019.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_619665631
Rare photos for the Capital of Palestine - Alquds 1920 which is 29 years before the born of the Israeli occupation.
Cosmas Megalommatis, Ra: World Mythology-1989
Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Ρα: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989
Кузьма Мегаломматис, Ра: мировая мифология, Греческая педагогическая энциклопедия, 1989
Kosmas Megalommatis, Re (oder Ra): Weltmythologie, Griechische Pädagogische Enzyklopädie, 1989
Kosmas Gözübüyükoğlu, Ra: Dünya Mitolojisi, Yunan Pedagoji Ansiklopedisi, 1989
قزمان ميغالوماتيس، رع : اساطیر جهانی، دایره المعارف آموزشی یونانی، 1989
Côme Megalommatis, Rê (ou Râ): Mythologie mondiale, Encyclopédie pédagogique grecque, 1989
1989 قزمان ميغالوماتيس، رع : الأساطير العالمية، الموسوعة التربوية اليونانية،
Cosimo Megalommatis, Ra (o Rê oppure Rha): mitologia mondiale, Enciclopedia pedagogica greca, 1989
Cosimo Megalommatis, Ra: mitología mundial, Enciclopedia pedagógica griega, 1989
Cosmas Megalommatis, Ra: World Mythology, Greek Pedagogical Encyclopedia, 1989
--------------------
Скачать PDF-файл: / PDF-Datei herunterladen: / Télécharger le fichier PDF : / PDF dosyasını indirin: / :PDF قم بتنزيل ملف / Download PDF file: / : یک فایل دانلود کنید / Κατεβάστε το PDF:
Mortuary temple of Hatshepshut at Deir el-Bahari.
