- Hello,
First of all, I would like to say that I have read nearly all the postings on this list and many were very interesting. Thanks to those who have written them.
I would like to address a topic which has not been discussed so far on this list I believe, that of the falsification of ancient history (antiquity, middle ages and renaissance). It is directly related to Evola in so far his writings are largely based on various historical accounts and I do not think he ever discussed the topic of systematic falsification of ancient history. I believe it may be strongly related to the struggle between the ghibelline faction and the guelph faction, as you will see as you read my post.
It seems that the topic of the falsification of ancient history has become more « mainstream » over the last few decades as several authors have started investigating and publishing articles and books. It should be noted that there is not one school of thought, though. However, as early as the seventeeth century there were people who claimed that history had been largely falsified.
For example, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote a lot about it, which was published against his will in a book in French called « Abrégé de la chronologie » (1725), published in its full version in 1729 (both are available online in google books). Basing himself on astronomical calculations and the dates of the Greek olympiads, Newton's theory is that about 300 years had to be removed from the chronology. He then rewrote and reinterpreted each event of the antiquity.
Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), a French Jesuit opposed Newton's theory but agreed that history had been largely falsified. A man of considerable learning, Hardouin was librarian at the Collège de Paris. He also worked during 5 years on publishing an excellent edition of Pliny's Natural History, which is still regarded today as the reference edition. He also published an edition of the Catholic councils. It is said that his numerous and lengthy notes in these works contain his revisionist ideas.
Hardouin said that he started scenting fraud in Augustine and his contemporaries in August 1690 and that he discovered the whole extent of the fraud only in May 1692 as he was writing down long extracts from ancient authors. According to him, a gang of forgers (the « impious cabal » as he calls them) started writing most of Christian patristic literature as well as most Greek and Roman books in the thirteenth century. This « impious design », whose utlimate goal was to falsify and « utterly ruin » the Christian religion, was carried out until around the end of the fifteenth century. The first leader of the forgers was Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (who was nicknamed « Severus Archontius ») and Benedictines were heavily involved in the forgery, still according to him. Basing himself on his examination of old coins, Hardouin argued that the Church did not any temporal power before the tenth century. He also argued that pretty much the whole history, as told by Christian sources, of the late and decadent Roman empire was an invention.
Hardouin was ridiculed and persecuted by the temporal power, the Church and the various religious orders including the Jesuits. Most said that he was a madman. His books were banned and he had to find a publisher in Holland. His « Prolegomena to the censorship of ancient authors » were published in the end of his life. A short book of around 180 pages, it sums up his whole theory and contains insightful remarks. I have read it in English and I have translated it into French. I do not know yet if I will simply put it online or publish it. In any case, I will be glad to provide further information on it. A lengthy biography in French written by a fellow Jesuit, Father Marteret, can be found in « Eloges de quelques auteurs françois » (1742) (Available on gallica.fr). Hardouin wrote also on Dante and said that his book « The Divine Comedy » could not have been written in the fourteenth century (available on http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Doutes_propos%C3%A9s_sur_l_age_du_Dante_par.html?id=shtLAAAAcAAJ). An exhaustive bibliography can be found in Sommervogel's book, « Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagne de Jésus » (available on google books). Academic papers were recently written by scholar Anthony Grafton on Hardouin, who also wrote an interesting book on forgery called « Forgers and critics creativity duplicity in Western scholarship ». Interesting documents on Hardouin can be found on www.persee.fr also. Finally, I know that Hardouin disseminated his revisionist ideas in all his works even if they were out of topic. Unfortunately, most of his works are in Latin, including his big book on chronology, and I cannot read them. Other priests (the Benedictine Jean Mabillon and his excellent book on diplomatics, the Fathers Henschen, Paperbroch, etc.) wrote also in Latin and participated in the controversy. From what I understand they went not as far as Hardouin but acknowledged that many documents had been falsified. As far as I know, nobody wrote a detailed study of this controversy which lasted for years. More information on Hardouin here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hardouin
It was English historian Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) who translated Hardouin's prolegomena into English. Johnson wrote a lot also on the falsification of history. I have read his books and according to him the history of Christianity as we know it is entirely made up. He claimed that Christianity sprung up in Italy and that the Bible texts of the New Testament were written first in Latin. He also claimed that English history was entirely fictional (see his book « The Rise of English Culture »). His books can be found online : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Johnson_(historian). Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, an English orientalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forster_Fitzgerald_Arbuthnot), who was a a friend of Johnson, published in 1900 a book on English chronology in the same vein as Johnson's. It is called « Mysteries of chronology » and can be downloaded online (http://archive.org/details/mysteriesofchron00arbuiala).
Wilhelm Kammeier (1889-1959) was a German law official who wrote several books including « Die Fälschung der deutschen Geschichte », « Neue Beweise für die Fälschung der deutschen Geschichte », « Die Warheit über die Geschichte des Spätmittelalters » and « Die Fälschung der Geschichte des Urchistentums ». The first book can be found online but I could not read it because I do not speak German. It would be great if someone untertook the translation of this book. Kammeier's theory is that the Church launched and coordinated a vast and systematic rewriting of world history in the late middle ages. According to him, documents related to the ancient Germanic peoples were destroyed and/or corrupted by the Church. That is why little is known on ancient Germanic peoples today. Germanic peoples, "barbarians", were given a lesser role in history, contrary to Rome, which was given the limelight. I have read, in Fomenko's books I believe, that it was only in national-socialist Germany, in 1934, that he managed to have his books published. He was a soldier in the war and became a teacher in East Germany, after 1945. He thought his findings would be of interest to the East German communist authorities but to no avail, interestingly (because his findings undermined the Catholic Church and communists did not like the Catholic Church to say the least). He was actually persecuted and died in 1959 in misery, ill and with little to eat.
Many more authors, more or less contemporary, have written on the falsification of ancient history. Here is a list : http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/framautorfr.htm
Several works from these authors can be accessed online, so I suggest that you look for their works on the internet. The whole website should be browsed as it contains interesting articles.
Hermann Detering, a contemporary German pastor who is not mentioned on the website given above, maintains a site which contains many resources in several languages : http://www.radikalkritik.de/
As far as I know, he concentrates his studies on early christianism and has read Johnson's books.
François de Sarre, a French zoologist, also has a website : http://initial.bipedalism.pagesperso-orange.fr/. He has written a very interesting book called « Où est donc passé le Moyen-Âge ? » in which he develops his own theory using the findings of other researchers. Also of interest, Pierre Dortiguier, a French professor of philosophy, has given a conference this month on the falsification of ancient history : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqw2aa_pierre-dortiguier-le-recentisme_news?start=1
A personal note on Anatoly Fomenko, perhaps the most « extremist » theoretician of the falsification of ancient history. I think that he may have interesting thoughts but his theory is too far-fetched and eccentric. Also, it is important to understand that authors may be partial. For example, they may be influenced by nationalist thought and seek to favour their country when doing their critique of history.
Overall, I think it is impossible to have definite certainties on the matter given how vast and complicated it is. However, I have become convinced that ancient history has been falsified, but it is difficult to ascertain to what extent, and that the Catholic Church was involved in the falsification. I am also sure that history needs to be shortened and that the Catholic Church is not as old as it is commonly regarded.
More generally, I find it extremely pretentious of historians to assign very precise dates to old events given the actual intricacy of chronology and the extent of falsified documents.
It is important to keep in mind that saying that a text may be falsified does not eliminate its potential metaphysical value. To be more specific, Guénon, Evola and others recognized metaphysical contents in certain ancient texts. It is doubtful that these texts may have been composed by simple forgers. However, they may come from a different time period to what is generally assumed, among other things. - You come to a highly interesting point. Though I've never read anything with relation to this topic, I share your feeling about the falsification of the ancient history. Three fundamental reasons encourage me to think likewise :
- The recognized falsifications throughout the history (not to mention the 'h-word', historians such as Jean Norton Cru successfully debunked claims of "atrocities" during the First World War, sustained by many oral testimonies ; less recently, we know about the famous "donation of Contanstine" - etc, etc). But if I have any knowledge of these forgeries, it is only because authors of the revisionist historical school have mentioned them as examples in their writings, and because there are notably famous. If we take that into account, we can imagine how many falsifications may remain unknown, in less mediatic, more consensual fields of study.
- The fact that we live during the age of Kali-Yuga, one of whose attributes is the confusion of ideas. We know that it is true with relation to spiritual issues, and we can logically conclude that it is true for the knowledge of historical facts too.
- During eras like Middle Age, the number of those who could write, read and check the authenticity of the various assertions was so little, and interactions between such people were so unlikely, that many falsifications probably occured.
By the way, the mere fact that the majority of our contemporaries unquestioningly worship the commonly accepted chronology and list of historical events is sufficient to arouse my mistrust.
I would like to ask two questions to tlefranc10 (and the other members) :
1) Might you know any work by Evola or other authors about the falsification of human prehistory (I'm not talking about refutations of the theory of evolution) ? Indeed, symbolically speaking, the idea that our ancestors were dirty, lived in caves in the middle of their dejections, is a strong suggesting idea in favour of progressivism.
2)While I was discussing similar issues on a French forum, one said that recentists believe that the wall of Hadrian was built to protect human from dinosaurs... Does anybody know if any author effectively support a such thesis ? Was it what you wanted to refer to when you spoke about Fomenko's "extremism" ?
- The mentioned books of W. Kammeier are available online at http://reichsarchiv.com/Buecher/01_Bis_1945/01_Bis_1945.php
Also, in English there's the work of Michael A. Cremo on so-called 'forbidden archeology' and 'human devolution'.
This topic reminds me of the 'genre' of literary revisionism on ancient Greek and Roman authors, or W. Shakespeare for that matter, which I haven't looked into yet.
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
From: emmanuelparapine@...
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 21:09:07 +0000
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Falsification of ancient historyYou come to a highly interesting point. Though I've never read anything with relation to this topic, I share your feeling about the falsification of the ancient history. Three fundamental reasons encourage me to think likewise :
- The recognized falsifications throughout the history (not to mention the 'h-word', historians such as Jean Norton Cru successfully debunked claims of "atrocities" during the First World War, sustained by many oral testimonies ; less recently, we know about the famous "donation of Contanstine" - etc, etc). But if I have any knowledge of these forgeries, it is only because authors of the revisionist historical school have mentioned them as examples in their writings, and because there are notably famous. If we take that into account, we can imagine how many falsifications may remain unknown, in less mediatic, more consensual fields of study.
- The fact that we live during the age of Kali-Yuga, one of whose attributes is the confusion of ideas. We know that it is true with relation to spiritual issues, and we can logically conclude that it is true for the knowledge of historical facts too.
- During eras like Middle Age, the number of those who could write, read and check the authenticity of the various assertions was so little, and interactions between such people were so unlikely, that many falsifications probably occured.
By the way, the mere fact that the majority of our contemporaries unquestioningly worship the commonly accepted chronology and list of historical events is sufficient to arouse my mistrust.
I would like to ask two questions to tlefranc10 (and the other members) :
1) Might you know any work by Evola or other authors about the falsification of human prehistory (I'm not talking about refutations of the theory of evolution) ? Indeed, symbolically speaking, the idea that our ancestors were dirty, lived in caves in the middle of their dejections, is a strong suggesting idea in favour of progressivism.
2)While I was discussing similar issues on a French forum, one said that recentists believe that the wall of Hadrian was built to protect human from dinosaurs... Does anybody know if any author effectively support a such thesis ? Was it what you wanted to refer to when you spoke about Fomenko's "extremism" ?
- Mention was actually made of Recentism in passing in message 1329 in relation to the Protocols controversy, which, at that time, did not arouse any interest.
We are thus grateful to you for presenting such a topic, such a crucial and, as you point out, vast topic - which is closely linked to the concept of parody, and which we never loose sight of when dealing with facts and events universally held to be historical - in so concise, so global a manner, to those who are completely unfamiliar with it.
We fully agree with your assessment of both Recentism as a historical view as such and of the possible agenda of some of its main contemporary proponents, such as Fomenko. Even as far as its pioneer is concerned, it is not quite clear on what grounds he claimed that the ultimate goal of that "impious cabal" was to falsify and "utterly ruin" the Christian religion, insofar as even proven historical forgeries, which were concocted by ecclesiastics, contributed largely to advance the vested interests and the power and control of this religion over the souls and hearts and savings.
Getting back to contemporary Recentists, to cite but one of these, the ulterior motives behind http://revisedhistory.org/ are plain enough. However, the fact remains that, whether or not Dante's work is a late forgery, as is claimed and rather convincingly proved at http://revisedhistory.org/dante.htm, Dante's 'Gelasian' views cannot be taken as a point of reference by the racial bearers of the European tradition. Likewise, so-called 'Black Suprematists (see, for example, http://emperornatie.blogspot.fr/2011/07/black-freising-koning-and-british.html) are not aware of the extent to which their findings prove the point of present consistent White racists.
We merely add for now that historical forgeries, which are widespread in fields such archaeology, too, were greatly facilitated by the advent of the printed book and by the superstitious belief in the intrinsic truth of the written word that was introduced precisely by the religion(s) of the Book. As early as the early 1900's, it did not escape the notice of some non romantic German scholars that concepts universally assumed to be intrinsically Nordic such as the ragnarök's and the valhalla's reek of Judeo-Christian apocalyptic literature.
- "A school teacher working in Hannover, Kammeier researched since 1923 the German History. In his first book, written in 1926 but only published in 1935, he could show that all diplomas and manuscripts of the Middel Ages are faked. He bases his arguments on a detailed analysis of all known copies and discovers that we never can lay our hand on originals, nor on direct copies of those but only on second or third-hand copies which differ always in certain points... and that seems to be intended. Most of the diplomas mention several dates, but those can never brought into concordance, which is highly suspect.
Kammeiers third work, published first as a series of articles and compiled in 1982, showed that the evolution of Christianity cannot have taken place in the way we are told. His work was not recognized by the contemporary scholars and he died in extreme poverty in Thuringia, Germany. It was not until the 1990s, when his books became an important fundament for the critics of chronology." "http://www.ilya.it/chrono/enpages/weristwer.html
It is quite significant that, while his first book was published in National-Socialist Germany, which welcomed research such as his, "as soon as he had offered his critique of early Christian documents to the historians of the German Democratic Republic,", where he lived in the post-war years, after he was taken prisoner by the Red Army, "he became a victim of repressions: he lost his job, the manuscript of his book ([g11]) was confiscated and had been presumed lost for a long time ; his estate was nationalised, and his family forced to dwell in hunger and poverty." (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Wilhelm-Kammeier), thus meeting the same fate as other post-war revisionist historians' (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Wilhelm-Kammeier was written by someone who seems to be an expert on the subject ; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Franck_Ver_Stut ; sadly, his blog - http://new-chronology.blogspot.fr/ - has not been updated for years)
A VBR M3U file of 'Die Fälschung der deutschen Geschichte' (The falsification of German History')is available at http://archive.org/details/WilhelmKammeier-DieFaelschungDerDeutschenGeschichteTeil1
- We fully agree with tlefranc10, with whom we have exchanged a few messages off forum, in considering Fomenko's views as "extremist" on the following grounds :
- a poorly substantiated claim that Rome, Troy and Jerusalem were actually one and the same place in ancient texts.
- the scapegoating of Scaliger and Petavius as the only responsible for the falsification of historical chronology.
- the application of mere statistical methods to the analysis of historical narrative texts.
- a die-hard Russo-centric viewpoint, and, as a result, a lack of coherent global view of the subject, a mosaic of disconnected results. The rationale behind the falsification of history does not even seem to be of interest to Fomenko, even though he pays tribute in 'History : Fiction Or Science ?', Vol. 2 to historians who, as Krammeier, wondered about it.
Fomenko's work's achievements and failures, strengths and drawbacks, are well identified in this study :
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1222&context=theses&type=additional&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.fr%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522fomenko%2522%2Bcriticism%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CGEQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fro.uow.edu.au%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Ffilename%253D0%2526article%253D1222%2526context%253Dtheses%2526type%253Dadditional%26ei%3DVt_AT4TUMYeP0AW_6-G4Cg%26usg%3DAFQjCNGoTqUcU5TNsr707B6gLquteXzOMw#search=%22fomenko%20criticism%22
In any case, it is important to bear in mind that what is now called "Recentism" is not a spontaneous generation ; so-called official history has been a subject of dispute or controversy, a matter for investigation, ever since it was artificially established. In other words, "Recentism' is not new.
- Hello,
I do not know any works which deal specifically with falsifications of pre-history. However, writings which constitute effective refutations of the theory of evolution, such as that Evola published in Krur in 1929 under the title "'Origin of species' according to esotericism", render automatically everything which is taught today about pre-history false. Michael Cremo's books and videos are good but may not be what you are looking for.
I do not know who claimed that the Hadrian wall was used as a barrier against dinosaurs but this looks to be a try to deride a serious topic and thus discourage people from studying it. The tactic of parody has been already mentioned.
As recentism becomes more mainstream, it is paramount to know the hidden motives that researchers may have, which automatically affect their writings. The fact that they go against official history does not mean that people who do not trust it should automatically believe everything they say.
- I have also come to the conclusion that many "European" rulers of the last few centuries had more or less non-European blood. On this, I have found of particular interest the following book: "L'hérédité des stigmates de dégénérescence et les familles souveraines" (http://archive.org/details/lhrditdesstigma00boucgoog) by Dr Victor Galippe. Its main purpose is to demonstrate successfully that most members of the European royal families from the fourteenth century onwards had grave degenerative physical and mental traits. However, any person with some knowledge on races will notice, through the numerous portraits most of them being complaisant, arranged portraits, it should be remembered reproduced in the book, the various non-European features the members of the royal families had.
While race changes in old times (Antiquity and before) have been studied by a few researchers and various hypotheses have been proposed, there are big uncertainties on race changes in more recent times, such as in the middle ages, the period during which most "recentists" claim that the falsification of history was started.
In an essay entitled "Evolution anthropologique de la population de la France" (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6815z.image.f1.langFR), George de Lapouge said that he detected a great race change during the middle ages in France but he was unable to give an explanation for it: "Le Moyen-Age a été une époque très belliqueuse: cependant le grand accroissement de la richesse et de la population jusqu'à la veille de la guerre de Cent ans montre que les pertes étaient promptement et amplement réparées. Certes l'état des choses n'était pas parfait, mais jamais, même sous la paix romaine, le pays n'avait connu une pareille prospérité et de si rapides progrès. L'émigration était faible, l'immigration purement individuelle et presque négligeable. L'institution du servage limitait beaucoup les déplacements intérieurs de population. Il ne semble pas y avoir jamais eu un temps où la population ait été plus stable. C'est cependant à cette époque que commence la plus remarquable transformation que l'on connaisse. L'élément brachycéphale qui, pour des raisons inconnues, commence à se multiplier dans des proportions si grandes, est notre Alpinus contemporain."
- Many noteworthy messages with links to crucial works have been sent and gladly posted on evola_as_he_is for two weeks or so, noteworthy messages and crucial works which need time to be read and absorbed, all the more so as not every member can read German fluently.
We do not want to overwhelm members with essential readings, but since the issue of 'evolutionism', a matter related both to historical revisionism and to polygenism, has been brought up in relation to J. Evola's criticism of the theory of evolution, we would still like to draw their attention to http://www.articlesafari.com/2011/05/apes-descended-from-humans/, an article which was pointed out to us by V. Avdeyev, who happens to be writing a summa on polygenism, and who also referred us to 'Adam's Ancestors : Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins', by David N. Livingstone ( http://books.google.fr/books?id=1LhkVM1I-2EC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false)
- Here is another book worth reading: Dissertation sur le culte des saints inconnus (Dissertation on the cult of unknown saints) (http://books.google.fr/books/about/Dissertation_sur_le_culte_des_saints_inc.html?id=mIxbAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y) by monk and scholar Jean Mabillon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Mabillon). It is an answer to a series of questions asked by Jean Hardouin (under the nickname of Théophile François), a character already mentioned in this thread.
In this book, Mabillon questions the historical veracity of the unknown saints, i.e. those remains which have been found in the catacombs of Rome. He argues that it is impossible to know whether these remains are those of christians and, basing himself on the inscriptions on the tombs and other elements, he thinks most of these remains are of pagans. The Church of Rome "manufactured" dozens of saints and martyrs with these remains. Mabillon mentions the astounding process the Church of Rome would use: it would extract a corpse and simply, arbitrarily, give a name to it, although absolutely no information was available on the chosen corpses. Each corpse would then be branded as a saint or a martyr, or both. Needless to say that, with this book, Mabillon brought on himself the wrath of the monastic orders.
This book gives us materials to further question the official history of the Church of Rome and, more largely, the official chronology.
In "Lucifer's Court" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/68217996/OTTO-RAHN-Lucifer-s-Court-a-Heretic-s-Journey-in-Search-of-the-Light-Bringers), Otto Rahn gives the incredible story of the remains of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_Hungary). This is the kind of story that will convince you that christian relics should be regarded as potentially spurious. - Similar explorations on Jewry in the ancient world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvG39ibZEWk&feature=relmfu
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7125820M/The_Jews_among_the_Greeks_and_Romans.
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
From: evola_as_he_is@...
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 17:54:35 +0000
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Falsification of ancient historyMany noteworthy messages with links to crucial works have been sent and gladly posted on evola_as_he_is for two weeks or so, noteworthy messages and crucial works which need time to be read and absorbed, all the more so as not every member can read German fluently.
We do not want to overwhelm members with essential readings, but since the issue of 'evolutionism', a matter related both to historical revisionism and to polygenism, has been brought up in relation to J. Evola's criticism of the theory of evolution, we would still like to draw their attention to http://www.articlesafari.com/2011/05/apes-descended-from-humans/, an article which was pointed out to us by V. Avdeyev, who happens to be writing a summa on polygenism, and who also referred us to 'Adam's Ancestors : Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins', by David N. Livingstone ( http://books.google.fr/books?id=1LhkVM1I-2EC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false)
L. A. Waddell (1854-1938) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Waddell) was a British philologist and archeologist whose numerous books contain a wealth of information, which can hardly be found elsewhere, on ancient Aryan civilizations. Today, he is a highly suppressed author, despite his vast knowledge, because, among other things, he adopts a racial reading of history in his books. His main one is « The makers of civilization in race & history » (http://www.mediafire.com/?1qzyijuxwnu) in which he strives to prove that the Sumerian civilization, of an Aryan type, gave birth to several other Aryan civilizations including the Indian, the Egyptian and the British.
His work, although certainly not perfect, is particularly relevant to the subject of falsification of history because it destroys many lies of today. I am thinking, for example, of the afrocentrists of the last few decades who have been claiming that the pharaohs were black. Waddell refutes this thesis. However, according to Waddell, falsification of ancient history, intended or not, was already well advanced in the nineteenth century: Aryan groups, genealogical lines and names were said to be Semitic or of Semitic origin by biased historians, he says.
I said that his work was not perfect. A brief critique can be read in message #720. I would add that Waddell gives too much importance to the Sumerian civlization, so much that he does not not seem to be aware that the Sumerian civilization evolved out of previous civilizations and that other Aryan groups were present at that time.
- Another work that I believe has not been mentioned before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Troy_Once_Stood
http://www.troy-in-england.com/.
- Here is an update, mostly on Wilhelm Kammeier, whose books may well contain "explosive" information and ideas on how to reinterpret history:
-His works which were republished in the nineties can be found there: http://fr.scribd.com/Sunny0815/documents; It is much more easier to read than the gothic font of the 1930s
-A scholarly study on him was published twenty years ago: http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a0808556.pdf
-The text there: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Wilhelm-Kammeier is only copied and pasted from Fomenko's works
-The biography published in Fomenko books contains a few minor mistakes; for example, Kammeier was never a notary; he was a school teacher by training and was a primary school teacher since 1912
-I have already written a 6-page biography and introduction to his thought, based on all the available publications, and plan to translate a few parts of his books
-However, I have yet to read all his lengthy work (I barely read German besides); so, if someone reads his books, do not hesitate to let us know what you have learnt! - I knew I had forgotten something:
-A book, very hard to find, by Robert Baldauf, another "recentist", has been kindly put online by a member of http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de; it can be downloaded there: http://rapidshare.com/files/1796052455/Baldauf.rar; again, if someone reads it, please share your impressions
-As very little is known on Robert Baldauf, almost as if this man had never existed, some, at http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=152&func=view&catid=16&id=7447, have cleverly suggested "Robert Baldauf" was a pseudonym of Nietzsche; this is only a wild supposition but could Nietzsche's depression and madness have been caused by the conviction Antiquity, of which he cherished many aspects, had been falsified?
- http://fr.scribd.com/Sunny0815/documents leads to a page where a link (http://www.scribd.com/doc/46816156/Wilhelm-Kammeier-Die-Faelschung-Der-Deutschen-Geschichte-1935-308-S-Scan-Fraktur
)can be found to the original edition of Die Faelschung Der Deutschen Geschichte (The Falsification of German history), which was published in so-called `Gothic' font ; we say `so-called' because the term was first used to describe this script in 15th-century Italy, a script which remained in use in Germany until the 1940's.
It was published in `Roman' font at
http://siriusnetwork.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ebuch-deutsch-wilhelm-kammeier-die-fc3a4lschung-der-deutschen-geschichte-band-1.pdf It was written in plain language. It should be noted that the author is not a `free electron', since his critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography relies to a large extent on earlier revisionist sources.
https://rapidshare.com/#!download|584p1|1796052455|Baldauf.rar|32339|0|0|Download permission denied by uploader. (0b67c2f5)
- You can find the three volumes of Kammeier's complete works, republished in the nineties, at the link I have indicated. More precisely:
Volume 1: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/46816070/Kammeier-Wilhelm-Die-Falschung-Der-Deutschen-Geschichte-Band-1
Volume 2: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/46948068/Kammeier-Wilhelm-Der-Zweite-Gro%C3%9Fe-Angriff
Volume 3: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/46733103/Kammeier-Wilhelm-Die-Falschung-der-Geschichte-des-Urchristentums
Sorry for the faulty rapidshare links. Try this one for Baldauf's book: http://www.mediafire.com/?lnobkj3m44kkjq8
- Uwe Topper, has he been mentioned yet?
http://www.newchronology.eu
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46673367/Geschichte-Chronologiekritik-Topper-Uwe-Kalendersprung-Falsche-Geschichtsschreibung-Bestimmt-Die-Zukunft
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46672974/Geschichte-Chronologiekritik-Topper-Uwe-Die-GROSSE-AKTION-Europas-Erfundene-Geschichte
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
From: tlefranc10@...
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:38:25 +0000
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Falsification of ancient history
You can find the three volumes of Kammeier's complete works, republished in the nineties, at the link I have indicated. More precisely:
Volume 1: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/46816070/Kammeier-Wilhelm-Die-Falschung-Der-Deutschen-Geschichte-Band-1
Volume 2: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/46948068/Kammeier-Wilhelm-Der-Zweite-Gro%C3%9Fe-Angriff
Volume 3: http://fr.scribd.com/doc/46733103/Kammeier-Wilhelm-Die-Falschung-der-Geschichte-des-Urchristentums
Sorry for the faulty rapidshare links. Try this one for Baldauf's book: http://www.mediafire.com/?lnobkj3m44kkjq8
- Could "Gothic" font, like "Gothic" cathedrals, be of Semitic origin? Has someone noticed how similar in their shape its letters are compared to the hebrew alphabet?
http://i31.servimg.com/u/f31/15/11/93/67/kaph10.jpg
http://perlbal.hi-pi.com/blog-images/249807/gd/1208625471/Lettres-de-l-alphabet-Gothique.jpg
http://www.kazeo.com/sites/fr/photos/172/histoire-des-lettres-hebraiques_1724570-L.jpg
http://lettres.tice.ac-orleans-tours.fr/php5/pedag/chev-lion/images/alph/alph1.gif
- It is probable that Gothic characters are of non-European origin perhaps not of Jewish origins specifically, however.
Revisionist historian Edwin Johnson, who has already been discussed in this thread, seemed to think that Gothic characters had a dubious origin, although, to the best of my knowledge, he did not elaborate on this subject.
He dwelt more on the questions of the cathedrals and, more generally, of the real origins of Gothic architecture. His opinion on this subject is final: Gothic architecture is of Arabic/Islamic inspiration. He supported this claim mainly in the book "The Rise of English Culture" and the paper "Gothic and Saracen Architecture" (from page 656 of this review: http://archive.org/details/westminsterrevi01unkngoog).
This paper is particularly interesting and should be read. To be fully understood, it is necessary to know that Johnson argued that Islam came first, then Judaism and, finally, Christianity. In this paper, Johnson relies heavily upon Christopher Wren, who said that Gothic architecture should be considered as "Saracen architecture refined by the Christians" and an importation of the "crusades". Interestingly, according to Wren, "gothic" was a pejorative term for the men of the seventeenth century as is "barbarian" today. Johnson also discusses the origins of the first freemasons.
Johnson believed that cathedrals were not as old as official history has it perhaps that they were built from the fourteenth century on. He touched upon this in his book "The Pauline Epistles". I have been critically studying the origins of the cathedrals and I would tend to agree with him monastic tales of cathedrals being built in Germany and Europe at the time of Constantine and during the "dark" centuries seem to be fabulous to a large extent. However, perhaps Johnson was not bold enough in his thinking: cathedrals, as we can see them today, may be much more recent. I have been studying the cathedral of Cologne in particular, in order to go further than Fomenko who studied this cathedral, and this is what would appear. I will write more on this in the future I need to read a few more books before I can be certain of what I say.
For those who read French, the books of architect and historian Daniel Ramée (1806 1887) could prove very interesting (http://www.inha.fr/IMG/article_PDF/article_a2505.pdf). A racialist and aryanist heavily influenced by Gobineau's works, he wrote an enormous book on the history of architecture, which contain perhaps interesting thoughts on Gothic architecture. Foreshadowing Alfred Rosenberg, he had a profound anti-Christianity stance and wrote a very interesting book, "Action de Jésus sur le monde", explaining how Christianity negatively impacted the European peoples. "Théologie cosmogonique ou reconstitution de l'ancienne et primitive loi" is of the same vein, except it dwells more on the Aryan worldview. It contains a few things fanciful, however. All these books can be downloaded online.
- To your insighful considerations we would add that, as previously mentioned, the term Gothic was coined by classicising Italian writers of the Renaissance, who are thought to have attributed the invention of medieval architecture, and of the related script, to Gothic tribes.
"Gothic" architecture is said to have been originally called "ars francorum", but, to our knowledge, this claim has not been substantiated by contemporary sources.
While reading an old book on the Cologne cathedral, I came across this fact which seems to be substantiated by an old document: in 1263, the abbot of Wimpfen im Tal wanted his church "rebuilt". He commissioned an architect from the "city of Paris, in Frankish country" to do the job and stipulated the monument should be built "opere francigeno". This is the church in question: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wimpfen-stiftskirche-edit.jpg The "Gothic" style is very apparent. There is more information on google ; type "opere francigeno".
This is only one document, perhaps falsified, which should not be considered decisive, however.
The claim that "Gothic" architecture originated in France created a lot of controversy in the nineteenth century, especially between France and Germany. The latter, after winning the Napoleonic wars, was becoming a nation state with a vivid sense of patriotism and could not stand the idea that "Gothic" style, supposedly, had originated in France. As a consequence, nineteenth century French and German publications on this subject often contain patriotic interferences.- Thank you for your enlightening comment.
From a spiritual viewpoint, it is obvious that "Gothic" cathedrals are from Semitic origin. Their architecture is tortuous, "occult", complex (we can imagine the extensive use of semitic mathematics which is behind), murky, asymmetric, all in refinements and curves, cerebral. An architecture opposed to the Aryan one which is frank,
transparent, simple/mere/plain, luminous, symmetric, without frills and with little curves but mainly straight lines, not cerebral, clear, angular.
It is interesting to note that Asian architectures are based in large part on curves (and thus on characteristics of the female body) while Aryan architecture is based on straight lines and angles (and thus on characteristics of the male body). So, Asian and Aryan architectures are the materialization of their spirit, the first a feminine spirit, the second a virile spirit.
Before to discuss the architectures based on feminine curves, a rather complex matter, we have to remember the ancient passage from the forest to the temple, especially in the German range. Even if “natural”, a forest is not like a cavern, or another underground womb: it grows under the sun in the open air.
As Seneca said: “If you meet with a wood composed by very tall trees, whom the time gave an impression almost sacred, then his elevation, the shade and the silence
reigning, persuade you that a god is living over there”.
Our owner could say more, if this is of use.
Da: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] Per conto di rouesolaire
Inviato: sabato 2 febbraio 2013 18:34
A: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Falsification of ancient historyThank you for your enlightening comment.
From a spiritual viewpoint, it is obvious that "Gothic" cathedrals are from Semitic origin. Their architecture is tortuous, "occult", complex (we can imagine the extensive use of semitic mathematics which is behind), murky, asymmetric, all in refinements and curves, cerebral. An architecture opposed to the Aryan one which is frank,
transparent, simple/mere/plain, luminous, symmetric, without frills and with little curves but mainly straight lines, not cerebral, clear, angular.
It is interesting to note that Asian architectures are based in large part on curves (and thus on characteristics of the female body) while Aryan architecture is based on straight lines and angles (and thus on characteristics of the male body). So, Asian and Aryan architectures are the materialization of their spirit, the first a feminine spirit, the second a virile spirit.- We believe you are referring to some considerations we once made on the origin of Roman architecture, and, more generally in this respect, on the "Forest and the Temple" issue, two elements which are not as antithetic as some romantics assumed them to be. Please remind us of its relevance to the matter at hand.
Round shapes are surely found in ancient Greek architecture. Such is the case of the tholos (`rotunda'), a model associated with both cultic and civic architecture. The prytaneum, which could be found in every Greek city, was precisely round-shaped, "and the hearth sacred to the city was placed under the centre of the vault, in the same way that the foyer of Delphi foyer common to all the Greeks was under the summit of the heavenly vault (Dictionnaire des Antiquités). The Prytaneum was the civic hall, the pole of the city life, and here, on the focus of the town, was kept alight the undying fire of Hestia ; for just as the family life centred around the hearth, so political life surrounded the city hearth, from which colonists going from the mother town took of the sacred central fire to establish their own prytaneum ; and if in after time it ceased to burn, the metropolis was again the source of new fire." (R. Lethaby, Architecture, Mysticism And Myth, p. 81-82) In the sacred precincts of Delphi was located the Tholos `rotunda', sacred to Athena. The sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros (ca. 360-330 BCE), housing a labyrinthine crypt beneath the floor, that may have represented the tomb of Asklepios (R. Rehm, The Play of Space : Spatial Transformation in Greek Tragedy, p. 41), is also well-known for its tholos.
Round buildings surely entered Roman architecture : the temple of Vesta, the Roman equivalent to Hestia, was circular ; all temples to Vesta were round ; the temple in the Forum Boarium is also round. They entered it from Greece. The type emerged in the so-called Geometric period (ca. 900 to 700 BCE), named so for the abstract ornamentation which appeared on vessels, with its composite, and actually Klimt-like, monsters, that had been extremely popular in the Near East and in Egypt for some time. The circular shape of the roof " inspired the designation skias (umbrella or canopy [or parasol]) for the tholos in the Athenian Agora" (The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1, p. 52)
At this point, however, it should be stressed that none of these roofs have come down to us, and that their shape, supposedly round and pointed, is inferred from this designation (skias). It is speculated (see, for example, S. E. Alcock, R. Osborne that Classical Archaeology, p. 361 this book gives an interesting insight on the Eastern influences on ancient Greece) that this shape was modelled on Achaemenids' tents, a royal dynasty of ancient Persia, named after its legendary founder Achaemenes, who is thought to have originated in the area which is now known as Azerbaijan. Another theory, which is not in contradiction with the former, is that it was modelled on an object which was considered as a symbol of sovereignty among Achaemenids : the parasol, which is invariably depicted throning above the head of their sovereigns on their monuments.
The bottom line, however, is that in ancient Greece "round buildings were extremely rare in the period before the Athenian prytaneum was built. There were, of course, round buildings, but they were always surrounded by stoas - something that is certainly not the case with the tholos. » (http://www.livius.org/ia-in/influence/influence04.html)
That, in all areas, feminine forms and shapes have the upper hand in intrinsically matriarchal civilisations ; that, within the hierarchical and organic order proper to intrinsically patriarchal cultures, there is a place for feminine forms and shapes, is in the scheme of things. Chaos finds its way in the latter as soon as forces of a corrosive and feminine nature, though human vectors, are `allowed' to exert some influence outside their own sphere. The rise of the round-shaped roof in ancient Greece is itself a symptom of an infiltration of alien elements.
The dome-shaped rooftop many mosques are decorated with must be, together with the dome of many Eastern Orthodox churches, the closest thing to the stylised representation of a breast in architecture. Contrary to the `Gothic' mode, in which everything is sharp and pointed, the firm flabbiness of the dome of an Orthodox church or of a mosque is somehow reminiscent of the erg.
- I have recently discovered two nineteenth century authors who also questioned the authenticity of some "ancient books": the Frenchman Polydore Hochart and the Englishman John Wilson Ross. The latter focused on the writings attributed to "Tacitus" and questioned their origins (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ross,_John_Wilson_(DNB00) ; http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9098/pg9098.html), while the former not only questioned "Tacitus"' writings but also the history of early Christianity (http://archive.org/details/delauthenticitd00hochgoog ; http://archive.org/details/tudesausujetdel00hochgoog). He argued that the story of the persecution of the early Christians had been largely made up in later times.
It is needless to say that most historians have dismissed their writings as "hypercritical", while they actually are very well researched. I have only read the beginning of Hochart's book so far and have found several answers to questions that people such as Fomenko and Johnson asked. For example, it appears that most monks copied books both as a pastime and as a way to earn money from the sale of the books. Hochart also questioned the fact that monks, such "rough" individuals, had preserved ancient literature in their so-called "libraries" which most of them, it appears, were nothing more than a small collection of Christian books.
- I am writing to give a brief summary of Hochart's book on Tacitus which, I have just found out, was quickly mentioned by Fomenko in his first volume. However, as usual with him, he only used the author's conclusions to support his own theories, which he actually does not really explain: while Hochart argues that Tacitus' Annals and Histories were entirely composed by a fifteenth-century humanist, Fomenko only states that he "deems the Histories by Tacitus to be an edited original - that is, a partial forgery and not a complete one" and "the events related in the Histories have been misdated and transposed far back in time." No further explanation is given.
The humanist who is held responsible for forging the two Tacitus books is Poggio Bracciolini (ca. 1380 ca. 1460), an ambivalent man who had a genuine admiration for Ancient Rome he was learned but who was also cunning, amoral and whose love of sensual pleasures demanded large sums of money. As his position as papal secretary did not bring enough money and fame to him, he created a book copying business, thanks to which he had under his orders an army of skilled scribes he boasted he had himself trained. He also "specialized" in "finding" and buying "old manuscripts", which supposedly came from monasteries located in such remote places as "the dark forests of Germany" and "small Danish islands". The two Tacitus manuscripts have such dubious origins (supposedly, one manuscript came from the Benedictine monastery of Hersfeld). These books were sold for a large sum of money to royal families or rich prelates, when they were not rejected as fakes. Hochart has found out that many papal dignitaries (e.g. Tomaso de Sarzana who became a pope, archbishop Perotti, etc.) learned men (e.g. Filelfo, Valla, Aurispa, Guarino, Biondo Flavio, Leonardo Giustiniani, Cosimo de Cremone, etc.) and Jews (e.g. Henoch and David d'Ascoli) were involved in that lucrative business.
In the second part, Hochart explains why the two manuscripts cannot be authentic. He carefully analyses both the outer appearance of the manuscripts and their contents. I will simply mention a argument I found interesting: Tacitus, in the Annals and Histories when he dwells so much on trivial and base facts, does not show the the solemnitas and the gravitas expected of such a Roman historian. The author, in the last part, further deconstructs the Annals and the Histories and demonstrates that Poggio is in all likelihood the author.
- I have been doing some research on "Shakespeare" for a text I am writing and , to my surprise, I have found that many voices have been claiming for two centuries that the man did not exist and that all the texts attributed to "Shakespeare" had been actually written by Francis Bacon or a group with unknown members or somebody else. There are several theories. Just type "Shakespeare truth" in a search engine. For example, this text does not seem extravagant: http://whowasshakespeare.com/Does someone here have an idea on this matter? From an occult war standpoint, what have been the negative consequences of "Shakespeare"'s works? It is needless to remind that "Shakespeare" has been given the title of "founder of the English language" and has been widely studied by generations of students. I know that many characters in "Shakespeare"'s texts are not examples to be followed. Thanks.
- The thorny of question of who - or rather, what, we should say - was behind the works attributed to "Shakespeare" has divided the scholars for centuries, and continues to do so, but chiefly for reasons which have little to do with the central preoccupations of this group.
There is no question that the works of Shakespeare have been used to disseminate ideas, rather than merely presenting themselves as the expression of the ideas of an age or of one man.
One work worth looking at, for a number of reasons, is that of Martin Lings, one-time secretary of R. Guénon and like him, a convert to Islam. This book has been republished under a variety of names, no doubt for marketing reasons: "The Secret of Shakespeare", and so on. It derives from a series of annual conferences on Shakespeare's plays. Yet Lings, the wily old fox, resisted the temptation to explicitly state his central thesis until shortly before his recent death:
"“We know what we are, but know not what we may become,” observed Shakespeare, who no doubt knew not that four hundred years after his death, he himself would be proclaimed a Sufi Muslim. “Shakespeare would have delighted in Sufism,” said the Islamic scholar Martin Lings, himself a Sufi Muslim who also goes by the name Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din. “We can see he obviously knew a lot about some kind of equivalent sect or order.”" [ http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10805 ]
The "negative consequences" can easily be deduced from the foregoing statement.
Moreover, to say that many characters in the Shakespearian canon are not examples to emulate is an understatement, yet we ought to take into account the theatrical device of the "foil" - deliberately contrasting one character with another. - Thank you for your answer and for pointing to Martin Lings, whose book or at least parts of it happens to be readable on the internet: http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=The_Secret_of_Shakespeare_part_1_by_Martin_Lings.pdf and http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=The_Secret_of_Shakespeare_part_2_by_Martin_Lings.pdf and http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=The_Secret_of_Shakespeare_part_3_by_Martin_Lings.pdfI do not know if this question has been posed: could some secret Islamic groups or individuals have played a subversive role behind the scene in the "West" in the last few centuries? This is perhaps the case of Guénon himself but could it have happened before the twentieth century, during the "Renaissance" and even the "Middle Ages"? Regarding Guénon, nowadays only three different yet how similar in their core nature groups "claim ownership" of him: Islamic, Christian fundamentalist/Gnostics and Masonic groups.For what they are worth, below are two interesting quotations from historian Edwin Johnson on "Shakespeare", taken from his book "The Rise of English Culture", a most revisionist and anti-Church writing, whose core thesis is that the Church, along with a part of the nobility, enslaved England for centuries, first by the sword and, then, from the end of the fifteenth century on, when the sword began to be not enough, with literary falsification in order to make good in literature the position that they had had, i. e. "to organize men in the service of interested fable"."The studious reader will gather from this volume that the Period of the Tudors was not only a time of severe repression but also a time when free speech was impossible. Able men could only dissemble and speak in allegory. The plays of Shakespeare and other writers are doubtless a reflection of the period; the names but a disguise - the playwriters merely the spokesmen of those who would have been sent to the Tower and the Block if they had expressed their opinions openly.""Hayward, writing about the same time, continues to beg the critical question, and to write Histories of English kings in the dramatic spirit of Livy. Sir Richard Baker (1568-1645) in his Chronicles offers us a most entertaining narrative, distinguished by its fine vigorous English style. Baker is a good classical scholar, but critical habits are foreign to his mind. His sources are, as usual, chiefly, Benedictine, Gildas, and the rest. But at last it appears that Brute and his creator have had their day? A distaste for Geoffrey of Monmouth has set in; for it is no distaste for incredible stories, as such, that induces the denial of Brute. Baker is full of curious tales, which he either relishes himself or serves up for the delectation of the prototypes of Sir Roger de Coverley. And while he is full of vulgar wonder, he is indifferent towards objects that may well excite intelligent wonder; that is, the great intellectual achievement of his own time. It is impossible to read without a smile his account of the great men who flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. After a list of names that have now become obscure or forgotten, he mentions the actors Alleyne and Burbage with high praise. But the mere playwrights Benjamin Jonson and William Shakespeare receive a cold compliment at the end of his list. Whenever the legend of Shakespeare shall be thoroughly examined, this passage should receive more special attention."The question of the identity of "Shakespeare" is not entirely devoid of interest because it remains a falsification, which can be enlightening on other "non artistic", graver falsifications.
We are glad to introduce http://critiquehistorique.blogspot.com – a new platform which will provide materials so an effective, non-parodical critique of History can be done. It will deal with three historical periods: “Antiquity”, the “Middle-Ages” and the “Renaissance”.
Various types of documents will be published: studies, shorter texts, passages and translations from relevant books, links to interesting media, etc. Several languages will be used, French and English in particular. Readers can contribute by sending a commentary or a document which may be published (administrator’s email address: tlefranc10@...).
This website does not follow any school of thought and we do not say that we hold “the” truth. As such, the editorial policy is open. We will simply avoid publishing parodic theses.
- No mention of "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?" has yet been made. The book is available at http://fr.scribd.com/doc/23310573/The-Jesus-Mysteries-Was-the-Original-Jesus-a-Pagan-God.
Below is an introduction.
"Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."
The Gospel of Thomas
On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.
Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:
He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.
When we began to uncover such extraordinary similarities between the story of Jesus and Pagan myth we were stunned. We had been brought up in a culture which portrays Paganism and Christianity as entirely antagonistic religious perspectives. How could such astonishing resemblances be explained? We were intrigued and began to search farther. The more we looked, the more resemblances we found. To account for the wealth of evidence we were unearthing we felt compelled to completely review our understanding of the relationship between Paganism and Christianity, to question beliefs that we previously regarded as unquestionable and to imagine possibilities that at first seemed impossible. Some readers will find our conclusions shocking and others heretical, but for us they are merely the simplest and most obvious way of accounting for the evidence we have amassed.
We have become convinced that the story of Jesus is not the biography of a historical Messiah, but a myth based on perennial Pagan stories. Christianity was not a new and unique revelation but actually a Jewish adaptation of the ancient Pagan Mystery religion. This is what we have called The Jesus Mysteries Thesis. It may sound far-fetched at first, just as it did initially to us. There is, after all, a great deal of unsubstantiated nonsense written about the "real" Jesus, so any revolutionary theory should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. But although this book makes extraordinary claims, it is not just entertaining fantasy or sensational speculation. It is firmly based upon the available historical sources and the latest scholarly research. While we hope to have made it accessible to the general reader, we have also included copious notes giving sources, references, and greater detail for those who wish to analyze our arguments more thoroughly.
Although still radical and challenging today, many of the ideas we explore are actually far from new. As long ago as the Renaissance, mystics and scholars saw the origins of Christianity in the ancient Egyptian religion. Visionary scholars at the turn of the nineteenth century also made comparable conjectures to our own. In recent decades, modern academics have repeatedly pointed toward the possibilities we consider. Yet few have dared to boldly state the obvious conclusions that we have drawn. Why? Because to do so is taboo.
For 2,000 years the West has been dominated by the idea that Christianity is sacred and unique while Paganism is primitive and the work of the Devil. To even consider that they could be parts of the same tradition has been simply unthinkable. Therefore, although the true origins of Christianity have been obvious all along, few have been able to see them, because to do so requires a radical break with the conditioning of our culture. Our contribution has been to dare to think the unthinkable and to present our conclusions in a popular book rather than some dry academic tome. This is certainly not the last word on this complex subject, but we hope it may be a significant call for a complete reappraisal of the origins of Christianity." - The book is also available at http://eatyourspinachbrother.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the-jesus-mysteries.pdf.
- A book dealing with the origins of the Church and entitled Babylon Mystery Religion is available at http://scribd.com/doc/198144630/Babylon-Mystery-Religion-Ton-Giao-Bi-Nhiem-Thanh-Babylon.
In the following video, the thesis according which "Jesus" was an avatar of the Negro-Semitic "solar" dying god is summarized between 4:30 and 31:35.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbIu8Zeqp0
Below are some tables of similarities between “Jesus” and the “solar” dying god Horus.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5d.htm
- Zeitgeist is like a stab to the heart. This is a 'Evolian' forum and Zeitgeist is even on the table? Read Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion and The Spiritist Fallacy both by Rene Guenon before ever thinking about talking again of trash like 'Zeitgeist'.Check out Jan Assmann works and Henri Frankfort works. For start.Best,Ea.-
That, Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam, is a revamping of the mother-goddess cult which is peculiar to Southern races, telluric races with a matriarcal organisation, as fully documented here and in many works, is no longer a secret. In this respect, "The Christian Mystery" by Louis Bouyer, which we have not had the opportunity to quote yet, comes highly recommended.
Greg Johnson, in his review of Jan Assmann’s "Moses the Egyptian", does not differentiate between Southern polytheism and Northern polytheism, and, since this is a forum about J. Evola, who insisted legitimately on differentiating them, it is important to underline that this mistake is a source of confusion, of aberration.
Would you care to clarify in what respect "Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion" and "The Spiritist Fallacy" might be relevant to the issue ?
Another important book on the striking parallels between mysteries and Christianity is 'Greek Myths and Christian Mystery', by Hugo Rahner, available, too, at google.books. See in particular part one and part two.
'Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions', that was posted in the Files section by Rouesolaire some time ago, is also worth reading, which documents that « centuries before the time of Christ Jesus, the belief in an incarnate God born of a virgin; his previous existence in heaven; the celestial signs at the time of his birth; the rejoicing in heaven; the adoration by the magi and shepherds; the offerings of precious substances to the divine child; the slaughter of the innocents; the presentation at the temple; the temptation by the devil; the performing of miracles; the crucifixion by enemies; and the death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven... the belief that this incarnate God was from all eternity; that he was the Creator of the world, and that he is to be Judge of the dead at the last day... the practice of Baptism, and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist, added to the belief in a Triune God, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost », were found « among the heathen ». Needless to say, none of these two works are discriminating enough to differentiate between pre-christian actual solar cults and pre-christian lunar cults.
For those interested, http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf is a book written by D.M. Murdock in order to prove all the affirmations made in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-qYDb7UcI.
- The racial panorama of ancient Egypt, while it has always been the subject of debate in Academia, can be best assessed through an examination of the type of divinity, of cult, of religiosity, and of world-outlook which characterised early Egyptian civilisation, and this is precisely what we intended to do in the first part of https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/mon-nom-est-personne/.
We drew from the considerations developped by J. Evola in 'North and South' about the two primeval types of symbolism, the one solar, the other lunar, each of which related respectively to the Hyperborean stock and to 'races of nature'. "From an abstract perspective, in those places in which solstices are celebrated there still is a connection with the "polar symbolism (the vertical axis running from north to south), while the symbolism of the equinoxes is connected with the longitudinal (east-west) direction so much so that the predominance of either one of the two symbolisms in different civilizations, in and of itself, allows us to characterize what-ever in them refers to either the Hyperborean or Atlantic heritage. In what may be more properly characterized as an Atlantic tradition and civilization, however, we find a mixed form." That mixed form turns out to be that of the early Egyptian tradition, and its emergence may arguably be explained by race mixing. "Here, together with the presence of the solstice symbolism, we still have a 'polar' element; but in the predominance of the theme of the solar god who changes, and in the appearance and ensuing predominance of the figure of the Mother or of similar symbols during the solstices, we may detect the effects of yet another influence and of another type of civilization and spirituality.
"Therefore, when the center consists of the solar male principle conceived of as life that arises and declines and that goes through winter and spring, or death and rebirth (as in the case of the so-called vegetation deities), while the identical and immutable principle is identified with the Universal Mother and with the Earth conceived as the eternal principle of every life, as the cosmic matrix and the inexhaustible source and seat of all energy — then we are truly confronted by a decadent civilization and by the second era, which is traditionally under the aegis of the water or of the moon. Conversely, wherever the sun continues to be conceived of in terms of uncreated and unprecedented pure light and "spiritual virility" following the lines of an Olympian meaning; and wherever people's attention focuses on the luminous and heavenly nature of the fixed stars, since they appear to be exempt from the law of rising and setting, which in the opposite view affects the sun as the year-god himself — then what we are witnessing are instances of the highest, purest, and most ancient spirituality (the cycle of the Uranian civilizations)." The case of the god Helios is symptomatic of the differentiation and alteration suffered by the the solar symbolism of Hyperboreans, once, in the course of their migration south, they came in contact and mixed with Negroid races, whose symbolism is lunar equinoctial. Indeed, while the Hyperborean Apollo is an immutable and perfect essence, Helios came to symbolise the sun in his daily, or yearly, course, with its sunrises and sunsets. It was inevitable that, in the mixed symbolism of Egyptians, a mixed people, the 'solar' god should be increasingly contaminated by elements of a feminine and lunar nature. In the New Empire, the sun, as he began his daily journey to the underworld in his barque, was depicted with a ram's head in his disk, the ram's head being also the attribute of Khnum, a god who was thought to rule over the underworld and the lower waters: the sun at night disappears into the dark realm of Khnum and becomes one with him. In a related matter, the two red obelisks erected at the gates of Egyptian temples were originally intended to symbolise the limits of the sun's course, and mainly the equinoxes, which, if we consider what has been mentioned above on the symbolism of the equinoxes, hardly make them an hyperborean symbol. However, for reasons that are given in the aforementioned essay, a number of evidence lead us to speak of a solarisation of feminine deities rather than of a feminisation of the solar god.
Basically, the eye became the paramount symbol of Ra. Primitively, it was the symbol of Horus, the sky god. "King Amenhotep — which is the original name of Akhnaton as well as his father —, according to Manetho's, wished to perceive the gods directly," and G. Johnson infers from this that "the desire to see the gods directly, therefore, was implicitly revolutionary, since it would make both 'church' and 'state' no longer necessary." However this may be, and, if we may put it in this way, ironically enough, the concept of divine omniscience, which originated in ancient Egypt, was closely linked to the idea of universal vision, of, as it is commonly known today, the "all-seeing eye". Now, it is in the Hamitic and Nilo-Hamitic of Northeast Africa that the most marked similarities with the Egyptian ideology of the 'sun god', or the god of heaven, who sees all and everything, are found. Besides, the Hamitic element has been present in Egypt since the earliest times and played an important part in the formation of the Egyptian people (see, for example, 'Black Arabia')
All this goes to show that neo-pagans should give it serious thought, before they move from Asatru to Cosmotheism ; that, more importantly, "the living pagan wisdom tradition which has persisted from Ancient Egypt to the present day", emerging in Europe, as mentionned by G. Johnson himself, in the XIVth century, when it helped spark the Renaissance, before becoming "associated with the pantheism of Baruch Spinoza as well as deism and Freemasonry" in the two following centuries, has nothing to do with the mos maiorum, nor with the sidhr forn ; third, that a cult with "a highly refined aesthetic and mythology" is what must be avoided at all cost nowadays more than ever ; what's more, while it is true that the mythology of ancient Greeks and ancient Romans in its later phase of teratologic development derived mostly from pre-Indo-European sources (in the same way, very few gods are actually of Indo-European origin in the Rig-Veda), the claim that their religion was "primarily pre-Indo-European Mediterranean in origin" testifies to imaginative powers which compare easily with the exuberant fantasies of ancient poets.
Certainly, an interesting concept formulated by Assmann is that of "counter-religion", as interesting as reductive, in a sense that it overlooks completely all the elements Yahwism borrowed from the cults of Near- and Middle-Eastern peoples, not to mention that this borrowing did not involve any "normative inversion", but, as conclusively showed by Mowinckel in 'He That Cometh', a transfer from the cosmological to the historical and the moral plane, under the influence of Yahvism and nomadic traditions. Without jumping to conclusions, it might be worth noting that there is some reminiscence of the vengeful god of the Old Testament in a papyrus called 'The Instructions of Merikare » ( http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/merikare_papyrus.htm) dating from the tenth dynasty, in which it is told that a deity, which most scholars assume to be Re, even though it is unnamed, entrusts Hathor, his "eye" with "kill(ing) His enemies and destroy(ing) His own children", who had conspired against him.
Another of Hassman's key concept, that of the "Mosaic distinction", has everything, with the line it draws "between true and false religions", to sway historians of religions and people unaware of the real nature of the Indo-European cult. Let us review, again with F. de Coulanges, the characters of this cult: 1. "For a great number of centuries the human race has admitted no religious doctrine except on two conditions: first, that it proclaimed but one god; and, second, that it was addressed to all men, and was accessible to all,systematically rejecting no class or race. But this primitive religion fulfilled neither of these conditions. Not only did it not offer one only god to the adoration of men, but its gods did not accept the adoration of all men. They did not offer themselves as the gods of the human race. They did not even resemble Brahma, who was at least the god of one whole great caste, nor the Panhellenian Zeus, who was the god of an entire nation. In this primitive religion each god could be adored only by one family. Religion was purely domestic… The worship of the dead in no way resembled the Christian worship of the saints.
"One of the first rules of this worship was, that it could be offered by each family only to those deceased persons who belonged to it by blood. The funeral obsequies could be religiously performed only by the nearest relative. As to the funeral meal, which was renewed at stated seasons, the family alone had a right to take part in it, and every stranger was strictly excluded. They believed that the dead ancestor accepted no offerings save from his own family; he desired no worship save from his own descendants." (p. 25) ; 2. "In India, as in Greece, an offering could be made to a dead person only by one who had descended from him. The law of the Hindus, like Athenian law, forbade a stranger, even if he were a friend, to be invited to the funeral banquet" (p. 26) ; 3. "Every city had gods who belonged to it alone" (p. 122) ; "At first men did not conceive of these gods as watching over the whole human race. They believed that each one of them belonged in particular to a family or a city" (p. 124) - the evocatio itself, of which only two cases can be identified with certainty, was based "on the Roman belief in a firm connexion between the gods on the one hand and the territory or the society, the state, protected by them on the other." (https://ojs.abo.fi/index.php/scripta/article/viewFile/683/862) ; 4. "... the ancients never represented God to themselves as a unique being exercising his action upon the universe. Each of their innumerable gods had his little domain; to one a family belonged, to another a tribe, to a third a city. Such was the world which sufficed for the providence of each of them. As to the god of the human race, a few philosophers had an idea of him; the mysteries of Eleusis might have afforded a glimpse of him to the most intelligent of the initiated; but the vulgar never believed in such a god. For ages man understood the divine being only as a force which protected him personally, and every man, or every group of men, desired to have a god" (p. 125) ; " Thus religion was entirely local, entirely civic, taking this word in the ancient sense — that is to say, special to each city" ; 5. "Generally a man knew only the gods of his own city, and honored and respected them alone. Each one could say what, in a tragedy of Æschylus, a stranger said to the Argives — 'I fear not the gods of your country; I owe them nothing.'" (p. 126). It is not by chance that the "idea of the mutual 'translatability' of different pantheons is attested by Mesopotamian tables of correspondences from the third millennium BCE", when it took root in Rome only at a time when the population of the Italian peninsula, as a result of the race change it had undergone, became responsive and conducive to it, thus seriously threatening the mos maiorum. Without realising it, G. Johnson points to one of the main causes of "translability", when he states that "Men of different nations could sign contracts and treaties by recognizing that their different gods named the same divine order that was binding on all of them." There were indded economic motives behind it, of a commecial order in the case of worshippers and of the financial order in the case of priests. "It was every priest's business to increase the vogue of his temple's divinities, unless he were expressly hindered by the bestowal of a monopoly on a particular God by a particular king; and every worshipper, when smoothly handled, was naturally ready to aggrandize his favourite deity." (John Mackinnon Robertson, Christianity and Mythology, p. 152)
That “1. Different religions may be relative to different peoples, but the divine order is absolute. 2. Different religions are many, but the divine order is one. 3 Since divine names are many and relative, the absolute one is beyond all names. 4 Since all forms of manifestation are relative, the absolute one is hidden”, is an intellectualistic view which may have been widespread in some spiritualist circles in antiquity, but was never entertained in Patrician ranks.
Furthermore, the notions of trueness and of falseness in the cultic sphere was completely foreign to our ancestors. Celsus, as one of the last patricians of old Roman stock in the sea of Easterners which Rome had become, is indifferent as to whether the mos maiorum is true or, as claimed by Christians, false. Blood does not know what 'true' or 'false' means, it only knows what is in keeping with its own nature and what is alien and harmful to it. A rite is not 'true' or 'false' ; either it is effective, when performed acccording to the rules which govern the relations between the physical world and the supranatural world, or otherwise ineffective. As the very few patricians of old stock who were left at the time Christianity emerged had no idea what a “true religion” and a “false religion” may have meant, those likely to be affected by the line that was drawn by Judeo-Christianity between these were the masses of Semitic migrants with homegrown cults that, because they paralleled more or less closely the Christian religion, were felt by early Christians as competitors.
These are the critical remarks which we find necessary to make about G. Johnson's notes on 'Moses the Egyptian', which, failing to differentiate between the 'Northern Light' and the 'Southern light', jump from one traditionalism into another equally misleading traditionalism, both of which products of the modern mind.
evola_as_he_is@{{emailDomain}}