Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 165

Thread: Pan-Hellenism and Greeks, Albanians and Armenians

  1. #131
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, February 7th, 2005 @ 10:00 PM
    Subrace
    Northwest Hellenic-Dorian
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Eurocentric Pan-European
    Religion
    Hellenic Philosophy
    Posts
    26
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    I can understand Albanians and Greeks being for or against what I'm saying, but I really ticks me off when all of the sudden Serbs come and tell me Im not white and have nothing in common with Greeks. Well why not listen to Aristotle, a GREEK. I am under no circumstances proposeing a Greco-Albanian Yugoslavia. (Although Ali Pasha did try to create a Greco-Albanian kingdom)

    It is also pretty sad that most of you believe in the "indo-European" theory. It is historically groundless(not to mention really outdated for a theory in such a field).

    So here is some good information for those unbiased individuals that are curious about the topic. If it is to be read it should be read in its intirety. So here it is, fresh from the Grecoreport.

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


    Indo-Europeans: The Invisible Race (NEW)

    By Pantelis D. Karikas



    ["Λανθάνουσι δ' αύτούς τά τών Έλλήνων κατορθώματα, άφ΄ ών μή ότι γε φιλοσοφία, άλλά καί γένος άνθρώπων ήρξε, βαρβάροις προσάπτοντες." Διογένης Λαέρτιος. Φιλοσόφων Βίων καί Δογμάτων Συναγωγή."Προοϊμιον." Ι: ΙΙΙ.



    "These authors forget that the achievements which they attribute to the barbarians belong to the Greeks, with whom not merely philosophy but the human race itself began." Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. "Prooëmion." I: III.]



    Part One

    Introduction

    In the closing decades of the 18th century, a British magistrate serving in the British colony of India, awed by the greatness of Indian civilization, began a methodical study of the ancient Sanskrit texts. This study ultimately led Judge William Jones to conclude that Sanskrit [ancient Indic] was the mother tongue of all European languages, including Greek. He came to this conclusion based almost entirely upon his observation that certain words in Sanskrit had a linguistic correspondence to those having the same meaning in many European languages. His assertion found many supporters, mainly in Germany, and was soon metamorphosed into the Indo-Germanic, Indo-European, or Aryan theory and ideology; a theory and ideology which claimed that all Europeans not only shared a common linguistic heritage, but also shared a common racial origin.

    Many years have passed since Jones’ time. The theory his work gave rise to, however, is still with us and continues to harass the Greek race: A race which can boast a glorious civilization without the need of the “enlightenment” provided by these so-called “Indo-Europeans.” What is tragic about this whole matter is that this Indo-European theory should have been discarded in light of the archaeological evidence that has been unearthed since its inception. Instead, it continues to be arbitrarily “preserved,” and is being taught in the schools of Hellas, and in those of Europe as well. And, of course, every German and Englishman is now able to take pride in his “Indo-European” ancestry; but what possible reason is there for a Hellene to feel proud at being considered an “Indo-European?”

    What follows is by no means a definitive treatment of this question. Nor do we claim papal infallibility in the text. Within the following pages, however, we will endeavor to expose the decayed and flawed Indo-European theory without clamor or condemnation, and will use logic and moderation – the weapons of our ancestors – instead. We will be aided in this undertaking by the science of archaeology, which has brought to light finds which are systematically ignored or purposely falsified by those who wish to continue to promote the Indo-European theory. This because – unfortunately – even archaeology has now become “political.”

    Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeanizers: The birth of an historical deception

    As previously mentioned, the first to posit the linguistic theory pertaining to the existence of a common proto-language from which all modern European languages are descended, was the Englishman, Jones. He was, in fact, only an amateur linguist who simply came to certain conclusions. The real “father” of the Indo-European theory was the German Franz Bopp (1791-1867). It was he who, after studying Jones’ work, was the first to launch the so called “Indo-Germanic theory.” A theory which claimed a common ancestry for European languages, and which later developed into a theory for a common ancestry for European civilization as well. To understand the generative motive behind the formulation of Bopp’s Indo-Germanic theory, we must look at the historical times in which he lived. In 1806, at the age of fifteen, Bopp was witness to the most devastating defeat the German nation had ever experienced: Napoleon’s route of the Prussian forces at Jena and Auerstadt in October of that year. These defeats, followed by the occupation of Prussia by the French, led to the awakening of the sleeping giant of German nationalism.

    By 1813 Bopp was a young student who had lived through that awakening; an awakening which led to the greatest French debacle since Napoleon came to power: the Battle of Leipzig, or “Battle of the Nations,” in which the Grande Armee was torn to shreds, bringing about the liberation of Germany from the French yoke. German pride reached its zenith following Napoleon’s utter defeat at Waterloo in 1815. The French were winning that battle against the British when the timely arrival of German-Prussian reinforcements led by the 73-year-old General Gebhard Blucher saved the day. These were heady times, and it was in 1816, during this period of national exaltation and euphoria, that Bopp published his Indo-Germanic theory; a theory which added centuries to the history of the “glorious” German nation. The publication of Bopp’s findings pertaining to the “Inflective System of Sanskrit as Compared to that of the Greek, Latin, Persian, and German Languages,” became the cornerstone of the Indo-European theory. Since then, many have adopted his theory, defending it with zeal right up to the present day. Let us examine this famous theory.

    As we said, the Indo-European theory was initially presented as the result of linguistic research exclusively. Up to the dawn of the 20th century, this theoretical construct rested entirely upon the putative relationship of the European languages with Sanskrit; the oldest texts of which have been dated, according to Professor Babinioti [head of the linguistics dept. of Athens University] to ca. 1000 B.C. There then began a determined and methodical attempt on the part of the proponents of this theory to find archaeological artifacts to support it. These supposed artifacts, however, are almost entirely the products of the fertile imaginations of the Indo-Europeanizers. Dissemination of this theory was especially vigorous during the first half of the 20th century, for mainly political reasons. And it was upon this theory that the tragic Hitlerian promotion of the idea of a master race of “pure blooded” (non Slavic) ancient Aryan ancestors of the German people found its legitimacy.

    So that from a starting point of scholarly research into the linguistic correspondence between some words of different European languages and Sanskrit, our Indo-Europeanizers developed an entirely fantastic theoretical construct, and “created” artifacts to support it; and this is precisely the heart of the problem. Not having unassailable proofs to back up their theory, they elevated it to an axiom; a sort of touchstone, with which puzzling archaeological “paradoxes” could be explained. The whole matter would have naturally been relegated to a topic of theoretical conversation for us Hellenes, had not the Indo-Europeanizers decided to entangle Hellas in the net of their theory. The compulsion which drove them to make this decision should raise questions in the minds of all reasonable researchers into this matter. Insofar as Hellas is concerned, the Indo-Europeanizers hold that the Hellenes are not autochthonous, but are descended from migrants who entered our blessed land either from the north or from the east. Those who were already here were duly baptized as “Pre-Hellenes,” and, according to their theory, were either assimilated by the migrants, or were eliminated by these “fearless hordes and their exceptional cavalry!”

    All of this is supposedly “proven” by the ruins of theoretically “pre-Hellenic” settlements which have recently come to light. These ruins, according to the Indo-Europeanizers, contain traces of catastrophic destruction and fire. This is how the destruction of the Neolithic settlement of Sesklos (5th –4th millennium B.C.) is explained. This is also how the destruction of the settlement at Lernis (2000 B.C.) is also explained (though opinion differs, with some scholars believing that the destruction of the settlements – at least in Argos – was caused by natural disasters). All of this raises the fateful question: Exactly when did these Indo-Europeans arrive in Hellas? This question has never been seriously addressed, and in order to keep from foundering on that dangerous reef, the Indo-Europeanizers assert that these “hordes” came down into Hellas in waves between the 5th and the 2nd millennium B.C. This immense chronological timeframe refutes the theory in and of itself. How believable is it that Hellas, every thousand years or so, was invaded by Indo-European “visitors?” According to the theory, the Aeolians were the first to arrive around the 3rd millennium B.C. These were followed by the Achaeans at around 1700 B.C. The last to come were the much-heralded Dorians, who supposedly graced Hellas with their presence around 1100 B.C. This, in very general terms, is what the Indo-European theory professes. What are the facts upon which all of the above are based? And what is the hidden agenda which lies behind their promotion?

    The first conclusion we come to has to do with the Minoan, Cycladean, Macedonian, and Thracian Greeks, who, according to this theory, cease to have Hellenic origins, and are to be henceforth thought to belong to some unknown pre-Hellenic races. Secondly, no Paleolithic or Neolithic Hellenic civilization could have ever existed because, as we are told by the Indo-Europeanizers, the Greeks first began to migrate into Hellas in the Bronze Age. Third, and most importantly, since these Hellenic races migrated southward in stages, coming to settle the land as they moved gradually and systematically to the south, this means that the whole of the Balkan peninsula north of Mount Olympus was never permanently settled by Hellenes, meaning therefore that Greece has no historical right or claim to these regions. It is precisely this argument our “neighbors” to the north have been using for many years now to under-gird their expansionist policies at Hellas’ expense. And it is this argument that supposedly proves that Alexander the Great was not a Greek; an argument reinforced, sad to say, at least since 1921, by some “Greeks” who are Greek in name only. Unfortunately, the Indo-European theory has evolved into a genocidal political weapon against Hellenic history and the Hellenic race. It is more than just happenstance, for instance, that the high priestess of the Indo-European theory in the last half of the 20th century is none other than Maritsa Jiboutas, an American university professor of Lithuanian descent, and the founder of the theoretical “Old Europe” theory; a modern-day, warmed-over version of the Indo-European theory of old.

    Based upon the hypothesis which assumed the existence of a common “proto-language,” and which supported the entire construct of the Indo-European theory, Jacob Grimm, one of the three Grimm brothers who became famous as writers of myths and fairy tales, published a theory known as “Grimm’s Law,” which supposedly explained the consonantal shifts in Indo-European languages. According to this law, the “soft” consonants b, d, g of the Indo-European proto-language, evolved into p, t, k in the European languages. It was in this way that Grimm translated the “Sanskrit” word “char” as “draw” in English and “tragen” in German. According to Grimm, the words all had the same meaning, i.e., “pulling” or “drawing.” Ergo, he concluded, the Indo-Europeans were familiar with chariots, which meant, of course, that they had tame horses, which they used to “pull” their chariots. This is the kind of improbable and unsupportable syllogism which, according to the Indo-Europeanizers, is “proven” by the discovery of a proto-Hittite stone seal, dated to circa 1900 B.C., showing a horse-drawn chariot. This 2nd millennium seal allegedly proves that 3rd millennium Indo-Europeans had learned to tame the wild horse. Naturally, the Greek stone carvings found on Pangios Mountain of Macedonia, which were dated to the 4th and 5th millenniums, and which show not only a horse but a mounted rider, are not to be taken into consideration.

    At this juncture, we must make particular mention of the fact that the Indo-Europeanizers consider the Hittite language and writing to be that of their ancestors. According to the current prevailing theory, the Hittites reached northeastern Asia Minor circa 2000 B.C., and, after interbreeding with the indigenous population, developed a strong state which evolved into a powerful empire from about the 17th century B.C. Their language, however, "was proto-Indo-European, which set itself firmly on the path to becoming a written language." This argument is, of course, mere nonsense. The Hittite cuneiform script didn't develop until around the middle of the 16th Century B.C. Prior to this time, iconographic hieroglyphs were used, which -- strange to relate -- show a scandalous similarity to Cretan hieroglyphic writing. As we've already mentioned, our Indo-Europeanizers consider the Minoan Cretans to be a non-Hellenic race, which means, in effect, also non-Indo-European. How then are we to explain the fact that a non-Indo-European language -- the Cretan -- gave birth to an Indo-European one -- the Hittite? Which begs another question: Why would the Indo-European Hittites use a language and writing which was totally foreign to them, and use this strange language for four centuries?

    But even this linguistic theory, in and of itself, is not anywhere proven to apply to Hellas. The Indo-Europeanizers theorize that the Greek language is part of the Indo-European homologous family of languages. This because words such as "Πατηρ" [Father], "Μητηρ" [Mother], "Ειμι" [I am], and others, are in some way similar in practically all European languages, and Indian as well. However, according to the distinguished Greek Professor of Archaeology, Christos Douma, 90% of the "Indo-European" words believed to correspond with Greek words, are, in reality, nothing more than the hypothetical products of the over-active imaginations of Indo-Europeanizing philologists. And it is precisely here that what is so surprising about this hypothesis is to be found. Never before has a "philological theory" tried to contradict conclusions proven by archaeology.

    For quite a long time, and ostensibly as an answer to the artifacts that our sacred Greek soil gives up to us on an almost daily basis, our Indo-Europeanizers alter at will the arrival of their "favorites," sometimes by whole millenniums; just exactly as they dispute the ways and means by which they arrived. There are two hypotheses that are the most widely circulated. The first, let us say the Indo-Germanic, speaks of the arrival of the Indo-Europeans from the north: from the Hungarian plain specifically; which was either their starting point or a stopping off area on their way. According to the second theory, our Indo-Europeans, started right off directly from northwestern India, and moving through the Caucasus and Anatolia, arrived in Asia Minor. They then floated across the Aegean in rafts (!!), finally coming ashore on the Greek mainland. A third, even more absurd, theory has recently made its appearance, according to which our Indo-Europeans arrived in Hellas via China!!!

    Now, as regards the chronology of the "descent" of our Indo-Europeans into Greece, as we've already mentioned, the opinions of our "experts" again contradict one another. The actual time of arrival, however, is very important and requires special attention. Naturally, the entire Indo-European theory is unsupportable in its entirety. It becomes even more so -- if it is even possible to say such a thing -- when the Indo-Europeanizers date the arrival of the Indo-Europeans into Greece beginning from the 3rd millennium B.C. Realizing the absurdity of their position, they tried moving the arrival date of the Indo-Europeans, which, according to their latest hypotheses, is now placed at the 5th millennium B.C.

    At this point it would be reasonable for someone to ask why, in the final analysis, is the arrival date of this race into Greece so important, and just what, after all, was their contribution to Hellenic civilization? Naturally, the Indo-Europeanizers have their own answers to these questions: The Indo-Europeans, they say, brought with them the skill of taming horses, which they taught to the barbarous "proto-Hellenes"; the technology of the wheel, as well as that of pottery-makingtoo; but most important of all, metalworking, especially that of bronze. To all of these unsupportable (not to say ridiculous) arguments, we will undertake to answer with the truth.

    Neolithic Greece and Indo-Europeans.

    Now that we've been made aware of the history of the Indo-European theory, it will be worthwhile to inquire into just how its postulates apply to our particular Hellenic circumstances. In order to do this, we will make extensive reference to the degree to which the Hellenic peninsula had developed during the crucial period between the 5th and 3rd millennia B. C. We will also consider archaeological artifacts, literary material, and extant mythological and folkloristic sources.

    That Hellas was occupied much earlier than has been believed until now has been conclusively demonstrated by the archaeological evidence unearthed in recent years.The artifacts brought to light by the paleontologist Aris Poulianos from the Petralona Cave in Macedonia leave us with no doubt whatsoever that this area was occupied by humans from the Late Paleolithic period. Naturally, the conclusions which these finds elicit are denied by some (mostly Greek) scholars, who obsessively insist that these discoveries are African in origin of the anthropoid "Lucy" type. In spite of this, the foreign universities, to which Dr. Poulianos sent these objects for dating, reported that the "Petralona Man" (whose skeletal remains Dr. Poulianos discovered, and who was subsequently dubbed Archanthropus Europeaus Petraloniensis), lived between 700,000 to 250,000 years B.C. Even more startling, the shinbone of a standing (homo erectus) man which Dr. Poulianos unearthed in nearby Trigleia, was dated by these same universities to circa 11,000,000 years B.C. Whether or not one accepts these finds and/or their chronology, the essence of the matter is that, by any reasonably impartial assessment of the evidence, one must conclude that Hellas was occupied by humans from at least 250,000 years B.C.

    This Hellenic Paleolithic culture gave way to the corresponding Neolithic between the 9th and 7th millennium B.C.; or from the Mesolithic to the Pre-ceramic respectively. Within this time-frame we witness great technical and sociological advances, accompanied by a population explosion in Greece, as indicated by the many artifacts found that have been dated to this period. This is exactly the period during which the cultivation of the earth and the founding of more or less permanently inhabited settlements began; these usually being located on flat land which could be irrigated by a nearby river. According to Dr. D. Theoharis, in his treatise titled Neolithic Civilization, the holding and cultivating of land gave rise to the concept of private ownership, and, by extension, that of patriotism. These occupied settlements ultimately stabilized and expanded, and, by the 6th millennium B.C., the first city in Europe was founded: which we dare to assert -- with a conviction supported by the evidence -- was most likely Sesklo!

    According to the state-of-the-art dating technology employed by the University of Pennsylvania in America, Sesklo was dated to 5800 B.C., with a margin of error factor of + - 97 years. There are, of course, older Neolithic artifacts, such as those from Argissa, which have been dated to 6200 B.C. by U.C.L.A., from Elateia (6290 B.C.), and from Nea Nicomedia (6240 B.C.). In this study, however, we are going to focus our attention upon the general area of Thessaly (Homeric Hellas): more specifically, upon Europe's oldest city, Sesklo, and that of Theopetra, near Trikala, because it was here that we find the oldest evidence of the cultivation of grain in Greece. In Professor Theoharis' excellent treatise, he informs us that up until that time (the decade of the 80s), over 170 Neolithic settlements and communities had been discovered in Thessaly alone!

    One of the most significant of these -- insofar as its historical importance is concerned -- is that of Theopetra, near Trikala. It was here that a cave was discovered which had been inhabited, according to the artifacts unearthed, from +- 50,000 to +- 3500 B.C. Some of the finds made within the cave and its environs were really startling. Among these were four human footprints, but more importantly, the seeds of fossilized legumes (lentils), as well as those of grain (barley); discoveries which prove that the cultivation of the earth was known in Hellas well before the "arrival" of our mythical Indo-Europeans. As far as the footprints are concerned, the archaeologists have determined that they were those of children, one of whom was wearing footwear! The ceramics discovered in the same cave have been dated to the Mesolithic period, i.e., the ninth millennium B.C.: a fact that, when considered with the others we've cited so far, indicates the kind of progress which contributed to the civilization which followed in Neolithic Hellas. Finally, a gold amulet was also found in the Theopetra cave, of the same type as hundreds of others which have been unearthed throughout Greece, as well as in the rest of the Balkan peninsula; in other words, in the home territory of the proto-Hellenes, not the pre-Hellenes.

    When Professor Tsountas first started his excavations at Sesklo, he unearthed a small settlement of no more than fifty dwellings. Further excavations, however, showed that Neolithic Sesklo was not merely a small settlement but a whole city, with an area of 100 stremmata [25 acres] and a population of at least 3000 inhabitants, the epicenter of which was a fortified acropolis on a hill which is known today as Kastraki. The dwellings had been constructed around the base of the hill of the acropolis. On this hill, there was found the remains of a rudimentary palace. (Such a palace has also been unearthed at Magoula, and is thought to be even older than that of Sesklo. Unfortunately, during the Nazi occupation this structure was destroyed by the Germans. The only description of it we have is from an article published in the People's Observer -- an organ of the Nazi party -- by one "Benecke," a German archaeologist. Excavations in the 1970s were only able to bring parts of the floor to light.) From Professor Tsountas and Theoharis' descriptions of Sesklo, we are able to understand how many are the similarities between this site and Mycenae, and even Athens, for example.

    At Sesklo we find, for the first time, the classical prototype of an Hellenic polis of the 5th century B.C., not to mention the 6th. The existence of a fortified acropolis, overlooking a settled community of inhabitants, who would have had to have lived under a specific set of rules enforced by a king who governed from the palace, is a perfectly reasonable assumption. The palace was not the only structure located within the ramparts of the acropolis, however. Right next to the palace there was unearthed a ceramics workshop, as well as some additional habitats, between which was found a stone platform for winnowing grain. Professor Tsountas has also located a moat which protected a section of the wall of the acropolis. The labyrinthine layout of the battlements forced would-be attackers to follow an approach to the main gate which would have exposed them to a continuous line of defenders from atop the wall. It was also determined that their were three gates in all; one main and two auxiliary. Further excavation at the foot of the acropolis hill has yielded the remnants of at least 500 to 800 additional habitats.

    There are, however, some researchers who doubt the conclusions we've drawn from this evidence; especially with that having to do with the wall: for instance, they say that it could not have been used for defense since it is barely one meter thick. In that period, however, considering that there were no siege engines available, who would have possibly been able to destroy a wall of that thickness? Besides, it is worthy of note that similar fortifications of walls and moats have been unearthed in other Neolithic sites in Thessaly, where, according to the researchers involved, there were also small, settled communities. Other Indo-Europeanizing researchers have come to an opposite conclusion. They seized upon the opportunity to declare that the residents of Sesklo hurried to build their fortifications in order to defend themselves against the foreigners who occupied neighboring Dimini; which settlement, according to them, had been founded by Indo-European colonizers. However, this theory does not stand scrutiny because the acropolis at Sesklo was destroyed 4400 years B.C.; that is, at least four centuries before the development of the Dimini culture, and 2400 to 1400 years before the most widely accepted dates as to the "arrival" of the Indo-Europeans. So that the Thermoluminescence dating method (which is doubted by some scholars) employed by Professor I. Lyritzis on ceramic material from Sesklo and Dimini, which showed that Dimini was occupied from circa 4800 B.C., merely proved that these two settlements coexisted for a space of time. In spite of this, the similarity of the artifacts leaves absolutely no doubt that Dimini was a Greek settlement.

    Our purpose so far, has been to show the quality of Hellenic Neolithic civilization, and, by extension, the power of the Neolithic Greeks. So that the knowledge we have of a general destruction which happened precisely during the period in question (circa 4400 B.C.), has caused many Indo-Europeanizers to theorize that this was when the first waves of invaders swept down into Hellas. According to them, more proof was supplied by the new motifs which began to embellish the pottery of that period. It is worth mentioning here that the old motifs did not disappear, but merely coexisted with the new for a time. This fact is evidence that what most probably happened was that the change naturally evolved when the existing motifs were combined with those that were not Greek. These could easily have become familiar to the Neolithic Greeks in the course of their travels, since it has been conclusively proven that they were a seagoing people from at least the fifth millennium B.C.

    As regards the destruction of the Neolithic towns and settlements which actually did take place, from Serbia to Sesklo, why is it automatically assumed that these were the result of a foreign invasion and not a war of an internal nature, the cause of which could have been for the control of the fertile plain of Thessaly? That Sesklo was not destroyed by Indo-European invaders is also proven by the fact that the succeeding power in the Thessalian plain, Dimini, continued the same city planning model as that of Sesklo; with a fortified acropolis, protected by successive encircling barricades and a palace: It is obvious that the acropolis of Dimini evolved from that of Sesklo. In the middle of the fifth millennium, however, we do not see civilization advancing only in Thessaly. Attica also has tens of Neolithic sites, even in places where it would be difficult for one to imagine that they would be located: For instance, remains of Neolithic settlements have been unearthed in Palea Kokkinia and in Korydallo. Without a doubt, the most important find from the Neolithic period discovered in Attica to date are the remnants of a road constructed with paving stones which was unearthed in Nea Makri. Public road-building projects suggest a civilization which had developed trade and the need to transport goods; one that most likely used chariots and wagons. According to Athens University archaeologist, M. Pantelidou-Ngofa, this road had been constructed using stones from the sea, and was slightly convex in order to prevent the accumulation of water on its surface. She summarizes her analysis as follows: "We can, as well, regard its (the road's) solid construction as being necessary to meet the demands of frequent and heavy traffic of people and animals from the settlement to the sea, as well as that of travelers coming from other settlements."

    The settlement at Nea Makri was, according to the evidence unearthed to date, most likely extensive, extending along the entire length of the beach. We also note that in Nea Makri no evidence has been found of disturbances or disasters all during the transition from a more ancient to the Middle Neolithic period. We therefore cannot speak of a general invasion of Hellas by some unknown, foreign race. The destructions in Thessaly are therefore isolated ones and are not repeated in Attica or Eubea, where the settlement of Leukanti, for instance, was inhabited from the Neolithic to the Byzantine periods.

    Among other things, the excavations of the settlements in Attica, the majority of which are located near the coast, have, as a result of the artifacts unearthed, determined that the inhabitants of Neolithic Attica were seafarers who maintained commercial contacts with the neighboring islands, at the very minimum. It is not merely by chance that on Mount Pangaio, as well as on Andros Island (in the Strofilas area) there were found depictions of shipscarved upon stone. More particularly, the engravings from Pangaio include a sailing ship with rowers and have been dated to the middle of the 5th and the 4th millenniums. The scenes from Andros have also been dated to the 4th millennium, and could be considered a predecessor of the convoy wall paintings found on Thera Island, since at Strofilas we do not have a depiction of one ship only, but of a small fleet.

    The facts presented so far can only lead a logical and fair-minded person to one conclusion: The Neolithic Greeks had developed an older, much more advanced civilization than anything our hypothetical Indo-Europeans of the Ukrainian steppes were capable of during the same period. Which leads us to wonder why, since the Greeks were already seafaring at that time and had constructed fortified cities, would they allow these invaders to come and settle upon their land? Really, why would a seafaring people, who could deploy sailing ships with banks of rowers, allow these invaders, who had only rudimentary rafts and oars, to cross the Aegean; the Greek sea? Unless, of course, we can somehow convince ourselves that these Indo-Europeans learned their sailing skills on the steppes of the Caucasus or on the plains of Central Europe!! The Indo-Europeanizers, of course, persist in their views, claiming that there are many similarities between the Neolithic Greek civilization and that of the corresponding ones which developed in the Balkans (from today's Serbia to present-day Moldavia), which they, of course, consider to be Indo-European. Ergo, these Indo-Europeans first settled in the Northern Balkans, after which they migrated down to Hellas. But it is precisely this similarity which could be cited to support the view that there was a much older migration of Neolithic Greeks into the historically Greek living space of Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula.

    The ancient Greek myths describing the journey of Dionysus to faraway India evidently reflect a collective memory of this early attempt by the Greeks to explore the world. Of course, to rely upon mythology is risky, but why is it that only Greek myth has recorded such events? Why haven't the adventures which would been encountered by our hypothetical and far-traveling Indo-Europeans ever been recorded or passed down as legends via an oral tradition? The only mythology that could be said to have much in common with the Greek -- and not by mere chance -- is that of the Sumerians.

    End of Part One
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indo-Europeans: The Invisible Race

    By Pantelis D. Karikas

    Part Two

    Debunking the Deception: Two Thousand Years of Invasions

    [The African finds are outside of the evolutionary track of mankind, and so are those of Austrolopythikus, which show that these creatures did not take part in the evolutionary process which transpired here in Macedonia, Crete, and the Aegean. There is no resemblance to the African/Asian [ape] finds. Man stood erect here for the first time, and no place else. Archanthropus is the European ancestor of us all.

    Dr. Aris Poulianos]

    Having investigated the reasons as to why it was impossible for Hellas to have experienced an Indo-European or any other kind of an invasion during the Neolithic period, we will now confront another argument that is posited mainly by the Indo-Europeanizers: that this invasion of our country took place during the 3rd and 2nd millenniums. Most of those who hold this theory believe that these invaders began their migration from the cradle of their civilization -- Northern India or the Caucasus -- at the beginning of the 3rd millennium. The first culture to be destroyed was that of the Harapa, who resided at the mouth of the Indus river. It was here that the city-state of Mohentzo Daro flourished between 3000 and 2500 B.C. It has been established that the inhabitants of Mohentzo Daro had contacts with the Sumerians, who at that time were at the zenith of their power, as well as with the civilization of the Dilmoun, who lived in today's Bahrain.

    The paradox for the Indo-Europeanizers, however, is that the cultures of the Sumerians, the Dilmoun, as well as that of the inhabitants of what is today's South Yemen, were remarkably similar to that of Hellas' at that time. At Dilmoun, for instance, many swords have been unearthed that could be copies of those of the early Mycenaean period. In this particular case, the finds are in agreement with our philological sources. For instance, Diodorus Siculus tells us that in his time the inhabitants of Yemen spoke of being descendants of the Greeks! It was during the period when the Sumerians were founding their city-states that they also warred against one another as well as against their barbarian neighbors using phalanxes of spearmen.

    Our Indo-Europeans, therefore, having developed such an advanced civilization (considering that they had tamed the horse, invented the wheel, and had begun to experiment with the making of bronze) in the lands between today's Transcaucus and Turkmenistan, decided, it seems, to emigrate to a warmer climate; inspired, no doubt, by purely altruistic sentiments, since, as an enlightened culture, they no doubt felt obligated to enlighten others as well. Therefore, after destroying Mohentzo Daro, they founded their own Aryan civilizationin India. Others of their race, possibly because of dissatisfaction with the climate of India, moved on to healthier regions; one segment of these colonized the Iranian plateau and the fertile region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. From these Indo-Europeans, the Sumerians and the other denizens of the Middle East, learned to use armor and to tame horses.

    Still others headed towards the west, arriving after a time at the frontiers of the Balkan peninsula, where they settled. It was from this group that another segment, the "Greeks," splintered off and headed south; settling at first in today's Serbia and Albania. Another branch of these "Greeks," our aforementioned "Proto-Hellenes," settled in today's Romania, where they intermixed with the locals. After remaining there for a few centuries, they decided to move southward once more, ultimately invading the territory of present-day Hellas. This is how our Indo-Europeanizers explain the destructions which took place in various parts of Greece during the Proto-Helladic period under discussion (2300 - 2000 B.C.). Their basic position consists mainly upon a manufactured construct which posits a separation between Hellenes and Proto-Hellenes, thereby constricting the time-line of Hellenic civilization to a total of 4000 years.

    This whole theory is pathologically afflicted in all of its parameters. First of all, civilization could never have been engendered in an unforgiving climate. As Athens University Professor Ch. Ntoumas comments: "Everywhere in the world, great civilizations evolved only where environmental conditions allowed for the concentration of populations following the Ice Age." This statement by professor Ntoumas is the key, in our humble opinion, to disproving the entire Indo-European theory. The ages between the formation and subsequent melting of the glaciers were when the various catastrophic inundations or cataclysms occurred. Three of these have been identified in the traditional literature of Hellas: the floods of Deucalion, of Ogygia, and of Dardanos, and they have a direct bearing upon the unfolding of civilization. From the Ice Age to the Late Paleolithic period, those regions north of the Balkan mountains were covered by glacial ice, and it would have been impossible for civilization to start and to develop under such adverse conditions.

    These glaciers covered the entire length and breadth of this northern region; meaning, of course, that this hypothetical "cradle" of the Indo-Europeans was covered with ice up until the Paleolithic epoch. It was, therefore, fated that civilization be born in the temperate climate of the Mediterranean regions. Even after the ice had melted, it is logical to assume that this Mediterranean civilization, having had a "head start," so to speak, over that which developed in the north, was able to maintain this advantageous position. Additionally, during the critical period between the 3rd and 2nd millenniums, there is not one single piece of archaeological evidence to indicate that there was a nascent civilization beginning to develop in the areas of the Caucasus and today's Pakistan. For instance, the civilization of the so-called "Kourgan" (of the tombs), as they've been baptized by the Indo-Europeanizers, has left us not one convincing artifact to prove that they ever existed. On the other hand, right up to the post-Christian centuries, the cultural chasm between the Mediterranean and the Steppes was more than obvious. And even the much-vaunted Scythian civilization, so familiar to the Greeks of the classical age, was so deeply influenced by Hellas, that virtually all of its artifacts are almost identical copies of those of the Greeks of a more ancient period.

    When, therefore, the Neolithic Greeks, as we've seen, had developed to the point where they were constructing paved roads, what was the level of civilization that had been reached by our nomadic immigrants from the Steppes? Following Professor Ntoumas' syllogism, we agree with his conclusion that: "The population explosions in those regions (where civilization was developing) resulted from a better quality of life because of, on the one hand, the discovery of agriculture and animal husbandry, and, on the other, the advantages of living in settled communities. The problems resulting from such population explosions: provisioning, housing, sanitation, water supply, etc., were not confronted by corresponding communities by abandonment and emigration to other lands." In fact, from the 5th millennium we already witness the appearance of cities in Hellas, whereas the development of cities in the Steppes will not appear until several millenniums later.

    The founding of cities naturally engendered the development of irrigation and water supply systems, the construction of fortifications for the defense of property, and the creation of class differences. It was then that the need for an armed body of warriors for the protection of the ruling class, as well as of the community as a whole -- which created the major portion of the wealth produced -- was also made manifest. These, then, are precisely the "Aryans," the "noble warriors," we hear so much about from the Indo-Europeanizers. This class of professional soldiers continued to exist in Hellas right up to the archaic period. But they in no way restricted the role played by the citizen-soldiers, who, as our Hellenic tradition informs us, are already a factor in Greek life from Neolithic times. Their role is later enhanced, as the archaeological evidence and the Homeric epics, testify. This explains why in Poliochni, on Limnos [island], another of the most ancient cities on the "Old Continent" (circa 3000 B.C.), the Italian archaeologists excavating the site discovered a prehistoric parliament! This in itself tells us a great deal about the communal organization of the prehistoric Greeks, as well as providing us with a chronological milestone for the birth of democracy in our country.

    Obviously, the climate in and of itself, does not constitute the only component necessary for the development of civilization. As Professor Ch. Pelekides writes in his book, Ancient Greek History: "The geographic factor does not always determine historical evolution. Different races can develop different traits within the same geographical space. This would explain why the Turks, who've been living on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean since the 15th century A.D., never developed a high degree of nautical skills. Whereas the exceptionally gifted races of Pre-Hellenes and Hellenes were able to exploit the advantages that the climate and topography of the land bequeathed to them. Even the unfavorable natural conditions they inevitably encountered became an incentive for progress"! Truly, the Hellenes, in harmony with the environment in which they had been born and bred -- that of blessed Hellas -- managed to exploit to the full her natural resources without environmentally traumatizing her. Therefore, it is not surprising that from very early on they naturally turned their attention to the sea -- the most important life-sustaining resource of our race.

    In addition to the discoveries from Phrakti, in Hermionida, which have been dated to the 8th millennium, we have the 5th to 4th millennium stone carvings of ships from Mount Pangaio, as well as those from Andros Island (in the Strofilas area). Moreover, we also have the Neolithic sites along the Attic coastline, which attest to our assertions. Even in Central Thessaly, the farthest region from the sea in Greece, clay likenesses of ships have been discovered. Professor M. Pantelidou-Ngofa, in her book, Neolithic Attica, refers extensively to the nautical capabilities of the Hellenes of that period: "It is understood from the start that on such a sea voyage (on the Aegean) one cannot be alone, but must of necessity have help and companionship. Five or six individuals, and possibly even more, would have been essential in order to accommodate a change of shift at the oars. We cannot rule out the possibility of a sail, attached to a vertical mast and improvised from garments or animal skins, devised not only for more speed but to rest the oarsmen. Beyond that, we can imagine that this kind of craft, constructed of fitted hewn planks or small-diameter tree trunks, would have had to confront the Aegean sea; and this is why it would not in any way resemble the simply-constructed boats used for sailing on lakes. In order not to be swamped by the waves, there would have been a raised prow, as well as a keel of sorts to prevent the boat from capsizing. Had it been thought of, a rudder in the stern would have been an easy addition."

    This seemingly unsubstantiated conjecturing has been verified to a startling degree by archaeological research. On one of the so-called "pan-handle" artifacts unearthed on Syros [island], and dated to 2800 B.C., we see the image of a boat having 14 oarsmen on each side, and bearing a scandalous resemblance to larger ships of a later period. This image also depicts the boat as having a raised prow and a keel. ... And from the finds unearthed at the Nea Makri settlement, Professor Pantelidou-Ngofa has concluded that the inhabitants there traveled regularly to the Cycladic Islands, and most especially to Mylos and Paros. There also have been found images of sailing vessels from Egypt, dated to the reign of a Pharaoh whose name was Min (!). Which begs the question: If the Egyptians of the 3rd millennium B.C. -- who've never been known, even to this day, to have a particular affinity to the sea -- had managed to develop sea-going vessels, how could it have been possible that the sea-dwelling Hellenes were not seafarers as well?

    Meanwhile, in the Steppes during the same period, as Professor Ch. Ntoumas writes: "[W]e find no evidence at all of an evolutionary process whereby the organization of proto-city communities could take place." He continues: "On the contrary, we observe the very opposite happening; right up until the Greek colonization of the Black Sea region during the historical period, the inhabitants of the Steppes remained nomads. As a result, both the flood-like exodus of these so-called Indo-Europeans -- which supposedly flowed easterly like lava to the Indus River, and westerly to the Atlantic Ocean -- as well as that of the breakaway segment which has been dubbed Proto-Hellenes, sounds to our ears like a science fiction fantasy"!!!

    Even if we were to concede the existence of these Indo-Europeans, the question then arises as to how and from where did they invade Greece? There would have been only two ways for this invasion to have been accomplished. The first, from the north, would have been the most difficult: The high mountains, extremely harsh weather conditions, even during the summer, and the abundance of wild beasts, would have most likely decimated the "migrants," who would no doubt have been accompanied by their women, children, and herds, thereby forcing them to travel very slowly. Under similar conditions, in 55 B.C., 400,000 Helvetii [Celts, who lived in today's Switzerland] required three months to travel 150 kilometers [less than 100 miles]; the result being that they were overtaken by the legions of Julius Caesar, and annihilated. And the Helvetii of 55 B.C. -- aside from their possession of iron and tamed horses -- cannot be thought to have been much more advanced than our Indo-Europeans.

    To avoid foundering upon that particular reef, our Indo-Europeanizers hold that their forefathers had likewise tamed the horse, and had also discovered the wheel. This allowed them to travel faster and to withstand their foes. To bolster their argument, they cite the circa 1700 B.C. defeat of the Egyptians by King Hyksos and his chariot-riding army. They argue as well that Hellas had no horses at that time; which is, of course, a blatant lie! There were horses in Greece going back millions of years, as the discoveries of Dr. Aris Poulianos have shown. At his excavations in Halkidiki [in northern Greece], Dr. Poulianos has unearthed the distinct imprint of the lower jawbone of a horse which was subsequently dated to 11 million B.C.+ -. Beyond that, however, we've already referred to the 4500 B.C. stone carvings of Mount Pangaio, where the clearly visible image of a man on horseback can be observed.

    Another discovery, which has been described as a "ceremonial mask," or "a vessel used to carry fire," is more than likely a device used for the taming of horses. We refer to a prehistoric halter or muzzle which was placed over the mouth of a colt to keep it from biting. Xenophon, in his "Art of Horsemanship" [v. iii], writes: "The groom must also know about putting the muzzle on the horse. ... For the muzzle prevents him from biting without hampering his breathing." There were traditionally three horse-breeding areas in Greece: Thessaly, Macedonia, and Thrace. As opposed to the rest of mountainous Hellas, these three regions are characterized by wide-stretching plains where the work of breaking horses can be done. Is it surprising, therefore, that from the Homeric age we have so many references pertaining to the art of horsemanship and the quality of Thessalian horses? And why is it that in Hellas we have no images of Centaurs from the Neolithic Age (whereas we have a plethora of myths relating their actions) at a time when the Northern Balkans are replete with graven images of Centaurs? Can it be because the Greeks were so familiar with the sight of men on horseback that there would have been no reason for their apotheosis? And, speaking of Centaurs, just what is the famous myth about the war between the Centaurs and the Thessalian Lapiths if not a metaphor depicting the victory of civilization over barbarous savagery?

    Should we, using archaeological artifacts as our guide, attempt an historical overview of the taming of the horse, we would discover that the first images of drawn chariots are those depicted upon the famous "Ur Banner" of Sumeria which has been dated to circa 2600 B.C. These are war chariots, each of which is shown as being drawn by four wild asses. If then, in horseless Sumeria, the wheel and the chariot was already known during the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C., why, then, should we not quite logically conclude that in "horse breeding" Hellas the Greeks had managed to tame and ride horses? As to the wheel, it naturally follows that its discovery would also engender a need for roads. Which begs the question: If the horse-drawn wagons of our hypothetical Indo-European migrants, loaded down as they were with supplies, women, children, etc., managed to traverse the Caucasus Mountains and the plateaus of Asia Minor, why then could not Greek horse-drawn wagons travel [over roads such as the one unearthed in Nea Makri] from Attica to Thessaly and Macedonia?

    In reply, the Indo-Europeanizers counter with the argument that even if the Sumerians had the wheel, they had not tamed the horse, and this is why there are no Sumerian artifacts with images of horse-drawn chariots until after 2200 B.C., when the Accadian Semites enter the scene. This view is not without logic since Mesopotamia was never renowned for its horses. The empires of that part of the world had historically procured their horses from the Caspian region. But the argument fails to convince when applied to the situation in Hellas, where, as we have seen, there were horses from more ancient times.

    One more reply to the "horse theory," was given by Professor V. Aravantinos, who, answering the accusative queries of German archaeologists during a lecture held in Germany, and based upon archaeological artifacts he himself had discovered, noted the many times that horses, horse saddles, and horse breeders are referred to in the Linear B tablets he unearthed in Thebes, as well as other related artifacts, including images carved on ivorysurfaces. Professor Aravantinos was particularly impressed by the uncanny resemblance between these items and the ones presented by a German colleague, which the German said came from the "Euro-Asiatic Steppes." After carefully examining these objects, Professor Aravantinos concluded that "[t]he scenes depicted on the ivory surfaces were those of Mycenaeans riding horse-drawn chariots."

    The other major question has to do with the discovery of the wheel. We are not in the position to know whether the potter's wheel preceded the wagon or chariot wheel or the other way around; most probably the former preceded the latter. According to the Indo-Europeanizers, the Greeks learned the skill of pottery-making from the invaders who'd developed it in the northern Balkan regions they'd occupied prior to migrating down to Greece. Here again, this fabrication is contradicted by the archaeological record. First of all, it is universally accepted that the Sumerians worked in ceramics, and were familiar with the chariot wheel as well; at least from the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C. On the other hand, the Greeks of continental Greece [Epirus] were already making pottery of such high quality from the 5th millennium B.C., that it is difficult to believe it was not produced on a potter's wheel. Unfortunately, no such wheel has ever been found; not surprising considering the region's climatic conditions and the fact that these wheels were most likely made of wood. There are, however, indications from the northern Balkan region dating to the 5th millennium -- that is, prior to the supposed arrival of the Indo-Europeans -- that the potter's wheel was indeed in use. Romanian archaeologists have unearthed artifacts which corroborate this view. Also, the Polish archaeologist, Alexandra Voskowitz, has declared it a certainty that wooden potter's wheels existed in Neolithic Greece, basing her conclusions on the discoveries of her Romanian colleagues, and especially on the exceptionally high quality of the Neolithic Greek pottery discovered to date.

    Another issue pertains to the making of bronze. Here again, we are told that this skill arrived in Greece with the Indo-European migrants. This is perhaps the most laughable part of this inherently laughable theory. Metalworking in Greece has long-since been proven to have started at the end of the 6th millennium B.C. This can be verified by the profusion of gold jewelry that has been discovered throughout present-day Hellas, as well as in the traditionally Hellenic regions of the Northern Balkans, Asia Minor, and, of course, Cyprus. By all indications, the working of gold at first, and then bronze, and finally brass, evolved in a natural and uneventful progression between the middle of the 4th millennium and the beginning of the 3rd. The archaeological artifacts discovered to date conclusively prove this assertion. On the other hand, the civilizations of the Steppes, owing to their nomadic way of life, could not have developed such an occupation as metalworking.

    The development of manufacturing technology requires that a population be permanently domiciled in a region having the requisite raw materials, or, at the very least, a region from which these raw materials can be accessed. Given these requirements, a maritime civilization, like that of the Greeks, maintained a comparative advantage over its contemporaries, including even the supposed "great" civilizations in the east. He who travels not only has the opportunity to obtain the needed raw materials, but also to disseminate the knowledge and skills he's acquired. In response to this, our Indo-Europeanizers have nothing with which to reply other than that of the so-called "linguistic evidence," which, however, doesn't stand, since, in the words of Professor Ntoumas, "... no evidence, not even an indication, exists about the language which was spoken in the Aegean of the early Bronze Age period ... but, then again, we recall the stubborn denial of many linguists that the Linear B tablets were written in Greek; a denial that was also based upon 'linguistic evidence,' and was still supported quite a number of years after the tablets had been deciphered and shown to be Greek. This theory, no matter how alluring it seems on paper, is logically implausible, and is contradicted by the archaeological evidence unearthed to date as well."

    As a result, the theory claiming that the Indo-Europeans migrated into Hellas from the north is unsubstantiated, and is based only upon conjecture. Moreover, these hypothetical Indo-Europeans have left behind them no tangible proof of their civilization whatsoever in those parts of the Northern Balkans where they were supposed to have lived prior to migrating southward. Not one single artifact from the supposed material wealth of these Indo-Europeans has ever been discovered. Nor hasa trace ever been found in the hypothetical regions from which they were alleged to have come. How, then, is it that a race of people, about whose existence there is no proof, that was not even capable of building one crude structure, is considered by some to have been proficient at casting bronze and constructing palaces? There is likewise no proof that the various destructions known to have occurred in the territory of Hellas at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. should be attributed to the Indo-Europeans. It is important to note that these destructions were confined to coastal areas; a factor helping us to identify who the attackers were. Naturally, they could not have been our Indo-Europeans as they were not seafarers, and had nothing to do with the sea.

    It is precisely this argument that our opponents try to counter by inventing another version of the theory of an Indo-European invasion of Hellas from the sea! This version of the "myth" would have our invaders, after they'd settled in the Northern Balkans, boarding their "ships" and raiding the entire eastern coastline of Hellas. This version raises the following questions: First, where did these Indo-Europeans find the ships? Second, why didn't the indigenous population on the mainland try to stop them? Third, why did the natives of the Aegean -- who, as we've seen, had been seafaring since at least the 8th millennium B.C.-- passively submit to these raids and not sink the ships of the raiders? In order to reply to these queries, our Indo-Europeanizers have conveniently discovered answers.

    First, they accept the fact that the Indo-Europeans were not seafarers. It was for this reason, they claim, that their ancestors did not construct ships, but only rafts!! With these rafts, the raiders, their families, their household goods, their horses and their herds all crossed the Aegean!! Even if the Hellenes of that time did not resist this "accursed voyage," it must be considered a certainty that a substantial number of these rafts -- if not all of them -- along with their cargoes of people, animals and goods, would have found rest on the bottom of the Aegean; a sea that is not particularly noted for its pacific disposition. Historical examples of just such disasters can easily be cited. It was summertime when the Persian fleet, under Admiral-General Mardonius, sank while trying to sail around the promontory of Mount Athosin the Aegean. It was also summertime when King Xerxes' squadron of 200 ships sank off the coast of Northern Euboea in the Aegean in 480 B.C. In both cases, of course, the Persians were attacking with real ships not rafts. In spite of this, they failed because they had neither nautical skills nor were they familiar with the "peculiarities" of the Greek seas.

    By what proofs, then, do our Indo-Europeanizers float this conclusion of theirs about how their Indo-European darlings managed with their crude rafts, and without any nautical skills at all, to cross the Northern Aegean -- which is the most hazardous part of that sea -- and to make it all the way down to the Eastern Peloponnesian coastline? And really, what kind of a reaction to this threat was there by the Greeks who lived on the Aegean islands? Could it be that they merely watched this impotent fleet of rafts go by without taking to their long ships -- the most advanced warships of the day -- in order to sink them? This is especially incredulous when one considers that there was nothing the "invaders" could do to escape their fate; unless, of course, we accept the idea that they'd learned the art of naval warfare in the barren and treeless Steppes from whence they came. To counter these logical arguments, our Indo-Europeanizers posit the theory that the Hellenes were not seafarers, or, at least, they were not seafarers until the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. According to some of our fellow Greeks (only by virtue of their descent, unfortunately), the Hellenes of that time traversed the seas in rudimentary hulls made of papyrus, and only much later did they learn -- from other races, such as the Egyptians and the notorious Phoenicians -- how to make ships worthy of the name.

    To expose such sophistries, and at this point in time, our native land, in order to help raise the awareness of our people, is continuously providing us with finds that confound the modern-day mythmakers. The fact that the Aegean was a much traversed sea by many ships is proven by the thousands of artifacts discovered in the Cyclades, around Lemnos island, and off the Peloponnesian coast, near the island of Doko, where a sunken wreck was found dating back to the 3rd millennium B.C. This ancient merchant ship was loaded with a cargo of various trade goods, and was most likely bound for an island in the Cyclades. The many items found on board -- pan-shaped utensils, sealed goods, etc.--are very important. However, the Doko island wreck itself is more important, because it represents a tangible piece of ancient history that testifies to the seafaring abilities of the Greeks from the time when that ship sailed the Aegean, if not much earlier. (As has also been proven by the previously mentioned rock carvings of Pangaio, that are not accepted in certain well-known circles.)

    Another important happening that bears upon the events of the latter part of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd millenniums B.C., is the founding on Greek soil of the first big cities of that period: Those of Polyochni on Lemnos island, Troy on the coast of Asia Minor, and Mycenae in the Argolid Plain. Coeval with these cities, we must include Boeotian Thebesas well. It is also precisely at this time that we see a demographic and cultural explosion on Hellenic soil. Coincidentally (?), at the same time, the first Pharaonic dynasty is founded in Egypt by one Min (ή Μήν), and in Mesopotamia we see the Sumerian civilization beginning to make its first great advances.

    The situation at Polyochni of Lemnos represents the best reply to the Indo-Europeanizers, and this is why we will concern ourselves more with this city than with the others. Just as the existence and cultural level of Sesklo by the middle of the 6th millennium B.C. prove, if nothing else, the presence of an advanced civilization in Neolithic Hellas (much sooner than the hypothetical invasion of the "civilized" Indo-Europeans), so does this settlement (misnamed as "the first European city" by the Italian archaeologists who unearthed it) prove the proficiency of the Hellenes in the casting of bronze -- the most strategic of metals at that time -- as well as their nautical trading abilities. Polyochni was founded circa 3700 B.C., and for the following 500 years was the metallurgical center of Hellas, operating also as a trading post for the metals that were mined and brought out of Colchis. It is not by mere coincidence that Lemnos island had long been dedicated to Hephaestus, the god of the forge and of metalworking. It was, after all, past Hephaestus' island that the Argonauts sailed during their exploratory journey to mythical Colchis, in search of metals and, of course, gold.

    Until Sesklo was excavated, all of the above remained in the category of pleasant myths. The Italian archaeologists, however, brought to light hundreds of metal artifacts, and above all, jewelry of such exquisite quality that we are able to testify to the high level of craftsmanship of the Lemnian artisans. Another important factor is the surprising affinity between the Lemnian artifacts and their opposite numbers found in Troy, with which they are coeval. The "Topless Towers of Ilium" and the "Troy of Priam" was nothing more than a colony of the Lemnian denizens of Polyochni, who crossed over to neighboring Asia Minor and founded the city. They also purposed to control the strategically vital Hellespont straits that they'd opened up to commerce after the expedition of the Argonauts had paved the way. (This fact also provides us with an indirect dating of the expedition.)

    The result of this early example of how "trade follows the flag" was the absolute control by the Greeks of the Northern Aegean. To the south, the civilization of the Cycladic islands shone brilliantly by its mere presence. From where, therefore, did our Indo-Europeans float by on their rafts in their thousands while on their way to raid, destroy and pillage all along the Peloponnesian coastline? Why did not the indigenous peoples attempt to at least protect their homes, if not to attack the threatening invaders? To such questions our Indo-Europeanizers offer no answers, but spitefully stick to their decaying theory instead. In their anxiety to find answers, a segment of these learned individuals, under the headship of one J. Mellaart, has decided to change the direction traveled by their Indo-European ancestors into the "promised land" of Hellas. According to Mellaart's theory, the Indo-European Hittites arrived on the northeastern edge of the Asia Minor peninsula and then by stages settled the Asia Minor plateau, putting pressure as they did so upon the local inhabitants -- who were also Indo-Europeans who'd arrived earlier -- forcing them to move to the western coasts of the peninsula. These races, after settling in the region of the Troad, mixed with the indigenous Anatolian inhabitants, and the result of that interbreeding -- according to these stalwarts -- was the Hellenic Race!!!

    These Greeks, Mellaart's theory continues, after having familiarized themselves with the sea, constructed ships with which they migrated first to the Cyclades, and then to the islands of the Northern Aegean, all of whose inhabitants they expelled. Later on, they reached mainland Greece, and once there they likewise expelled the locals, which they were able to do because of their superior "Aryan" fighting spirit, but also because of their formidable and awesome cavalry. Moreover,Mellaart claims that the Hellenes were a race of seafarers prior to their establishment in their "new" homeland! This observation is most likely cunningly proposed in order to justify that which is unjustifiableand answer that which is unanswerable: In other words: How did the "Indo-European Greeks" traverse the Aegean Sea? This hypothesis of Mellaart's, the most dangerous politically for Hellas, is, at the same time, the most laughable. First of all, it suffers from the same deficiencies we found in the theory about the arrival of our invading Indo-Europeans into the Aegean on rafts.

    Professor Ntoumas writes that: "The basic flaw in (Mellaart's) theory is that he wants his invaders to invade the Aegean unhindered by any sort of resistance, as if that sea at that time was uninhabited until their arrival on the scene. On the other hand, he recognizes the impossibility of traversing that sea without the requisite nautical skills. For this reason he claims that 'the Greeks were a seafaring people before they settled in the land to which they gave their name.' Where, though, and in what region did they acquire their nautical abilities? It most assuredly was not in the plains of Central Anatolia. Could it perhaps have been along the shores of the Black Sea? If so, why haven't they left some form of proof, material or mythical, or even linguistic, of their extra-Aegean nautical initiatives? Even linguists who concern themselves with the Hellenic language, and who are adherents of the theory of an Indo-European provenance of the Greeks -- that they originally came down from the north -- are unable to explain the complete and mysterious absence in the Greek language of the Indo-European stem mar, which in all other languages is associated with the sea (Latin: mar, French: mer, Italian: mare, German: meer, Slavic: more). And yet, it is the sea that has constituted and continues to constitute the most fundamental component that has shaped and continues to shape the Greek-Aegean character and civilization. As opposed to that, we have the Hellenic stem als (άλς = the sea; a lump of salt; or, in plural, salt), which, as a declarative exclamation of unsatisfactory taste, repugnance, or disgust, was most likely used many ages ago, maybe even from the Paleolithic, to characterize non-potable salt water. Over time, and as an elemental factor in the development of the economy of the Aegean, it evolved, becoming a declinable word having such an elasticity that it enriched the Hellenic language with hundreds of derivatives and compounds. As a result, the absence of elements having to do with the sea or with the seamanship of the Greeks outside of the Aegean, is most likely due to the fact that they themselves were never outside of the Aegean"!!!

    This particular analysis by Professor Ntoumas is particularly cogent because it strikes at the Indo-Europeanizers' most sensitive argument; that of language. The Greek language is, in fact, the only one that expresses the sense of the sea differently from all other major European languages. The stem als (άλς) is most certainly archaic, and has to do with the ancient relationship of the Hellene with the sea; his second mother after Gaea. The astonishing thing that testifies to the continuance of our race, is that the stem als (άλς) is still used to this day to signify the salty, saline, briny, etc.: in other words, the άλας. Why then, since we are of Indo-European origin, don't we express the sense of the sea with a stem similar to the European? Could it possibly be because we Hellenes are, after all, the first race to be so intermingled with the sea from the very beginning of our rich and ancient history? What other race, after all, can show in its mythological corpus (its codified history) so many myths having to do with the sea, from the moment that it began to leave its discernable imprint in the pages of the book of its history? The Egyptians? The Sumerians? Or perhaps those cleverly invented opponents of the awe and majesty of Hellenism, the Phoenicians?

    It was the Greeks who tamed the waves of the Aegean. And from the moment they managed that feat, they never once lost their control over the White Sea: Never! Not even during the worst years of their country's history (Roman, Ottoman, German occupations). It was the Greeks, as well, who, once the Aegean was tamed, passed over to the "other side of Hellas," to Asia Minor, where they thrived and prospered until the great catastrophe of 1922. By the end of the 4th millennium B.C., there had already developed two brilliant civilizations in the Aegean. These civilizations, that of Polyochni and the Cyclades, progressed steadily. The reason they advanced was not because of an invasion by some mythical Indo-European races, but because of the relocation of its productive, cultural, and demographic components to Crete and mainland Greece. As regards Polyochni, its decline most likely occurred as a result of the rise in wealth and power of her neighboring colony, Troy.

    Mellaart's hypothesis suffers from yet another deficiency. At the time when the British archaeologist tells us that the Hittites were flourishing and growing more powerful, they were, in fact, nothing more than a minor race, roaming about on the central plateau of Asia Minor. They ultimately consolidated into what became known as the Hittite Empire around the 18th century B.C., and did not begin to expand territorially until the middle of the 16th century B.C. Therefore, it is laughable for someone to speak of Hittite power in Asia Minor during the latter part of the 4th millennium B.C. Even during the apogee of its power -- between the 16th and 13th centuries B.C.-- the Hittite Empire endeavored to maintain friendly relations with the Thalassocratic Greeks, who they knew as "Minoans" and "Achaeans." In the Royal Archives, discovered within the ruins of the Royal Palace in the capital city of the Hittites, Hattousa, the references to the Great Empire of the "Achiyiva," that extends beyond the Aegean Sea, are many, and bespeak a respect for, if not a fear of, the Greek kings by their Hittite counterparts.

    Another argument that weakens Mellaart's theory concerns the nautical skills of the Anatolians in general and the Hittites in particular. Even at the height of their power, the mighty Hittites never managed to extend their hegemony over the islands of the Aegean, and not even over Thrace; a factofspecial significance since it was there that the strategically vital Hellespont was controlled by the Greeks. If, therefore, the mighty Hittite Empire was in no position to challenge the primacy of the Greeks in the Aegean, how was it possible for the Indo-European masses, the vast majority of whom were unarmed, to do so? Even later on, the powerful, greedy, and bloodthirsty Assyrian kings of that mighty and warlike Empire, never dared to try to secure an outlet into the Greek sea. And, even later yet, when the Empire-building Persians did dare to do so, they were utterly destroyed.

    Insofar as the various destructions and abandonment of certain settlements are concerned, we can attribute these, as the archaeological discoveries indicate, to domestic migrations-invasions, most likely resulting from yet another of Hellas' interminable civil wars. The ceramics unearthed in these hypothetical Indo-European settlements are, according to the American professor, J. Rutter and his Greek colleague, Professor Ch. Ntoumas, in the Minyan style. Belonging, in other words, to the "mythical" Minyan race, whose homeland, however, was traditionally believed to have been Lemnos! In our judgment, Lemnos, and her capital city at the time, Polyochni, ultimately submitted to the power of her colony, Troy, and became attached to her militarily as well. It is not by mere happenstance that the great Homer, in his Iliad, gives us to understand that Troy controlled all of the islands in the North Aegean; islands that were fought for and finally captured by the Achaeans. Our Indo-Europeanizers, on the other hand, rejoin by telling us that they consider the Minyae not to have been a Greek race at all. Was this actually the case?

    According to tradition, the Minyae were an ancient Hellenic race. All of the Argonauts -- scions of the most prominent noble families -- are described in the Orphic corpus as Minyae. Even the greatest of the Hellenic heroes, Hercules, was of Minyan descent. It is to the Minyae that Professor Spyropoulos attributes the draining and subsequent reclaiming of the Lake of Copaïs at the end of the 4th millennium B.C., as well as the construction of a network of roads down to the Peloponnesus. As a result, the Minyae, who are connected with the first Pharaoh of Egypt (Min), and to the Minoans of Crete, must of course be Greeks. Herodotus, in his History (IV: 145.), writes: "The descendants of the crew of the Argo had been driven out by those Pelasgians who had carried off the Athenian women from Brauron; being driven out of Lemnos by these, they sailed away to Lacedaemon, and there encamped on [mount] Taÿgetos and kindled a fire. Seeing this, the Lacedaemonians sent a messenger to enquire who they were and whence they came. They answered the messenger that they were Minyae, descendants of the heroes who sailed in the Argo, and had put in at Lemnos and there begotten their race. Hearing the story of the lineage of the Minyae, the Lacedaemonians sent a second time and asked to what end they had come into Laconia and kindled a fire. They replied, that being expelled by the Pelasgians they had come to the land of their fathers." The product, therefore, of the Cycladic-Aegean civilization -- between 3200 and 2200 B.C. -- the Minyan civilization develops in mainland Greece, from Orchomenus in Boeotia to the Thessalian plain, near the ancient metropolis of Sesklo. It was there, and a little to the west, in Thessalian Phthiotis, that Homer locates Hellas. There, where, according to tradition, Deucalion founded the first Hellenic kingdom after he'd survived the Great Cataclysm that bears his name; the kingdom to which his son, Hellen (΄Ελλην), gave his name.

    The latest attempt by the Indo-Europeanizers to concoct a race of invaders of Greece, has to do with the so called "Dorian Invasion." But this attempt is also spurious because the Dorians, who are supposed to have drowned the Mycenaean Empire in blood after descending upon Greece from the north, were actually the indigenous, mountain-dwelling descendants of Hellen, who maintained friendly relations with Hercules, as well as with his Minyan and Achaean descendants, and had done so for many years prior to their much-heralded "invasion." (see Έλλήνων Ίστορία, issue no. 2: "Τρωϊκος Πόλεμος," and issue no. 4:"Δωριέν Κάθοδος").

    The Iapetus Theory

    As is well known, Iapetus was, according to mythology, a Titan, and the son of Uranus [Heaven] and Gaea [Earth]. Hellenic tradition has reserved a special place for him, as he is the father of Prometheus who was, in turn, the father of Deucalion, who sired Hellen, the eponymous ancestor of the Hellenes. All of these men contributed much to the advancement of mankind. From the name "Iapetus," many late 19th-century Hellenic scholars, with the great linguist Joseph Hatzidakis in the vanguard, rushed to redefine the Indo-European theory by looking at it through another prism. Replacing "Indo-Europeans," and "Indo-European Languages," with "Iapetic Races" and "Iapetic Language," they attempted to separate the truth that is actually hidden behind the alleged Indo-European migration.

    As the son of Uranus, Iapetus is linked to the expansion of the most ancient of the Hellenes into Mesopotamia. The toponymics Ur, Urartou, Uroúk, in the region which extends from the estuaries to the sources of the two main rivers -- the Tigris and the Euphrates -- cannot have come about by mere chance. The astonishing similarities between the Hellenic Minyan-Aegean civilization, and that of the Sumerians -- a fantastic race whose very name is the product of the fertile imaginations of the British archaeologists who first excavated the cities of this lost civilization -- have already been emphasized. From the moment we acknowledge that the Greeks were already seafaring from the middle of the 5th millennium B.C., with what were at that time state-of-the-art ships, we can speak about their initial expansion starting from the Palestinian coast. ... From there it would have been easy to migrate inland to Mesopotamia, even reaching as far as exotic India (which would explain the many myths concerning the expeditions to that place by Dionysus at first and Hercules afterwards). We must not forget that Alexander the Great followed in the footsteps of his ancestors. And we are not speaking here about migrations of Hellenes to those faraway places, but rather of expeditions for trade and discovery, similar to that of the Argonauts.

    However, while in the pursuit of trade and an increase of knowledge, the Hellenes also transmitted the light of their civilization to the indigenous populations, greatly influencing them in turn. After the mist-shrouded ages of Dionysus and Hercules, the Minoan Greeks returned to these lands, establishing trading posts along the rich Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. Lending credibility to this assertion is the persistence -- as the historian Diodorus Siculus informs us -- of the Yemenis in the belief that they are descended from the Minoans: and the aforementioned archaeological finds testify to the accuracy of Diodorus' account. From the Greeks, therefore, the natives in the lands that extend from the southern borders of the Caspian region to the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains, most likely learned new crafts and skills. This is especially true insofar as metallurgy is concerned, and explains why the acquisition of a Greek sword or dagger by one of that region's kings was regarded as a great honor, even down to the Mycenaean period.

    In exchange, the Greeks secured a supply of metals and other valuable raw materials. This held true up to the regions surrounding the estuary of the Danube River in the north as well. And here, too, the Greeks, just as during more ancient times, established trading posts for the purpose of acquiring raw materials. This resulted in the native populations of these regions becoming somewhat Hellenized. Continuously exposed as they were, however, to the persistent raids and incursions of the barbarians in the hinterlands, they never managed to match the rate of development of the Greeks. We are of course referring here to the non-Hellenic populations of the northern Balkans, and not to the Hellenic Thracians, who, because of similar problems, also did not follow the rate of development of the Greeks in the south or Asia Minor, the result being they they are today characterized as non-Greeks.

    End of Part Two
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indo-Europeans: The Invisible Race

    By Pantelis D. Karikas



    Part Three



    The Indo-European Theory and Politics: Indo-Europeans, Colonizers, and "Aryans"



    [Let us ... give thanks for our common Hellenic paideia, through which we became civilized and did not remain the wild beast-like creatures we once were. We younger peoples only ceased to be barbarous and wild when we came into contact with Hellenic civilization. It is this defining incident in the history of European man that unites us all.

    Dr. Frederico Sagredo

    Professor of Classics and President of the Basque Hellenic Society of Spain]

    As we've seen, the Indo-European theory developed in Europe due to a confluence of crisis-causing historicalevents. The European powers -- including those defeated during the Napoleonic Wars -- implemented the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 that divided Europe into zones of influence. They then concentrated almost exclusively upon economic recovery; something that had been held in abeyance because of the prolonged hostilities. With the exception of the already imperialist Great Britain, almost all of the nations of Western Europe transformed themselves into colonial powers during the course of the 19th century: Even tiny Belgium acquired colonies. It is within this historical framework that the Indo-European theory developed and came to be eagerly accepted. It was necessary that the Western Europeans differentiate themselves from the "primitive" vassals in their colonies. To accomplish this, a theoretical underpinning supporting the notion of their superiority was necessary. By declaring themselves and the Hellenes to be part of the same Indo-European race, they were able to blend their "civilizations" with that of Hellas', thereby essentially stealing a small part of its glory.

    On the other hand, as the declared descendants of a civilization that also gave birth to that of the Greeks, they began -- with unbridled hubris -- to disseminate the myth of their superiority compared to the non-Indo-European races under their hegemony. The Indo-European theory, therefore, gave the European imperialist and racist colonizers the theoretical framework they needed in order to justify the suppression and exploitation of their African and Asian subjects. Moreover, they also attempted to use the slave-state models of the ancient world to support and make legal the system of slavery in place at that time. Needless to say, the status of the slaves of ancient Greece, at least those from the Mycenaean to the beginning of the Hellenistic periods, cannot, under any circumstances, be compared with -- for example -- that of the African slaves who watered with their blood the plantations of their American masters -- within the framework of the much-vaunted "Protestant Ethic" of the latter, of course.

    Are Europeans justified in bragging about their Hellenic origin? Of course they are! Their Hellenic, Iapetic origin, however, not their hypothetical Indo-European origin! The entire cultural structure of Europe is, at its base, of a common origin, but not in the way the aforementioned Maritsa Jiboutas asserts that it is in her "warmed-over" version of the Indo-European theory, which she's dubbed "Old Europe." Rather, it is in the way the ancient Greek traditions we find in the literature of Hellas tell us it is: traditions verified by the discoveries made by the archaeological pick and shovel of recent years. The eternally adventuresome and perpetually curious Greek Pelasgians, Aeolians, Achaeans, Minoans and Minyans, traversed from time immemorial this entire Old Planet of ours, utilizing every oceanic and river "highway," to trade with the "primitive" Europeans of that long-ago time. As they did so, they transmitted the lucent glory of their civilization to these peoples. And it is precisely for this reason that no Hellene should in any way be -- to quote Professor Zourari's term -- "Euro-allergic"!

    Upon the Indo-European theory was the rotten myth of German racial superiority -- so deviously promoted by Adolph Hitler -- also based. It was this theory that sanctioned the annihilation of millions of people in cold blood, including 400,000 Greeks. This gruesome statistic does not seem to influence the theorizing process within certain circles who, however, have no qualms at all in labeling any dissenting or independent voice that speaks of patriotism, religion, and tradition as "fanatical" and "fascistic."Whereas, it is impossible for one -- after analyzing their behavior -- not to conclude that they are -- among other things -- "fanatics" in their blind support of the Indo-European theory.

    The Indo-European Theory as a Means by which Anti-Hellenism is promoted

    One must wonder why the Indo-Europeanizers persist in supporting their theory with such passion; especially as it relates to their conclusions concerning Hellas. Can such stubborn proponents of this theory be justifiably characterized as anti-Hellenic? Under no circumstances should we attribute the persistent stubbornness of some of these individuals to a conspiracy based upon evil intentions. Most of these people have simply learned to think in a certain way which has, over time, led them to conclusions they've come to think of as axiomatic. There does exist, however, a small segment of the proponents of this theory about whom it can be said that they are motivated by base incentives, as well as by their political and/or economic ambitions. Regardless of the individual intentions of these researchers, however, the fact remains that their misguided support of the Indo-European theory creates problems for modern-day Greece. The basic problem created is the promulgation of the belief in the discontinuity of the civilization in this corner of the planet; a discontinuity which has unfortunately become a propagandistic asset eagerly exploited by the nations and would-be nations that border Hellas.

    For a start, the adoption of this theory endangers the historical rights of the Hellenic race on its very own soil. Our northern neighbors (Skopjians, Bulgarians, and some Rumanians) are not passionate supporters of the Indo-European theory by mere chance. According to their written and orally proclaimed assertions, there once existed in the northern Balkan peninsula a previous civilization; one thatextended all the way to Crete (!!), and which had no connection whatever with the Greek civilization that came later. The Greeks, they say, came as blood-thirsty invaders, and utterly destroyed this older Balkan civilization of their ancestors (!!), who were revenged when their Alexander the Great conquered Hellas and mastered the Greeks. This Balkan civilization, which they've baptized "Thracian" (the Bulgarians and the Rumanians), or "Macedonian" (the Skopjians), had -- according to them -- many bright achievements to brag about; especially in those regions that are today "under the yoke of Greek occupation," like Macedonia, Thrace, and even Thessaly.

    We remember, as an example, the efforts of some "Rumanianized koutsovlachides," who, during the triple occupation of Hellas (1941 - 44), tried -- with the help of the Italians -- to found what they called the "Vlach Principality of Thessaly." This crudely devised attempt at "nation-building" failed of course, because the Vlachs of Greece are and consider themselves to be Greeks. The nationalist groups in our neighboring countries, however, have not given up on their plans. They are simply laying the groundwork while waiting for the most advantageous opportunity; something that is not too difficult to re-arrange given the speed with which international events are moving in this new world we live in. We cite as a characteristic example the fact that Rumanian nationalist groups are circulating slanderous propaganda throughout Greece in the form of leaflets which say: "Thracian-Rumanians wake up! Wake up and demand all that has been stolen from you."

    And if the Rumanians represent the one race which is considered to be, and actually is, that which is most disposed to friendliness toward the Greeks, there are other races (Bulgarians), or nations comprised of a jumbled-up mixture of races (Skopjians) that are not. Because of the Indo-European theory, the "Macedonians" of Skopje have been taught to believe that their race inhabited the region before the Greeks, and now have the audacity to claim Alexander the Great as their own. Then we have the Bulgarians, whose ancestors, as is well known, settled in today's Bulgaria from the middle of the 6th to the beginning of the 7th century A.D., and who are now demanding that their "Thracian" ancestry be acknowledged. More than that, they are agitating for "their historical rights," taken from them by the "Greek invaders." The most ridiculous and laughable, however, are none other than our modern-day "brothers," the Turks. These worthies, exploiting Mellaart's hypothesis to the fullest, have created a whole para-literary corpus about the so-called "Prototurks" who inhabited Asia Minor long before the arrival there of the Greeks! Relying upon the limitless insanity of our times, as well as upon the naïve gullibility this insanity has engendered in the masses, our "brother" Turks have now reached the point where they are passing themselves off as the ancestors of the Hittites! This fabrication supposedly secures for them the "historical right" to Asia Minor, while, at the same time, it allows their non-existent "civilization" to claim credit for that region's cultural heritage.

    For all of these reasons, which have been presented hastily and in a condensed form in this quick study, the Indo-European theory represents a danger for Hellenism, upon which it has cast doubts as to its longevity, as well as putting at risk the very right to inhabit what is left of its shrunken -- as compared to the past -- territory. This is why we have an obligation, not only to our ancestors, but to the coming generations, to wage this cultural war -- at an enlightened level, of course -- against the nationalist elements in those states which are contiguous with Hellas. The major problem, however, is that the voices against us are stronger and more powerful, and are even heard, unfortunately, coming from Greek lips within the borders of our country. These people do not realize that they are merely serving the interests of others under the New World Order mantle of "progress" and the "brotherhood" of man. We say this because we refuse to believe that there are Hellenes who would voluntarily and knowingly harm Hellas. What is missing from these individuals is simply knowledge combined with common sense. As one of our illustrious ancient ancestors said: "Foolishness is worse than bad intentions."

    Epilogue

    Having studied the basics of the Indo-European theory, we can, with some certitude, arrive at a few useful conclusions. First, let us emphasize that the Indo-European theory has, from the very beginning, been supported by linguistic "proofs," not archaeological ones. As opposed to the prevailing practice, the Indo-Europeanizers have endeavored to adapt or fit the archaeological evidence to their theory, rather than trying to work out a position supported strictly by that evidence!!! This practice has comprised, and still comprises, a universal first of its kind. We say "comprises" because no sooner is a new discovery brought to light that is inimical to their theory, than a new "Indo-European" counterpart is presented, together with a concerted effort to "absorb" the new discovery within the crucible of the Indo-European theory. Also, completely by coincidence of course, as soon as an important discovery is made which lengthens the span of Hellenic history by a few hundred years, there miraculously appear older, similar discoveries in other regions -- preferably in a more northern or eastern locale. A typical example is the settlement of Tsatal Yiouyiouk, in what was once Great Phrygia in Asia Minor, which was arbitrarily dated -- before the discovery of the advanced dating methods employed today -- to the 8th millennium B.C. by German scientists. All of these maneuvers have as their common goal the shortening of the life-span of Greek civilization.

    In the words of Professor Theoharis: "So as not to extend beyond the 3000 B.C. limit (the historical beginning of the Egyptian Dynasties), the phases of development in Greece had to be cut back. Therefore, the "civilization of Sesklo," they tell us, began 3000 years ago, in spite of the fact that the newest, most advanced dating methods in the world today give us a date that is 2000 years older." This inclination to delimit and contain the lifespan of Hellenism, as well as the attempt to attribute all earlier achievements to either foreign invaders or to the technological skills they supposedly brought with them, has, unfortunately, influenced not only a sizable percentage of Hellenic scholars, but has also managed to solidify into a common political agenda whose purpose is to eliminate the possibility of our people being characterized as "nationalists."

    We have seen how our neighboring states, or, more precisely, certain well-organized groups within those states, even utilize archaeology and an unproven theory to further their political goals and their territorial ambitions. Because the times we live in are fast-moving and dangerous, those who dare to be proud of their origin -- not from some sterile ancestor worship, but from a guileless love for their country -- will be best served in the long run by struggling to preserve their Hellenic history, which is under attack from within and without, and to do so from whatever position they occupy and in any way they are able. It is especially incumbent upon the Hellenic academic community to live up to its obligations to Hellas by supporting her position in any international organizations to which they may belong, as well as by countering any opposing voices that are involuntarily (we want to believe) undermining Hellenic history within the country. For that reason, we wish to publicly congratulate Professor Christos Ntoumas for the struggle he recently waged in Germany to preserve unbiased scholarly truth.

    Appendices

    1-a) Chart showing the major Greek words having a corresponding meaning in the "Indo-European" languages.

    Greek Indic Latin Slavic Lithuanian Teutonic/Germanic
    πατήρ pitar pater -- -- vater
    μήτηρ matar mater mater meter mutter
    φράτηρ bratar frater brat brathair bruder
    δόμος damas domus dom -- --
    ναυς navas navis -- -- --
    ζυγόν jugam jugum igo jugas joch
    άξων aksas axis -- -- asche
    μυς mus mus -- -- maus
    χειμών himas hiems -- -- --
    είμί asmi sum jesmi esmi --
    έστί asti est jesti esti ist
    δύο dva duo dva du twa (zwai)
    τρία (tri) tria tri tri tri (drei)
    έπτά sapta septem sedmi septyni sibum/siebem
    σύ tútu tu tu tu thu (du)
    (ε)μέ me me men manem mik (mich)
    (h)άλς -- mar more mare meer

    Hyphen means no corresponding word exists.
    (Chart: Professor Ch. Pelekidis, with the assistance of Irini L. Bourdakou.)

    1-b) Commentary by Professor Ch. Ntoumas upon the "Indo-European origin" of the Greek Language:

    I've been impressed these many years as I've tried to interpret Greek civilization
    within the context of the hypothetical roots of Indo-European. Approximately
    80% to 90% of those roots have an asterisk, which means they don't exist.

    2) Professor Dimitrios R. Theoharis. ΝΕΟΛΙΘΙΚΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ. Chapter 1, 7.:

    Taking all the precautions that are imposed by the limited framework of contemporary
    research, it is [still] possible to characterize the "Mesolithic" (8000 B.C.) period in
    Hellas as genuinely transitional. One that continued the stone-craft of the former
    Paleolithic tradition without essential change in the prevalent way of life (hunting and
    gathering continues, whereas fishing later becomes a means by which more protein
    is added to the diet). This transition played a vital role -- sometimes attributed to
    other causes -- in the creation of a production economy that spread throughout Hellas.
    There can really be no doubt that those who, for the first time, were the recipients of
    the goods and benefits that the taming of animals and the cultivation of crops gave to
    them were living in an age that we can properly describe as "Mesolithic." Even if we
    were to concede that the taming of animals and the sowing of crops -- as ideas or in
    actual application -- had been imported from the East, as is believed by some, it would
    have been extremely difficult to explain or transmit by small groups of "migrants" -- an
    hypothesis which has never been proven -- and to totally ignore the role of an already
    existent population that was experiencing the final phase of hunting-gathering, and was
    culturally ready to receive the new realities affecting the means by which human life is
    organized.

    3) Professor Dimitrios R. Theoharis. ΝΕΟΛΙΘΙΚΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ. Chapter 3, 5.:

    In the cave of Phrakti, Jacobsen separated one category of early, Neolithic, mono-
    chromatic, inscribed ceramics (urfirnis), that were subsequently dated using the
    radiochronological method as being from the middle of the 6th millennium B.C. In
    other words, much earlier than the beginning of the Meso-Neolithic in Thessaly
    (circa 5300 B.C.). Should this difference be verified by other observations, it will
    prove to be of great importance. This because it will have created an important
    problem while solving another: The first problem is the severing of the evolutionary
    continuance of the Neolithic in Hellas. ... The second is the origin of the technology
    of the Neolithic urfirnis, and what connection their discovery may have with the
    arrival in Hellas of a foreign population which -- according to the proponents of the
    "theory" -- came from the eastern regions of the Halaf civilization (as proposed by
    the German Weinberg). However, this fantastic "arrival of a new population from the
    Near East," that intruded itself suddenly into the eastern regions of Central and
    Northern Greece, is said to have done so, according to the "theory," "at, or not later
    than, 5000 B.C." If, as we've noted above, the Neolithic urfirnis of Phrakti cave are
    dated to the middle of the 6th millennium B.C., we must then logically conclude that
    the region of the Mesopotamian Halaf -- which is purported to be the origin of this
    technology, as well as the cradle of the civilization of the people who transported it --
    had to have developed much earlier. But that old of a dating (for Mesopotamia) is,
    according to the chronological data, totally impossible (the oldest accepted date for its
    beginning being 5250 B.C.), which means that the "theory" must be discarded.

    4) Professor Ch. Ntoumas. Η ΙΝΔΟΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗ ΘΕΩΡΙΑ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΓΑΙΟΥ:

    Nineteenth century European Romanticism, and the need for European imperialist
    expansionism to create racial distinctions, interpreted ancient Greek civilization as
    the creation of a distinctly gifted race that was racially superior to the Greeks. By
    characterizing the Greeks as a branch of the Indo-Europeans, the whole of colonizing
    Europe was elevated to the distinction of being the cradle of a great civilization, and
    the Europeans as a superior and privileged race that was, therefore, entitled to sub-
    jugate and exploit the indigenous races of other continents. Let us not forget that all
    non-European races were collectively baptized as "wild" by the colonizing Europeans.
    They were, in other words, the races of other continents and, as something between
    man and beast, represented a commodity to be exploited for the benefit of the
    economies of the ostensibly civilized world. These "inferior" races, however, all had
    their own civilizations, conditioned by the environment in which they lived. Because
    the level of a culture is not a question of race or ethnicity. It is the sum of the reactions
    of a given race to the provocations and challenges that its environment imposes. And,
    if the environment remains stable, so does the character of the culture. As a result, it is
    the culture that determines the distinct identity of a race, and not the opposite. ... The
    dynamics of the Aegean environment in molding its civilization has been perceived by
    that great scholar of the Aegean, John Caskey. In spite of the fact that he too was a
    proponent of the Indo-European idea, and supported the view that the Greeks
    migrated down from the north, he was able to apprehend that "the Hellenizing power
    of Greece had been a proven fact from historical times, totally independent of human
    interference, and was undoubtedly active much earlier than the appearance of a race
    that might be called 'Greek.' "

    5) Professor Ch. Ntoumas. Η ΙΝΔΟΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗ ΘΕΩΡΙΑ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΓΑΙΟΥ:

    Often, in the past, linguists, philologists and historians, using criteria based upon
    linguistic theories, compartmentalized the language, religion, traditions and the
    culture of the Aegean in general, into Pre-Hellenic and Hellenic, and its inhabitants
    as Pre-Hellenes and Hellenes. The unanticipated consequence of this cerebral
    fabrication has been that serious scholarship has become a game of musical chairs,
    the goal of which is to solve the riddle of when the Greeks came or did not come
    to Greece, and when did Greek history actually begin. That we are really dealing
    here with a game of musical chairs is proven each time we see the chronological limits
    of this riddle being moved about whenever new archaeological discoveries are made:
    e.g., the 12th, the 16th, the 20th or the 23rd centuries B.C. It is precisely these varying,
    hypothetical arrival dates of the Greeks that show that this scholarly research took
    the wrong path right from the very beginning: Instead of initially seeking archaeological
    data as to the prior history of this land, and then proceeding to the compilation and
    interpretation of this data, this research fabricated theories, within which it seeks, even
    now, to accommodate the archaeological evidence. This is why even the archaeological
    data is negated, and we've been reduced to playing a game of musical chairs.

    Bibliography

    Ancient Sources

    1) Διοδώρου Σικελιώτου. ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΗ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ. Εκδόσεις Γεωργιάδη.
    2) Ήροδότου. ΙΣΤΟΡΙΗΣ ΑΠΟΔΕΞΙΣ. Harvard University Press, 1925.
    3) Ξενοφώντος. ΙΠΠΑΡΧΙΚΟΣ, Εκδόσεις Γεωργιάδη.
    4) Όμήρου. ΙΛΙΑΣ, ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑ, Εκδόσεις Γεωργιάδη.

    Contemporary Sources

    1) Δ. Ρ. Θεοχάρη. ΝΕΟΛΙΘΙΚΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ. Μορφωτικό Ιδρ.Εθνικής Τραπέζης. Άθήνα,1999.
    2) N. G. Hammond. A History of Greece, Clarendon Press, 1967.
    3) J. Haudry. ΟΙ ΙΝΔΟΕΥΡΟΠΑΙΟΙ. Ινστιτούτο τού βιβλίου Καρδαμίτσα, Άθήνα, 1995.
    4) R. Huble. Warfare in the Ancient World. Cassel, London, 1980.
    5) Β. Καραγιώργη. Ο ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΪΣΤΟΡΙΚΗΣ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ. 1976.
    6) Π. Καρύκας. Έλλήνων Ίστορία, "Δωρίεων Κάθοδος," τόμ. 4, Άθήνα, 2002.
    7) Π. Καρύκας. Έλλήνων Ίστορία, "Τρωικός Πόλεμος," τόμ. 2, Άθήνα, 2002.
    8) Ναυάρχου Π. Ε. Κώνστα. Η ΝΑΥΤΙΚΗ ΗΓΕΜΟΝΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΜΥΚΗΝΩΝ. Άθήνα, 1966.
    9) Ι. Λυριντζή. ΑΡΧΑΙΟΜΕΤΡΙΑ. Άθήνα, 1994.
    10) Χ. Μπένγκστον. ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΑΣ ΕΛΛΑΔΑΣ. Άθήνα, 1991.
    11) Ion Miclea & Radu Florescu. PREISTORIA DACIEI, vol.1, Bucaresti, 1980.
    12) Ε. Λ. Μπουρδάκου. ΔΑΙΔΑΛΟΣ, Ο ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΜΗΧΑΝΙΚΟΣ, Αίολος, Άθήνα, 1999.
    13) Ε. Λ. Μποθρδάκου. ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ, Ο ΕΞΕΡΕΥΝΗΤΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΧΑΙΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ. Ελεύθερη Σκέπσις (ύπό έκδοσι).
    14) Χρ. Ντούμα. Η ΙΝΔΟΕΥΡΩΠΪΚΗ ΘΕΩΡΙΑ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΓΑΙΟΥ. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου "Η Ιστορία τής Έλληνικής Γλώσσας καί Γραφής," Γερμανία, 1996. σελ. 67 -74.
    15) Χρ. Ντούμα. Η ΝΑΞΟΣ ΣΤΗΝ 3η Π.Χ. ΧΙΛΙΕΤΙΑ. Έκδόσεις Μουσείου Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης, Άθήνα, 1990.
    16) Μ. Παντελίδου-Γκόφα. Η ΝΕΟΛΙΘΙΚΗ ΑΤΤΙΚΗ. Βιβλιοθήκη τής έν Άθήναις Άρχαιολογικής Έταιρείας, Άθήνα, 1997.
    17) Άθ. Παπαδοπούλου. Η ΕΠΟΧΗ ΤΟΥ ΛΙΘΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΗΠΕΙΡΟ. Άνάτυπο τής πανεπιστημικής έπετηρίδος Δωδώνη, Ίωάννινα, 1974.
    18) Άθ. Παπαδοπούλου. Η ΕΠΟΧΗ ΤΟΥ ΧΑΛΚΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΗΠΕΙΡΟ. Άνάτυπο τής πανεπιστημικής έπετηρίδος Δωδώνη, Ίωάννινα, 1976.
    19) Χρύση Πελεκίδη. ΑΡΧΑΙΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ. Πανεπιστημιακές Έκδόσεις Πανεπιστημίου Ίωαννίνων, Ίωάννινα, 1988.
    20) Άρ. Πουλιανού. Η ΧΑΛΚΙΔΙΚΗ: ΚΟΙΤΙΔΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΝΟΥ ΓΕΝΟΥΣ. Έπετηρίς "Ανθρωπος," τ.13, σελ. 6-55, 1991 97.
    21) S. Tine & A. Traverso. ΠΟΛΙΟΧΝΗ, Βιβλιοθήκη τής έν Άθήναις Άρχαιολογικής Έταιρείας, Άθήνα, 2001.

    Reference material and encyclopedias

    1) ΘΕΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΗΡΩΕΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΟΧΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΧΑΛΚΟΥ. Έθνικό Άρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Άθηνών, Άθήνα, 2000.
    2) ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΥ ΕΘΝΟΥΣ. ΄Εκδοτική Άθηνών.
    3) ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΥ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ. Έκδόσεις Χάρη Πάτση.
    4) THE CAMBRIDGE ANCIENT HISTORY. Cambridge University Press, 1971.
    5) Έγκυκλοπαιδεία ΠΑΠΥΡΟΣ-ΛΑΡΟΥΣ-ΜΠΡΙΤΤΑΝΙΚΑ.
    6) Έγκυκλοπαιδεία. TIME LIFE.
    7) ΤΡΟΙΑ, ΑΝΑΣΚΑΦΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΡΡΙΚΟΥ ΣΛΗΜΑΝ, Άθήνα, 1995.

    End of Part Three
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source. Έλλήνων Ίστορία; Διμηναία Έκδοσις τής "ΑΛΣ Α.Ε." Issue no. 6. February-March 2003. Georgiades Publishing, Stournara 51, Athens 10 432 Greece.



    Epigraph quoting Diogenes Laertius is from the Loeb Classical Library, H.U.P., Cambridge, Mass.; 1972. trans. by R. D. Hicks, M.A.



    Epigraph quoting Dr. Aris Poulianos is from the Journal of the Anthropological Association of Greece, Anthropos.(Passim.) No.13. Athens: A.A.H.,1991-1997.



    Epigraph quoting the late Dr. Frederico Sagredo is from his letter to The Minister of Culture and Education of Spain, Esperanta Egida, with copies to the Parliament of the European Union.



    Translation of this monograph from the Greek by TGR staff is ©.

  2. #132
    Member
    Aristotle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 4th, 2007 @ 10:45 PM
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Location
    Athens, near Parthenon
    Gender
    Age
    68
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Archaeologist-journalist.
    Politics
    Plato's Orientation
    Religion
    National Hellenic
    Posts
    179
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    ΕΥΤΥΧΕΙΤΕ!
    Dear Tyrkanos, the answer to your question about involvment of Serbs in Hellenic-Albanian brotherhood is very simple: insecurity!
    Same answer explains their attitude in front of Croatian case.
    Defending behind Orthodox Church they are trying to build an invisible fence dividing Europe. This is an old tactic no more valid!
    Of course in Balkan-area we have to respect one each the other. So, Serbs have to respect natural bonds between brother-peoples like Hellenes and Albanians. Over all, Serbs have to refuse future genocides against Albanians like they did in near past. Not only because of victims; the injustice matters more...
    Balkan must survive, because any part of Europe is priceless.

  3. #133
    Member
    Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,952
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    34
    Thanked in
    33 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks



    Rather poor attempts of you two to avoid
    straight replying.

    Aristotle continues with posting nonsensical statements,
    while Tyrankos copy-pastes entire books.

    Nobody noticed your incompetence, I'm sure

  4. #134
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, February 7th, 2005 @ 10:00 PM
    Subrace
    Northwest Hellenic-Dorian
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Eurocentric Pan-European
    Religion
    Hellenic Philosophy
    Posts
    26
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    I do not see you refuting our posts. Can you? Whats wrong with posting research to prove your point?

  5. #135
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 10th, 2012 @ 02:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Slavic
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    2,280
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristotle
    Over all, Serbs have to refuse future genocides against Albanians like they did in near past.
    EYTYXEITE!

    Massacres in Kosovo never happened, say Canadians who investigated mass graves.

    The war crimes tribunal in The Hague is "beginning to panic" over its case against former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic according to a Vancouver detective sent to unearth mass graves in Kosovo and a Canadian filmmaker who documented the exhumations.

    "I would think they'll have a tough time with the charge of genocide with only 5,000 bodies," said retired Vancouver detective sergeant Brian Honeybourn. "It seems as though The Hague is beginning to panic."

    Mr. Milosevic's trial is to resume next week with the former Serbian dictator defending himself against charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Former Canadian Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour made history when she laid the charges -- the first against a head of state -- as the tribunal's special prosecutor.


    Calgary filmmaker Garth Pritchard and Sgt. Honeybourn are critical of Ms. Arbour, now UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and her claims that the Serbs, directed by Mr. Milosevic, murdered as many as 200,000 civilians during its ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.

    The alleged massacres were used by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Western leaders as justification for their bombing campaign and intervention in kosovo, and were regularly and routinely reported as fact on television networks such as the CBC and CNN, as the West backed the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) against the Serbs.

    http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3e73cc91-c819-40a8-9ccf-7859b083b32c



  6. #136
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, February 7th, 2005 @ 10:00 PM
    Subrace
    Northwest Hellenic-Dorian
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Eurocentric Pan-European
    Religion
    Hellenic Philosophy
    Posts
    26
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    Have you ever spoken to a Kosovo Albanian that had their whole family slaughtered? I have.

    Enough Vojvoda. Get on topic or get off.

    "Lying is a form of our patriotism and is evidence of our innate intelligence. We lie in a creative, imaginative, and inventive way. In these lands every lie becomes a truth in the end."
    Dobrica COSIC - former president of Yugoslavia and a Member of Serb Academy of Arts and Sciences, about Serbs

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

    The Serbs need to avoid this path for a brighter future.

  7. #137
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 10th, 2012 @ 02:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Slavic
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    2,280
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    Hey,I didn't write the article.
    Last edited by Vojvoda; Thursday, November 18th, 2004 at 11:30 PM.



  8. #138
    Member
    Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,952
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    34
    Thanked in
    33 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    Those damned Canadian imperialists!

  9. #139
    Account Inactive
    Odin Biggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, December 18th, 2006 @ 03:20 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Suffolk
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    I'm left handed but always right
    Religion
    Computers and the games
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrkanos
    Have you ever spoken to a Kosovo Albanian that had their whole family slaughtered? I have.

    Enough Vojvoda. Get on topic or get off.

    "Lying is a form of our patriotism and is evidence of our innate intelligence. We lie in a creative, imaginative, and inventive way. In these lands every lie becomes a truth in the end."
    Dobrica COSIC - former president of Yugoslavia and a Member of Serb Academy of Arts and Sciences, about Serbs

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

    The Serbs need to avoid this path for a brighter future.
    Tony Blair has taken a note out of Slober down my c**k yer bitchs book.

    He lied and (so far) has got away with it.

    Its easy for me to sit here and rant about the Balkans and the Kosovans who we had a mass influx of 4 years ago.

    I remember when the war started in 1999 i woke up and put the tele on and saw the planes dropping their odnance.

    Should of never bombed, invaded, intervened at all, this wasnt Britains or Americas war, it was a Balkan issue so they had the right to sort it out for themselves instead of the blue helmets.

    If anyone needs bombing its Brussels.

  10. #140
    Account Inactive
    Odin Biggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, December 18th, 2006 @ 03:20 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Suffolk
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    I'm left handed but always right
    Religion
    Computers and the games
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Pan-European Albanians and Greeks

    I forgot to say Sudan has ethnic cleansing going on right now and their is actually evidence to back this up.

    Somebody give me reasons why former Yugoslavia was bombed and occupied and Sudan not bombed and occupied on the premise of ethnic cleansing.

    Oh yeah i forgot whos going to risk the vote over a bunch of primative africans who noone gives a shit about.

Similar Threads

  1. Pan-Germanic America: Defining an American Pan-Germanic Identity
    By DanseMacabre in forum The United States
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: Sunday, May 27th, 2018, 04:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •