In the military-political history of all
nations, a triangular relationship constantly appears: the simultaneous
invasion of a country by two conquerors, who are both simultaneously enemies with
each other. The same triangle appears when we have an invasion of a country by
a conqueror, while another conqueror is already in that country.
In Hellenic history we have many such examples.
Invasions of Hellas by Ottoman and Frankish conquerors, while they were
enemies with each other. Here the triangle is
"Hellenes-Ottomans-Franks". Invasions of Hellas by
Byzantine and Arab conquerors, while they were enemies with each other. Here
the triangle is "Hellenes-Arabs-Byzantines". Invasions of Hellas by
the Byzantines and Visigoths of Alaric, who were simultaneously enemies with
one another. Here the triangle is "Hellenes-Visigoths-Byzantines".
We call this engagement
the classical triangular relationship. It constantly appears in the form of a
dilemma to all peoples; and the one having the dilemma of choosing an ally,
might be in the position of the subjugated, or in the position of the sovereign
(i.e. at the time of the invasion, the people are not subjugated but free), or
in the position of one of the conquerors.
For example, the English
during the Second World War addressed the conquered peoples and asked them for
an alliance against the Germans. Here the dilemma is the conqueror's (=the
English), who is looking for allies against another conqueror (=the Germans).
The dilemma that the English conqueror was faced with, was whether the
conquered peoples would ally with him, or whether they would ally with the
German conqueror in exchange for their freedom. The English promised
independence to the conquered peoples after a victorious end to the war. The
Germans promised immediate freedom from the English colonial rule.
The Indians, as a
conquered people, had the dilemma of who to ally with. They ultimately chose to
participate in the war on the side of the English conquerors against the
Germans. The Poles faced the dilemma of a Nazi or communist invasion.
Ultimately, the Nazis and communists relieved the Poles of their dilemma, after
they came to an understanding and dismembered Poland.
Hellas in the years of
the First World War had proposals to join the war on the side of the English or
the Germans. Venizelos and King Constantine I quarreled over whose side they
would join in the war.
The Americans in
Afghanistan supported the Muslim mujahideen against the Soviets. Here all three
parties of the triangle "Americans-Soviets-Muslims" have the dilemma.
If the Americans allied
with the Muslim mujahideen against the Soviets and the Muslim mujahideen were
victorious, they would install an anti-American Islamic regime. The Americans
would detach one country from the communist camp, but they would hand it over
to the Islamic camp. And so it happened; the Muslim mujahideen installed an
Islamic-style dictatorship and initiated a war against their former American
allies.
The Muslim mujahideen
were facing the dilemma from the viewpoint that they are being supported by a
Western power with which they had no cultural or political affinity. They were
enemies toward the U.S.A. and its capitalist ideas as much as they were enemies
toward the U.S.S.R. and its communist ideas. Sooner or later they would clash
with the U.S.A.
And the Soviets faced an
analogous dilemma. To ally with the U.S.A. against the mujahideen, or to ally
with the mujahideen against the U.S.A.? They did not ally with anyone, and lost
the war in Afghanistan.
We occasionally notice in Hellenic history an
invasion by three or more conquerors, who are simultaneously enemies with one
another. We have such a case toward the end of the Byzantine Empire wherein we
face Frankish, Byzantine and Ottoman conquerors, who are all simultaneously
enemies with one another.
In all these cases, dilemmas arise not only for
the subjugated Hellenes but also for the conquerors. The relentless questions
that arise are: "with whom will we ally ourselves and against whom?",
"what will happen if our ally is defeated?", "in this case, how
will the victor treat us?", " if we are victorious, would our ally
annihilate us since we would no longer be of need to him?".
It is important to look at what the Byzantine
conquerors did in the case of the invasion of Hellas by the Visigoths of
Alaric, back when the Byzantine conquerors faced their own triangular
relationship: "Byzantines-Visigoths-Hellenes".
The Byzantine conquerors not only did not resist
the Visigoth invader, but instead viewed the Hellenes as the greater enemy. The
Byzantines allied themselves with the Visigoths so they could slaughter the
Hellenes and destroy their Sanctuaries. They did not care that the Visigoth
invader even sowed terror in the Christian masses. They were more interested in
the slaughter of the Hellenes. It was an opportunity to wipe out Hellenism that
they could not afford to miss.
In the years under Roman rule, when Rome was
still polytheistic, the classical triangular relationship appeared for the
umpteenth time: the subjugated Hellenes were simultaneously facing two enemies,
the Romans and the Christians. The polytheistic Roman conquerors stripped us of
our political freedom, and the monotheistic Christian conquerors stripped us of
our religious freedom.
Since antiquity, the problem of the classical
triangular relationship was dealt with incorrectly by Hellenic political
leaders. The triangular relationship also appears when we have two warring
factions of the same nation, and a foreign conqueror allies with one of the two
combatants.
In antiquity, for example, Athens and Sparta
constantly clash with each other, while the Persian invader lies in wait. Here
the triangular relationship contains two Hellenic cities and a foreign invader,
"Athenians-Spartans-Persians". Unfortunately, the decisions of the
Hellenic politicians in the triangular relationship were always contrary to the
orders of the Oracles and Hellenic Hierophants. Every now and then Athens
allied with the Persians against the Spartans, and every now and then Sparta
allied with the Persians against Athens. The catastrophic results are
well-known.
That which was ordered by the Hellenic Hierophants
was the reverse. The Hellenes to break apart the Persians. The Persians to
request the help of the Hellenes in order to resolve their internal
dissensions. The Hellenes to meddle in the internal affairs of the Persians,
and not the reverse.
Precisely in this incorrect way of dealing with
the triangular relationship by the Hellenic side, were the Romans bolstered to
subdue Hellas (in essence, the Romans copied the Persians, who every now and
then allied with one Hellenic city and every now and then with another).
It was a regular tactic of the Romans to ally
with the weakest Hellenes against the strongest ones, e.g. the Romans with the
Athenians against the Macedonians. Once the Romans defeated the strongest one,
they would ally with that one against whichever league emerged in Hellas to
fight the Romans. In no time, the Romans turned against their former Hellenic
allies and massacred them.
Once the Hellenes realized that immediately
after the defeat of the most powerful Hellenic player (in our case it was the
Macedonians), the Romans would not need the alliance of the weaker Hellenic
allies and would turn them into slaves, it was too late.
Since the Spartans and the Achaean League had
allied several times with the Romans against the Macedonians, they understood
their mistake at the last moment and turned against the Romans. The Romans then
reacted by allying with the Spartans against the Achaean League.
When the tumble begins, it does not stop easily:
Athenians, Spartans and Aetolians allied with the Romans against the
Macedonians. Later, Macedonians allied with Romans against the Spartans. Later
on, Athenians and Spartans allied with Romans against the Achaean League.
The mistakes were one after another. The
Macedonians commenced their hegemony with the motto "unity" and
concluded in waging war in order to conquer the other Hellenic cities. The
Macedonians should have foreseen that these Hellenic cities would request Roman
assistance, and should have ended their military operations against Hellenic
cities.
The Hellenic city-states created the tradition
of not wanting to expand against the Romans and Persians – a tradition that was
broken by Alexander the Great and Pyrrhus I of Epirus, against the Persians and
Romans respectively. Nor did they try to expand culturally at the expense of
the barbarians. Contrariwise, they wanted to expand at the expense of other
Hellenic cities. This led to an alliance of one Hellenic city with others
against the aggressor city, or an alliance with Romans and Persians, and
consequently the creation of the classical triangular relationship.
To disintegrate the
enemy of foreign race and religion into conflicting groups, to temporarily ally
with one faction of the enemy and then to abandon it, constitutes a doctrine
for the Hellenic Religion. But several Hellenic political leaders disobeyed the
will of the Ancestral Gods which was conveyed to them by the Hierophants, and
they forgot how to fight many enemies altogether.
When we are sovereign
and not subjugated, and we have two or more invaders to deal with, apart from
the military confrontation of the triangular relationship, we also have the
weapon of diplomatic maneuvering.
The diplomatic
confrontation of the classical triangular relationship, when we possess political
authority, is done in the following ways:
With secret agreements,
i.e. we secretly ally with one of the two opponents, for we do not want the
other opponent to learn of it. With funding and apparent cooperation with both
opponents, i.e. without the two opponents knowing of it, we declare loyalty to
each of them separately. It goes without saying that we will betray both of
them. Through non-compliance with the agreements, inventing various
pretexts to this end, i.e. we agree to other things in the diplomatic
documents, and we do other things in practice, so that we gain valuable time by
misleading our enemies. With favorable neutrality, i.e. we publicly declare
ourselves neutral, but we clearly lean toward one opponent, to the extent that we
do not provoke the hostility of the other.
But these are very
superficial diplomatic artifices that are applicable insomuch that we possess
political authority, and they are of a tactical and not a strategic nature.
The classical triangular
relationship becomes complicated and extremely interesting when we are
subjugated. When we are already under occupation and an additional, new
conqueror appears. Especially when this new conqueror does not conquer
geographic territories with military battles, but conquers souls with religious
propaganda. An analysis of strategy is required there, and not just one of
tactics.
The question that arises
is what should the Hellenes have done during the period of polytheistic Roman
occupation, e.g. from +100 to +350, when on the one hand the Hellenes were
facing the polytheistic Roman conquerors, and on the other hand the
monotheistic Christians who were invading culturally. How do we tackle such a
situation?
First of all, we must
not forget the basic principles of belligerent Hellenism:
1. Transferal of the war
to the territories of the would-be invaders. Decades before the military
invasion by the enemies occurs, we have made sure to tacitly declare war
on them. So when the time comes for them to declare a military war on us, they
will be debilitated and more easily confronted by our own military forces.
This is done by a change
of the field of war. That is to say, a conversion of the military war to a
social, religious, demographic, economic and political war. We invade as
immigrants in the enemies' territories and take care to overpower them in the
social, religious, economic, political and demographic field.
2. Whatever happens, we
are enemies with both of the conquerors. There are no good Roman polytheists and
bad Christian monotheists. Both of them should have been wiped out. Our
political freedom is just as important as our religious freedom. Therefore,
regardless of tactical maneuvers and temporary alliances, our strategic purpose
is to crush both of them.
3. At any given time,
without moral inhibitions, we abandon our former ally in order to ally with his
enemy, insomuch that it is in the interest of the Hellenic Nation. Provided
that it is not done frequently or in such a way that the enemies remember it.
If they do remember it, we take care to change their history books and erase it
from their memory, so as to save the following generations of Hellenes, since
they will need to repeat the same strategy. There is no absolute and universal
morality. There is relative and subjective morality. In our case, moral is
whatever is in the interest of the Hellenic Nation.
4. We are ready to face
the event of two conquerors allying with each other against us. In this case,
we make sure in advance that all of their enemies ally with one another against
them, and we simultaneously break apart their anti-Hellenic alliance with acts
of sabotage and provocative actions.
5. We are ready to
change the grouping of the opposing forces. If, for example, the war has been
established as Romans against Hellenes, we take care to change the grouping of
the war to plebeians against patricians, transferring the war to the social
field in the enemy's territory.
Because grouping by
nations brought us to a disadvantageous position in the case of the Roman rule,
our aim is to disintegrate Roman society with the instigation of revolutions
based on the grouping "poor Romans against rich Romans". This can
also be done in the religious field, with the instigation of conflicts between
Christian Romans and polytheistic Romans. These constitute preventive
techniques of disintegrating the enemy.
6. We are ready at any
given time for emigration. Emigration is a survival weapon of Hellenism. Even
though our National Martyrs constitute the greatness of Hellenism, we will not
sit back and let the conqueror wipe us out.
When we ascertain that
military defeat and genocide are inevitable, and all resistance is futile, we
abandon the Ancestral Lands and try to save our biological and cultural genes.
We settle in a foreign land, which allows our religious and racial autonomy,
and we get ready for the recapture of our Holy Places.
If our Hellenic Soul and
Hellenic Blood remain untainted, one day we will retake our territories.
Otherwise, if we remain under foreign occupation and intermingle culturally and
biologically with the conquerors, whether we retake our territories or not, we
will have forfeited our Hellenic identity. We will be foreigners in our own
lands.
7. As long as we are
subject to foreign occupiers, we sabotage their culture. The promotion of
dissensions, revolutions, greed, miscegenation, abortions, prostitution,
homosexuality, atheism, narcotics, usury, moral decadence, and the deification
of individualism, in the camp of the conquerors, constitutes a survival
doctrine of Hellenism.
8. We are ready to face
scenarios wherein an alliance with one of the conquerors leads to our military,
political, religious, economic, or cultural defeat. We have contingency plans
ready.
Strategy tells us what
to do in general. Tactics tell us what to do at a given point in time. We
follow other tactics before the Romans conquer us, other tactics when they
conquer us and we have only them over our heads, and other tactics when we also
have the Christian conquerors over our heads.
We follow other tactics
when a decisive battle occurs between Roman polytheists and Roman Christians,
before the triumph of the Christians, and other tactics after the triumph of
the Christians.
For example, in +394, in
the West, when the Roman consul and polytheist Flavianus gets ready to clash
with the Christian emperor Theodosius in the East, the stance of the Hellenes
cannot be anything other than a full, wholehearted alliance with the Roman polytheists
against the Christians. However, such a thing would not apply in +150 wherein
the Christians were not sufficiently powerful. Then, owing to other historical
conditions, we would instigate religious revolutions and temporarily ally
ourselves with all the religious sects of the Roman Empire (including the
Christians) in order to shake off the Roman yoke.
Let us suppose that we
are subjugated by Roman polytheists at a historical point in time wherein they
constitute the majority, and the Christians constitute the minority. Will we
temporarily ally ourselves with the Christians against the Roman polytheists? Yes,
we will do so, rabidly killing without a moment's hesitation however many
Hellenes convert to the anti-Hellenic sect of the Christians. The temporary
alliance is made so we can morally dissolve the Roman legions with absurdities
about love and "turning the other cheek so they can smite you".
Naturally, under no circumstances does the alliance mean the promotion of the
sect of the Christians, for if it acquires believers in the Roman senate, then
we will find them against us on subjects of culture and religion.
Under no circumstances
does an alliance with the Christians against the Roman polytheists mean a
cessation of our anti-Christian propaganda. Contrariwise, it means the
thousandfold strengthening of our anti-Christian propaganda.
Supposing that we defeat
the Roman polytheists militarily and politically with this temporary alliance,
then in no time we take a 180-degree turn and ruthlessly slaughter the
Christian conquerors, our former allies, before they have enough time to
slaughter us.
Under no circumstances
does an alliance with the Roman polytheists against the Christians mean a
cessation of our anti-Roman propaganda. Contrariwise, it means the
thousandfold strengthening of our anti-Roman propaganda.
Supposing that we defeat
the Christians by allying with the Roman polytheists, then in no time we
turn against the polytheistic Roman conquerors and annihilate them.
Before the Roman polytheists turn against us.
Our goal is to break apart any unity of the
Romans, whether it be military, political, religious, or social. Our goal is to
break apart any unity of the Christians, whether it be religious, political,
national, or social.
The disintegration of the Christians' religious
unity is done with the foundation and promotion of Christian sects. Arianists
against the Orthodox. Ample Christian blood should be spilled. At the same
time, we strengthen the groupings within the Christian world by nations, races,
and economic classes. We turn Persian Christians against Armenian Christians.
We turn poor Christians against rich Christians. We turn white Christians
against black Christians.
The dissolution of the Christian continuity is
done by propagating within the ranks of the Christians asceticism and the
hatred of child-bearing as an alleged inviolable commandment of God, so as to
prevent them from creating families. The fact that devout Christians view
sexual intercourse as a sin, is good for their extinction.
The most important thing in the war against
Christianity is to avoid conflict based on the formation of camps such as
"Hellenes against Christians", because a national ideology is
juxtaposed with an internationalist ideology. It is obvious that in such an
arrangement of forces, the Christians have the advantage because they
theoretically recruit individuals from all the nations against the Hellenes.
The Hellenic response is the formation of our
own internationalist religious sect like Islam, so it can counter the
Christians at the religious level. Even better, we should form an
internationalist grouping like communism, which projects the economic class
identity as a primary consideration. This internationalist grouping,
"proletarians against bourgeois", breaks apart the grouping
"Christians against Hellenes". In such a way does atheism take
precedence and the religious mania of the Christians quietens down.
In the polytheistic Roman conquerors, one of the
weak points is the instigation of officials to seize the imperial leadership
with civil wars. Another weak point is the definition of the Roman citizen.
With so many conquered peoples, after some years of massacres, they must give
them some civil rights if they want to maintain the Roman peace. At this point,
we intervene. Under the pretext of peace and equality, we disconnect the Roman
citizen from Roman descent and convert the Roman citizen into an
internationalist term. Thus, people of foreign race and religion receive the
title of Roman citizen, ascend to Roman offices and infect the Roman soul. In
such a way can the Hellenes rise to power.
Under no circumstances are Hellenes allowed to
come to a head-on clash with the Roman legions. The destruction of the Roman
mores (especially their martial virtue), the destruction of the Roman national
unity and racial cohesion, and the destruction of the Roman economy, all have
more destructive and more permanent results than any military
conflict between Hellenes and Roman legions, wherein the winning results are
ephemeral.
We must remember that whichever option we take,
our temporary ally will turn against us. Regardless of the point in time,
regardless of whether we have an alliance with the Romans or the Christians,
our propaganda must be geared towards their dissolution. We ally ourselves with
one against the other, and vice versa. We turn the one against the other with
the purpose of bloodshed and the weakening of both camps.
The classical triangular relationship causes us
tremendous problems when we have to deal with just two enemies and the Hellenes
live in one country. However, what happens when we have more conquerors who
overlap one another, and at the same time, the Hellenes live among different
nations?
For example, what happens when we have to face
Christianity and Islamism together? And simultaneously Turkish, Arab, Russian
and Frankish conquerors? Then we have many overlaps between ideological and
military conquerors.
The issue gets more complicated when Hellenes
live in different regions. For example, the Hellenes living in the Ottoman
Empire ally with Russia against the Ottomans, but this is not in the interest
of the Hellenes who live in Russia because they are subject to persecutions by
the Russian Christians and try to ally with the French or Germans against the
Russians. That is to say, that which will be in the interest of the Hellenes of
Turkey, may not be in the interest of the Hellenes of Russia, France, or
Persia.
We cannot then speak of a triangular
relationship, because the Hellenes do not live in one location, nor do they
have to deal with just two conquerors. We are then talking about a mathematical
equation of multiple variables with countless solutions.
Things become more difficult when we are
subjected to a cultural and ideological invasion, because these conquerors
create ideological bridgeheads and convert sections of the Hellenic People into
murderers of the rest of the population.
In contemporary Hellas, we face Orthodox
Christians, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, communists, neo-liberals,
socialists, anarchists, neo-Nazis, etc. They are all enemies with one another,
but they have one common enemy: the Hellenes as a religion, race, and nation.
There is no magical solution, there is no one
set of tactics for the complicated problems that we mentioned. An analysis of
the circumstances is required, i.e. in what situation do the Roman conquerors
find themselves, in what situation do the Hellenes find themselves, and in what
situation do the Christians find themselves? Are the Christians great in
numbers? Are the Roman leaders polytheists? Perhaps they have been
Christianized?
We analyze where the strength of the enemy is
situated. Is it grounded in its military discipline? We dilute it. Perhaps it
is grounded in its racial and national unity? We break it apart. Perhaps it is
grounded in its religious unity? We divide it with the creation of religious
sects. Perhaps it is grounded in its demographic preponderance? We reduce it
with the promotion of abortions, homosexuality, and racial mixtures with other
peoples.
We analyze the psychological, historical,
religious, social, political and economic causes that gave power to the enemy.
Why were the Christians prompted to acquire power? Which instincts and
psychological tendencies did they appeal to? What methods of organization were
used? How do they propagate their ideology? What social strata do they address?
Insomuch that their books contain insults against the Eternal Ancestral Gods,
were they destroyed by fire? Insomuch that their books contain insults against
Hellenes, were they forged so as to present the Hellenes and their Religion in
positive terms?
That which is right at one point in time, under
given social conditions, and with a given distribution of political power, is
not right at a different point in time, under different historical conditions
and a different distribution of political power. The elaboration of strategies
on how to simultaneously deal with many conquerors, especially when the
Hellenes are dispersed around the world, is an entire science, an entire
tradition, it is the quintessence of Hellenism, and not an issue of an article.
Only when the Hellenes totally embrace the
Hellenic Religion, will they find answers to all the complicated problems
regarding the survival of the Hellenic Nation. Their mind and soul will be
guided by the Eternal Gods and not by the impure infidels.
The Hellenes will survive however many
conquerors may arrive, however many conquerors may invade, insomuch that they
do not abandon the Eternal Paternal Gods and the Eternal Maternal Goddesses.
If we abandon our Gods, then genocide and
holocaust await us at the hands of the impure infidels, as history so often
taught us, confirming the prophecies of the Oracles and the punishments of the
Eternal Gods.
No comments:
Post a Comment