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.