[The Founding Hoax of Catholicism, The Identity of Charlemagne and Attila the Hun, Orthodox Kow-Towing to the West, Did the Slavs Spontaneously Manifest? The Mud Flood/Comet/Volcano Theory and more!]
A YouTube channel called Asha Logos has some good resources on our chaotic history. The video playlist called ‘Our Subverted History “ is a great example.
Another excellent and thought provoking discussion, thank you RS.
Regarding Slavs and Turks, here's a video from the Baltic Empire youtube channel, pointing out that those far-ranging vikings/Rus adopted Turkic cultural habits, and the Arab travelers made little attempt to distinguish them.
It's become fashionable to say that labels like Celtic, Germanic or Slavic may have been more cultural and political than racial. Caesar divided the Celts from the Germans according to which bank of the Rhine they lived on. More recently archaeologists say that there is no evidence of any large scale Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, and that the grave goods may be more a matter of fashion than evidence of different peoples. A change of a small ruling class and their attitudes can influence the whole society. Probably the Slavs were there all along, just identifying as other peoples until the Slavic notion/nation was invented and imposed!
Here's Mike Harper's (dead) site Applied Epistemology. It contains lots of discussions about unorthodox views on many topics, discussing how the evidence may be interpreted. He wrote the tongue-in-cheek revisionist book The True History of Britain, suggesting English was there all along and Caesar's invaders were probably greeted with rude Anglo-Saxon words! He also wrote The Megalithic Empire.
Another thing to bear in mind is that interest in an accurate chronology of actual events is relatively recent, even apart from the Christian-Jewish imposition of their Biblical myths and insistence on reinterpreting everything in that framework of linear chronology, to the extent that medieval monarchs had to have their genealogies linked to the OT rather than to Woden.
Previously people seem to have been more interested in the inspiring stories devised by bards, of the heroic deeds of their kings and nobles great ancestors, acting out mythic themes, and interacting with gods and otherworldly forces. The point was to inspire pride and emulation, not to make 'a register of the crimes follies and misfortunes of mankind.' This may account for some of the 'duplications'.
Arthur is an example. Many books have been written attempting to place him in history, but although the legends may have picked up references to various actual warlords and some of their circumstances, all this may merely be decoration around a myth of a heroic ruler who travelled and raided into the 'Otherworld' of the powers underlying Nature and influencing the fates of their peoples, and whose example could be followed by real people. (Much the same has been said of the Odyssey.) He is one of the Kings of (Inner) Britain. Any actual traces of him in the history or landscape will be those of the Wild Hunt; an older spirituality banished first by Christianity and now by literalising materialistic Modernity.
Great conversation! I adore Laurent. Perhaps, you could interview Fomenko too. He speaks English. I used his math books as an undergraduate student, which helped me to get the best grades, which helped me to win a fellowship at a university in the USA.
Thank you very much! I always treasure the conversations between the two of you. Let me just add a few points from my 30+ years of research into sometimes overlapping field, and from a language perspective:
- modern Romanian was "reconstructed" (invented?) in the middle of the 19th century. With the Danube principalities getting their indipendence from the ottoman empire - and the will to stay independent from Austro-Hungary and the Russian empire. They created their own language (and national identity). They modeled the new language after Italian, which at that time was the lingua franca in most of the Balkans. But it was not only a Romanian project. Strong circles in the west (Masons) wanted to do the same with the Balkan that they did in Italy. To find a Piemont around which to create a unified state. (although for that Serbia or Bulgaria were more suitable candidates)
- about the difference between Slavic and germanic languages. There are a few serious scientists from the middle of the 20th century (in Germany) who claim that until the 11th century there was no language barrier along the supposed border between germanic people and slavs. But that only with the introduction of writing the different dialects drifted apart. (think divide and conquer). I saw an example of the Gothic numbers 1-12 and how close their pronunciation is to old Slavic.
- Many scientists claimed that when the term slaves occurd on medieval map it didn't signifie a racial decide but that by church law, Christians could not be made slaves but unbelievers could. So that old maps only show the difference between christianised and pagan areas.
- and a last add on to the huns. In the fight of the sassanide empire against he huns they spoke of different tribes of huns. Like the "white huns". When I lived in China it was and still is a hot political topic. "the blonde mummies from Xinjiang". Those mummies found und the desert there prove that at least until the 11th or 12th century Xinjiang was inhabited by blond, European looking horse nomads.
I just wanted to share this few points with you as an appreciation for all the new things I discovered through you!
Hey, just realized that your guys' point about Magyar turanism being a Psy-Op has a lot of credibility, especially as it can be compared to a totally acknowledged Central/Eastern European Psy-Op: Polish Szlachta Sarmatism.
The Szchlachta, despite being entirely Poles, Polonized Russians, and some Polonized Germans, ruling over their co-ethnic serf masses, differentiated themselves by adopting the pseudo-national concept of "Sarmatism", where they were all *actually* not Slavs, but rather a Persianate, Indo-Scythian warlord caste totally justified in ruling over Slavic slaves. No genetic evidence supports this, and the timelines just don't add up.
Here's a pleasant video telling more about Huns/Scythians/Dragon/'seers' royalty legends, and the yids who attached themselves to these lines and abilities. Lovely pictures of Scythian/Massagetae/Hunnic/Aryan gold-work. Lots of swastikas and six pointed stars. Maybe he should have mentioned kundalini as well as the Mosaic 'raised' serpent.
A book not exactly about chronological revisionism but worth a read to further build out the big picture is "War in Heaven" by Kyle Griffit.
It's occult lunatic fringe as far out you can get and it does not matter what you make out of it. It makes you think about possible factions on the 'astral plane' who 'have their fingers in the soup'. At least for this it is worth the time you need to read it.
A YouTube channel called Asha Logos has some good resources on our chaotic history. The video playlist called ‘Our Subverted History “ is a great example.
https://youtube.com/@ashalogos9221?si=IX33CNl68GDCdzxD
I am really enjoying these conversations with Laurent. Thanks.
Another excellent and thought provoking discussion, thank you RS.
Regarding Slavs and Turks, here's a video from the Baltic Empire youtube channel, pointing out that those far-ranging vikings/Rus adopted Turkic cultural habits, and the Arab travelers made little attempt to distinguish them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peUAwQ0ZFm4
It's become fashionable to say that labels like Celtic, Germanic or Slavic may have been more cultural and political than racial. Caesar divided the Celts from the Germans according to which bank of the Rhine they lived on. More recently archaeologists say that there is no evidence of any large scale Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, and that the grave goods may be more a matter of fashion than evidence of different peoples. A change of a small ruling class and their attitudes can influence the whole society. Probably the Slavs were there all along, just identifying as other peoples until the Slavic notion/nation was invented and imposed!
Here's Mike Harper's (dead) site Applied Epistemology. It contains lots of discussions about unorthodox views on many topics, discussing how the evidence may be interpreted. He wrote the tongue-in-cheek revisionist book The True History of Britain, suggesting English was there all along and Caesar's invaders were probably greeted with rude Anglo-Saxon words! He also wrote The Megalithic Empire.
https://applied-epistemology.com/phpbb2/index.php
Another thing to bear in mind is that interest in an accurate chronology of actual events is relatively recent, even apart from the Christian-Jewish imposition of their Biblical myths and insistence on reinterpreting everything in that framework of linear chronology, to the extent that medieval monarchs had to have their genealogies linked to the OT rather than to Woden.
Previously people seem to have been more interested in the inspiring stories devised by bards, of the heroic deeds of their kings and nobles great ancestors, acting out mythic themes, and interacting with gods and otherworldly forces. The point was to inspire pride and emulation, not to make 'a register of the crimes follies and misfortunes of mankind.' This may account for some of the 'duplications'.
Arthur is an example. Many books have been written attempting to place him in history, but although the legends may have picked up references to various actual warlords and some of their circumstances, all this may merely be decoration around a myth of a heroic ruler who travelled and raided into the 'Otherworld' of the powers underlying Nature and influencing the fates of their peoples, and whose example could be followed by real people. (Much the same has been said of the Odyssey.) He is one of the Kings of (Inner) Britain. Any actual traces of him in the history or landscape will be those of the Wild Hunt; an older spirituality banished first by Christianity and now by literalising materialistic Modernity.
Great conversation! I adore Laurent. Perhaps, you could interview Fomenko too. He speaks English. I used his math books as an undergraduate student, which helped me to get the best grades, which helped me to win a fellowship at a university in the USA.
Thank you very much! I always treasure the conversations between the two of you. Let me just add a few points from my 30+ years of research into sometimes overlapping field, and from a language perspective:
- modern Romanian was "reconstructed" (invented?) in the middle of the 19th century. With the Danube principalities getting their indipendence from the ottoman empire - and the will to stay independent from Austro-Hungary and the Russian empire. They created their own language (and national identity). They modeled the new language after Italian, which at that time was the lingua franca in most of the Balkans. But it was not only a Romanian project. Strong circles in the west (Masons) wanted to do the same with the Balkan that they did in Italy. To find a Piemont around which to create a unified state. (although for that Serbia or Bulgaria were more suitable candidates)
- about the difference between Slavic and germanic languages. There are a few serious scientists from the middle of the 20th century (in Germany) who claim that until the 11th century there was no language barrier along the supposed border between germanic people and slavs. But that only with the introduction of writing the different dialects drifted apart. (think divide and conquer). I saw an example of the Gothic numbers 1-12 and how close their pronunciation is to old Slavic.
- Many scientists claimed that when the term slaves occurd on medieval map it didn't signifie a racial decide but that by church law, Christians could not be made slaves but unbelievers could. So that old maps only show the difference between christianised and pagan areas.
- and a last add on to the huns. In the fight of the sassanide empire against he huns they spoke of different tribes of huns. Like the "white huns". When I lived in China it was and still is a hot political topic. "the blonde mummies from Xinjiang". Those mummies found und the desert there prove that at least until the 11th or 12th century Xinjiang was inhabited by blond, European looking horse nomads.
I just wanted to share this few points with you as an appreciation for all the new things I discovered through you!
Keep up the amazing work!
Does Tg Slavland Chronicles have a suggested reading list, broken down by category?
Is there a book on the Mud Flood you can recommend?
Also, any information at all about Ataturk and his suppressed theories on the origins of Turks.
Thank you for the interview. What is the title of Laurent's new book and where can it be purchased?
Hey, just realized that your guys' point about Magyar turanism being a Psy-Op has a lot of credibility, especially as it can be compared to a totally acknowledged Central/Eastern European Psy-Op: Polish Szlachta Sarmatism.
The Szchlachta, despite being entirely Poles, Polonized Russians, and some Polonized Germans, ruling over their co-ethnic serf masses, differentiated themselves by adopting the pseudo-national concept of "Sarmatism", where they were all *actually* not Slavs, but rather a Persianate, Indo-Scythian warlord caste totally justified in ruling over Slavic slaves. No genetic evidence supports this, and the timelines just don't add up.
Here's the first in a long series of videos by a Bulgarian woman about things that are wrong in academic stories about history and archaeology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk-o42NNQm4
Here's a pleasant video telling more about Huns/Scythians/Dragon/'seers' royalty legends, and the yids who attached themselves to these lines and abilities. Lovely pictures of Scythian/Massagetae/Hunnic/Aryan gold-work. Lots of swastikas and six pointed stars. Maybe he should have mentioned kundalini as well as the Mosaic 'raised' serpent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAYBvuGB8A
A book not exactly about chronological revisionism but worth a read to further build out the big picture is "War in Heaven" by Kyle Griffit.
It's occult lunatic fringe as far out you can get and it does not matter what you make out of it. It makes you think about possible factions on the 'astral plane' who 'have their fingers in the soup'. At least for this it is worth the time you need to read it.
-> https://ia803102.us.archive.org/31/items/war_in_heaven/war_in_heaven.pdf