What are your thoughts on the onset of the Slavic people? Mainstream historians like to claim that the Slavic people randomly sprang out of nowhere in the 7th century, but this seems just too dismissive. I have always interpreted the Slavic people to be descendents of the Scythians, but especially, the Sarmatian people. This can be evidenced in notable examples such as Sarmatism (Polish noble belief in Sarmatians) or the name Croatia, which I see as derived from Sarmatian (Sarmat~=Carpathian mountains, > Horvat > Hrvatska > Kroatien in German). There is also an Iranic Tablet found in Croatia I believe.
The way I see it, the Slavic migrations of the 7th and 8th centuries were really just a reaction to Asiatic Mongols pushing westward from the East. As for the Germans/Goths (Note Gott-Kings, God kings), I see them as primarily descendents of the Corded-Ware and Bell Beaker cultures, which, although descendents of Steppe-Aryans, their migration happened during the earlier waves like the Yamnaya migrations of 3,000 BCE. Evidence of Germanic peoples already being settled in that region can be seen in Tacitus's work, Germania.
I do think more research has to be done on this topic, especially how the R1a and R1b genetic division along Central Europe came about. Germans have gone quite East as you said with Goths going all the way to Crimea and also the Vikings founding the Kieven-Rus, but I also think Slavic peoples shouldn't be left out of the picture. In many ways, the histories of all Europeans is being purposefully obfuscates, but with Slavs, in addition to these subversive elements trying conceal our history, many Western historians tend to overlook the Slavic people and their stories. I can't entirely blame them as everyone has their biases, but it can sometimes undermine the objectivity of their work. Anyways, I know you are primarily focused on the Germanic peoples and I am amazed at your work, but since you do seem very knowledgeable on the topic, I was hoping you might be useful in helping me find some answers.
I absolutely need to speak more about the Slavic peoples.. in some sense, I've 'avoided' going into too much depth just yet because I like to speak clearly and definitively only where I can feel most *certain*, and the Slavic peoples have always been a bit more of a complex question mark in some senses - but I certainly feel confident in vastly more than I've yet voiced on the topics, and I'd suggest you're absolutely correct in both the Scythian and Sarmatian lineage suggestions.
The Sarmatian topic is a heavily related one I look forward to discussing, soon..
I really enjoyed this article. I learned many new things, but it makes so much sense to me. I was reminded of a great novel by Paul Kingsnorth called The Wake about the Anglo-Saxons after the Norman invasion. Thanks for a great article and I’m looking forward to exploring more of this subject.
The "gain" is that the cultural identity which our ancestors held is impossible to unite with a market based mass-scale society. Of course this is only a gain for the extractive elites which want us to be rich and vulnerable rather than the old scythian tradition of being poor(self sufficient) and indomitable.
Fantastic article. I have read Beckwith's "The Scythian Empire" at your recommendation and I am now going through Herodotus and others. Your explanation makes the most sense. It is as if someone has tried to distort and destroy this history. There are, of course, the usual suspects but something deeper than even that is afoot.
The story of the Anglo-Saxon nobility fleeing the Normans to found a New England in Crimea and joining the Byzantine Varangian Guard is fascinating. I hadn't studied the Goths as you have, but some related historical connections I've enjoyed researching are: Yamnaya, Andronovo, Scythians, Sicambrian Franks, Sarmatians, Sauromatians, Indo-Europeans, Amazons, Saka, Massagetae, Yancai, Aryans, Iranians, Alans, Alani, Os, As, Asia, Huns, Ossetians (and their strange trinitarian pagan religion, Assianism or Uatsdin).
IMO the central thread is the Alans, persisting to this day in Ossetia and into the 19th c. in Hungary. They conquered everything from the borders of China to North Africa at one time or another and are the most direct heirs of the Indo-Europeans.
I think the later books in Frank Herbert’s Dune series were inspired by the history of the Indo-Europeans, with waves of partial diasporas later coming back as invasions of changed but related peoples.
You mentioned the original thread. Yamnaya, who are even more ancient than the rest you mentioned. You guys need to get your archaeo-genetic timeline down pat
I am mostly referring to the inability of some people to notice that the Germans, Nords, Celts, and Slavs are all so similar because of their shared bronze age lines. Instead, we have guys who conflate them. My apologies.
My ex is north American German from Russia empire. He alllllways said there must have been a reason for there to have been soooo many Germans willing to move back to the Volga and Ukraine besides just an invitation from German princess (Russian queen) Catherine the great. It wasn't just to prevent Turks from claiming the land... It was to reclaim their own homeland to begin with. Which is why Hitler wanted to reclaim the land for the Germans... It was and is our nordic homeland. Can u imagine how many artifacts are buried under the black sea shores????
It's both gratifying and intriguing when I hear other people with connections to the regions echoing similar sentiments.. it's always seemed logical, obvious, to my mind.
There's no doubt our peoples heritage on that patch of ground extends back as far as recorded history - there must be incredible finds, waiting to be discovered.
Excellent article. I recently read The fall of Orthodox England by Vladimir Moss and was amazed to learn that Anglo-Saxon refugees had joined the Varangians and settled in Crimea. The Gothic kinship link provides a clear connection. Thanks for your work, I've found it hugely enlightening and edifying. Kudos and God bless! 🙏☦️
Please do more study into archaeo genetics and the Indo-European migrations. Even if you don't like the language they use, they identify real cultures and genetic groups. Your questions about why Scythians, Goths, Germans, Nords, Celts, and whoever are constantly spoken of in similar terms. They have common ancestry, but it's more complex and ancient in the bronze age than you seem to realize.
A significant portion of my time and energy for well over a decade now has been spent exclusively on research into the early genetics and Indo-European migrations - but I'm always eager to take in more, if you have some specific suggestions you think might be helpful.. or something you think I might've missed.
I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of several of the most modern labels and classifications and groupings of peoples - this modern urge (obsession?) to see things through any and all frameworks *except* the racial seems to disorient and confuse the picture more than help clarify and cohere, often - but I like to think I'm certainly aware of them, and even consider them helpful and valuable at times.. especially those I consider more 'clean' and fundamentally real.
'but it's more complex and ancient in the bronze age than you seem to realize'.. feel free to elaborate on this - I'd appreciate it.
What about the Saxon Wars, where the Frankish Charlemagne backed by the Catholic Church massacred entire tribes of Gothic peoples… it’s funny how the Catholic cult atrocities are always overlooked by so called European historians… it’s clear the narrative is always one crafted by the Catholic cult, who indeed were the antagonist throughout European history… feudalism, serfdom, ethnic cleansing of Goths, inquisitions of other faiths and instigators of Europes religious wars beginning with the Reformation, never forget they burnt William Tyndall at the stake for translating the Latin Vulgate into Germanic tongue…
Side note if you think Arian Visigoths were allies of Catholic Papal State aristocracy you need to do a little bit more critical thinking.
Another aspect that made Tyndall the prime target of the Catholic Cult… is his translation relied very little on the Latin Vulgate… meaning he took directly from Greek and Hebrew sources, stepping right over all of the Catholic propaganda about the pope… this is why they tried to make a example out of him by killing him in such a gruesome fashion… but somehow the Vatican still gets a pass from all historical criticism… let’s hope Protestants start learning their history… because it was Germanic Protestants who inspired the enlightenment and established America as a land of liberty (self governance) and freedom of expression for all citizens… in contrast to the Catholic cult which kept its serfs living under the darkness of feudalism with mass censorship of information and propaganda about Saracens (Muslims)… Catholic Europe gave the world the Doctrine of Discovery which justified Colonialism and still informs Zionist thought… its time Protestant start waking up… Catholics and Protestants are not the same… just like America and Europe represent totally different historical worldviews… death to the “West” (Catholic European aristocracy)… long live America and its enlightened Protestant roots!!!
Says the pagan Catholic Church… so what do you do with Ulfilas the Priest he was converting the Gothic tribes 300 years before Pepin the Short and Stephen II/III made the unholy Latin alliance…
O I forgot Arians and everyone else who doesn’t recognize the pope as the divine authority on earth is a pagan…
? The Anglo Saxons were pagan when they were being killed in Germany and slowly conquering England. The conversion of goths and Saxons happened at two different points. The Saxons brought paganism with them to Britain for Pete's sake.
The Catholic church is not pagan. I forgot Jesus and Yahweh are European!
Well, the Catholics do come in for a lot of criticism regarding the Inquisition (and rightfully so).
But the story of the Frankish conquests and persecutions deserve to be better known. I've recently discovered that my paternal ancestors were Frisians and, wow, do those people have a story to tell!
I hope you realize that most could not even read at the time of Tyndall, and of those 5% ish that could, almost all would have had access to the earlier translations as well as speak/read latin and greek. I feel as if you do not respect context or the idea of coming to a conclusion after you have a clear set of facts.
This is the difference between your opinion and my understanding… that 5% that could read were the Latin educated neophytes… if you think there was public institutions of higher learning in Catholic Europe in the Middle Ages then let’s end the conversation now… in reality you had to be initiated into a Catholic fraternal order to learn under the auspices of the Catholic Church… Latin was placed as a barrier for the uninitiated and this is apparent in the Vaticans mass concealment of historical documents they won’t even release until today… for example the document that came out a few years ago detailing the pope and Hitlers interactions during WWII… the Dark ages fell upon Europe under the Vaticans rule (we can debate about it)… while Muslim Europe was producing a Golden age of higher learning…
What’s so important about Tyndall’s work is for the first time Germanic English speaking people who might have depended on official clergyman to disseminate the information found within Holy Scripture… with the advent of Tyndall’s New Testament they could now go to anyone in their own communities who could read and hear what the Bible said… this unleashed a entirely new narrative not cloaked in the propaganda of a (and this is key) institution that assumed political and religious authority over every aspect of a people’s life who were born into a feudal society engineered by the Catholic cult…
It’s important to know context… if you can bring forth a translation that was widely accessible (meaning mass printed) to common Germanic peoples of Western and Central Europe as Tyndall’s translation was then I will stand corrected… Tyndall’s New Testament was the most widely read and consequential translation in European history… if we follow the chronological timeline Martin Luther would only realize the Old Testament translation after Tyndall’s 1522 publication… without needing some Vatican neophyte to tell me this information sparked the Reformation… I can use common sense to understand that the Vaticans Latin language iron wall on information was destroyed by Tyndall’s courageous translation of scripture…
Since the printing press came around that time, I assume we are ignoring the Ulfila translation of 400ish and the Fulda and Reichenau translation of the 800s and the Aelfric translation of the 1000s and then the wycliffe translation in the 1300s.
They could simply not press it for wide circulation because of the technology, it was not the result of conscious suppression from the church - whereas even in the case of Tyndale, he got to write his final books for 2 years only because the church shielded him from the emperor which was who sentenced him to death because of the heresy rather than the church which does not use death as a sentence since the fourth lateran council in the 1200s.
Indeed, my assertion stands vindicated, because like I said, Tyndall’s work reached the masses… all of those translations you mentioned were limited to the libraries of aristocracy… Tyndall’s translation shook Catholic European hierarchy to its core… so much so, that the Crusading Frankish Nobility ran to the Ottoman Muslim Sultan’s court for help… considering that this same Frankish Nobility descended from Charles Martel the eternal defender of Catholic Christendom, you must admit that my original point is valid in the context that the pope and his Vatican feudalist system was uprooted when common germanic peoples gained access to Scripture… whether or not the Vatican suppressed other beliefs within their sphere, I don’t think any sound minded person would argue that the Saxon Wars (Ulfila the Priest was a Arian and his beliefs were espoused by many Germanic tribes including Visigoths) or the Inquisition was due to the enlightened tolerance of the Catholic cult.
Your assertion was that it was the catholic church rather than royalty that killed Tynsdale and that the cause of it was uniquely because of the translation.
He was killed by an emperor for heresy which served as an attack of legitimacy against the king, same went for the English kings during the wycliffe translation - meaning it is political not theological in the realms of aristocrats and warriors not the church. In fact the catholic church attempted to make it a theological discussion instead of an armed conflict.
Tyndalls translation barely shook anything, it had essentially no effect on the catholic world - I have no clue what yo uare talking about them asking the ottoman muslim courts for help as the saxon wars were three hundred years before the crusade.
You are trying to force a connection but without laying out the actual groundwork that connects the one to the other. Common germanic people relied on oral tradition for millenia before they became Christian and so also with the bible. Nothing strange about that.
Inquisition was against jewish subversion and resulted in only about 3000 deaths over 300 years and was mostly just an educational program. The reason you think it is so bad is because jews have for 80 years pushed massive propaganda showing it as cruel ignorance against everyone rather than specifically aimed at jewish influence. (which was the case of Luther if you read the jews' own account of the reformation as well as look at Luthers writing before he crashed out against the jews despite them having been a massively influential force towards shaping his theology to be a christian-talmudic syncretism)
The visigoths became arian because of an ancient friendship between an ancient king and a roman emperor, according to the goths own root sources. They became catholic over time quite easily once the ethnic divide of arian and catholic had been decayed and goths made up the catholic hierarchy as well.
And I can not even figure out what cruelty supposedly occurred with the saxon wars which just seemed like a unification war much like what had happened before in history under figures like Armanoric or Wodan.
It does not seem that anything was uprooted by the translation or common access to "true" information, it seems it was uprooted by a technological shift which allowed the agents on the outskirts such as jews an advantage in propaganda and subversion, much like they would come to accomplish with the medium of film and then social media.
I think I am talking past you… let me clearly explain this so you understand… since the 8th century when papal state aristocracy went to the Frankish court and petitioned Pepin the Short son of Charles Martel for assistance against the encroaching Normans… there has been no separation between the spiritual and temporal powers within the Catholic world… if you don’t know about the Saxon Wars and the unjustified massacres then don’t assume that Charlemagne’s campaigns against Gothic tribes were routine engagements of hostile forces… here is a direct quote from Charlemagne, which exemplifies the religious fanaticism of this institution…
"If any one of the races of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death."
~Charlemagne~
When you understand Catholicism was spread by the sword and those Saxons were Arians not pagans you can then see past the propaganda of the Latin Rite…
Furthermore, the Franco Ottoman alliance was a direct result of the Reformation, I never placed any connection to it with the 11th and 12th century Crusades… I only inferred that indeed the French are historically the same Franks who were known to the Muslims as Franj… Muslim historians make this important distinction when referencing the Romans of Constantinople to the Crusading Frankish Catholics… the Ottoman Franco alliance was established in the 16th century FYI…
Assuming Visigoths just adopted Catholicism wholesale is farfetched… on that token I guess I can assume they all mass converted into Islam… because both scenarios lack written sources, I believe a mass exodus of Visigoths into feudal Central Europe would be less appealing than living within a meritocratic Islamic society that offered class fluidity not even dreamed of in Middle age Catholic world…
Jews and Muslims were tortured and killed in the inquisition and expelled on the basis of their religious beliefs… if you believe the Jewish subversion narrative be my guest but in reality Jews didn’t have any status until atheist European aristocrats gave it to them on the basis of their adoption of European Zionist ideology… this ideology is inline with European aristocracies love of eugenics and colonialism… which again all traces back to the Catholic Church and their endorsement of the Doctrine of Discovery.
There is a primordial connection between Logres and Troy... in a spiritual sense. Of course Crimea is not literally where Troy stood, and the Saxons are not the same race as that of King Arthur, but the connection still stands. There is a back-and-forth between the two regions throughout the ages
I've enjoyed the first few of your Subverted History videos and read Pinkerton's book on the Goths/Scythians but the evidence points towards Pinkerton and yourself attributing too much credit to the Scythians.
Archaeogenetic data shows the Scythians after migrating into Europe, were at best 75% European with the remaining 25% being Asian admixture. While their ethnogenesis came from Europeans mixing with Mongolians.
Pinkerton makes unfounded claims of the Scythians migrating into Europe in 2200 BC while the DNA data shows the Proto-Scythians didn't exist until at the earliest 1500 BC in Central Asia. Also Herodotus states that the Scythians themselves date their origin to 1000 years before Darius, which coincides almost perfectly with the DNA findings.
I'll refer you to Survive the Jive, as he's published a video explaining the DNA findings much better than I can. In light of these facts, it's likely best to not attribute the founding root of Europeans to a mixed race people. I look forward to your future work.
I never knew there was an Anglo-Saxon migration to Crimea. It makes sense that little distinction was made between Goths and Anglo-Saxons. Even today I would regard Dutch and Germans as being practically indistinguishable from Scandinavians. 1,000 years ago, the Germanic peoples would have had that much less time to diverge.
Another interesting note: German communities in Pennsylvania are referred to as Dutch. In a few hundred years historians may view that as being as strange or noteworthy as we find using English and Goth interchangeably to be.
What are your thoughts on the onset of the Slavic people? Mainstream historians like to claim that the Slavic people randomly sprang out of nowhere in the 7th century, but this seems just too dismissive. I have always interpreted the Slavic people to be descendents of the Scythians, but especially, the Sarmatian people. This can be evidenced in notable examples such as Sarmatism (Polish noble belief in Sarmatians) or the name Croatia, which I see as derived from Sarmatian (Sarmat~=Carpathian mountains, > Horvat > Hrvatska > Kroatien in German). There is also an Iranic Tablet found in Croatia I believe.
The way I see it, the Slavic migrations of the 7th and 8th centuries were really just a reaction to Asiatic Mongols pushing westward from the East. As for the Germans/Goths (Note Gott-Kings, God kings), I see them as primarily descendents of the Corded-Ware and Bell Beaker cultures, which, although descendents of Steppe-Aryans, their migration happened during the earlier waves like the Yamnaya migrations of 3,000 BCE. Evidence of Germanic peoples already being settled in that region can be seen in Tacitus's work, Germania.
I do think more research has to be done on this topic, especially how the R1a and R1b genetic division along Central Europe came about. Germans have gone quite East as you said with Goths going all the way to Crimea and also the Vikings founding the Kieven-Rus, but I also think Slavic peoples shouldn't be left out of the picture. In many ways, the histories of all Europeans is being purposefully obfuscates, but with Slavs, in addition to these subversive elements trying conceal our history, many Western historians tend to overlook the Slavic people and their stories. I can't entirely blame them as everyone has their biases, but it can sometimes undermine the objectivity of their work. Anyways, I know you are primarily focused on the Germanic peoples and I am amazed at your work, but since you do seem very knowledgeable on the topic, I was hoping you might be useful in helping me find some answers.
I absolutely need to speak more about the Slavic peoples.. in some sense, I've 'avoided' going into too much depth just yet because I like to speak clearly and definitively only where I can feel most *certain*, and the Slavic peoples have always been a bit more of a complex question mark in some senses - but I certainly feel confident in vastly more than I've yet voiced on the topics, and I'd suggest you're absolutely correct in both the Scythian and Sarmatian lineage suggestions.
The Sarmatian topic is a heavily related one I look forward to discussing, soon..
Despite the many flaws of Wikipedia, the page "Names of the Croats and Croatia" is the best starting point for anyone wishing to research our origins.
I really enjoyed this article. I learned many new things, but it makes so much sense to me. I was reminded of a great novel by Paul Kingsnorth called The Wake about the Anglo-Saxons after the Norman invasion. Thanks for a great article and I’m looking forward to exploring more of this subject.
I'm unfamiliar with 'The Wake' - I'll download it now, and add it to the queue, thank you
Loved this! 🏅Thank you.
The "gain" is that the cultural identity which our ancestors held is impossible to unite with a market based mass-scale society. Of course this is only a gain for the extractive elites which want us to be rich and vulnerable rather than the old scythian tradition of being poor(self sufficient) and indomitable.
Fantastic article. I have read Beckwith's "The Scythian Empire" at your recommendation and I am now going through Herodotus and others. Your explanation makes the most sense. It is as if someone has tried to distort and destroy this history. There are, of course, the usual suspects but something deeper than even that is afoot.
I look forward to your future articles.
I've also read that book. Will you read some bronze age books covering wider material?
The story of the Anglo-Saxon nobility fleeing the Normans to found a New England in Crimea and joining the Byzantine Varangian Guard is fascinating. I hadn't studied the Goths as you have, but some related historical connections I've enjoyed researching are: Yamnaya, Andronovo, Scythians, Sicambrian Franks, Sarmatians, Sauromatians, Indo-Europeans, Amazons, Saka, Massagetae, Yancai, Aryans, Iranians, Alans, Alani, Os, As, Asia, Huns, Ossetians (and their strange trinitarian pagan religion, Assianism or Uatsdin).
IMO the central thread is the Alans, persisting to this day in Ossetia and into the 19th c. in Hungary. They conquered everything from the borders of China to North Africa at one time or another and are the most direct heirs of the Indo-Europeans.
I think the later books in Frank Herbert’s Dune series were inspired by the history of the Indo-Europeans, with waves of partial diasporas later coming back as invasions of changed but related peoples.
You mentioned the original thread. Yamnaya, who are even more ancient than the rest you mentioned. You guys need to get your archaeo-genetic timeline down pat
Of course they are, and the Sicambrian Granks are less ancient. There is no implication that these are contemporaries of each other.
I am mostly referring to the inability of some people to notice that the Germans, Nords, Celts, and Slavs are all so similar because of their shared bronze age lines. Instead, we have guys who conflate them. My apologies.
My ex is north American German from Russia empire. He alllllways said there must have been a reason for there to have been soooo many Germans willing to move back to the Volga and Ukraine besides just an invitation from German princess (Russian queen) Catherine the great. It wasn't just to prevent Turks from claiming the land... It was to reclaim their own homeland to begin with. Which is why Hitler wanted to reclaim the land for the Germans... It was and is our nordic homeland. Can u imagine how many artifacts are buried under the black sea shores????
It's both gratifying and intriguing when I hear other people with connections to the regions echoing similar sentiments.. it's always seemed logical, obvious, to my mind.
There's no doubt our peoples heritage on that patch of ground extends back as far as recorded history - there must be incredible finds, waiting to be discovered.
Excellent article. I recently read The fall of Orthodox England by Vladimir Moss and was amazed to learn that Anglo-Saxon refugees had joined the Varangians and settled in Crimea. The Gothic kinship link provides a clear connection. Thanks for your work, I've found it hugely enlightening and edifying. Kudos and God bless! 🙏☦️
Look forward to reading your words Asha. Welcome to the substack trail.
Please do more study into archaeo genetics and the Indo-European migrations. Even if you don't like the language they use, they identify real cultures and genetic groups. Your questions about why Scythians, Goths, Germans, Nords, Celts, and whoever are constantly spoken of in similar terms. They have common ancestry, but it's more complex and ancient in the bronze age than you seem to realize.
Fascinating article. Looking forward to more.
A significant portion of my time and energy for well over a decade now has been spent exclusively on research into the early genetics and Indo-European migrations - but I'm always eager to take in more, if you have some specific suggestions you think might be helpful.. or something you think I might've missed.
I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of several of the most modern labels and classifications and groupings of peoples - this modern urge (obsession?) to see things through any and all frameworks *except* the racial seems to disorient and confuse the picture more than help clarify and cohere, often - but I like to think I'm certainly aware of them, and even consider them helpful and valuable at times.. especially those I consider more 'clean' and fundamentally real.
'but it's more complex and ancient in the bronze age than you seem to realize'.. feel free to elaborate on this - I'd appreciate it.
I sent you a message instead of trying to compact my response into something easier to digest. It was too long.
What about the Saxon Wars, where the Frankish Charlemagne backed by the Catholic Church massacred entire tribes of Gothic peoples… it’s funny how the Catholic cult atrocities are always overlooked by so called European historians… it’s clear the narrative is always one crafted by the Catholic cult, who indeed were the antagonist throughout European history… feudalism, serfdom, ethnic cleansing of Goths, inquisitions of other faiths and instigators of Europes religious wars beginning with the Reformation, never forget they burnt William Tyndall at the stake for translating the Latin Vulgate into Germanic tongue…
Side note if you think Arian Visigoths were allies of Catholic Papal State aristocracy you need to do a little bit more critical thinking.
If you don’t know Gothic is the ethnicity of all Germanic speaking tribes including the Saxons, Alans etc… then let’s keep it moving…
Another aspect that made Tyndall the prime target of the Catholic Cult… is his translation relied very little on the Latin Vulgate… meaning he took directly from Greek and Hebrew sources, stepping right over all of the Catholic propaganda about the pope… this is why they tried to make a example out of him by killing him in such a gruesome fashion… but somehow the Vatican still gets a pass from all historical criticism… let’s hope Protestants start learning their history… because it was Germanic Protestants who inspired the enlightenment and established America as a land of liberty (self governance) and freedom of expression for all citizens… in contrast to the Catholic cult which kept its serfs living under the darkness of feudalism with mass censorship of information and propaganda about Saracens (Muslims)… Catholic Europe gave the world the Doctrine of Discovery which justified Colonialism and still informs Zionist thought… its time Protestant start waking up… Catholics and Protestants are not the same… just like America and Europe represent totally different historical worldviews… death to the “West” (Catholic European aristocracy)… long live America and its enlightened Protestant roots!!!
The Saxons were targeted for being pagan.
Says the pagan Catholic Church… so what do you do with Ulfilas the Priest he was converting the Gothic tribes 300 years before Pepin the Short and Stephen II/III made the unholy Latin alliance…
O I forgot Arians and everyone else who doesn’t recognize the pope as the divine authority on earth is a pagan…
Talk about intolerance…
? The Anglo Saxons were pagan when they were being killed in Germany and slowly conquering England. The conversion of goths and Saxons happened at two different points. The Saxons brought paganism with them to Britain for Pete's sake.
The Catholic church is not pagan. I forgot Jesus and Yahweh are European!
Well, the Catholics do come in for a lot of criticism regarding the Inquisition (and rightfully so).
But the story of the Frankish conquests and persecutions deserve to be better known. I've recently discovered that my paternal ancestors were Frisians and, wow, do those people have a story to tell!
I hope you realize that most could not even read at the time of Tyndall, and of those 5% ish that could, almost all would have had access to the earlier translations as well as speak/read latin and greek. I feel as if you do not respect context or the idea of coming to a conclusion after you have a clear set of facts.
This is the difference between your opinion and my understanding… that 5% that could read were the Latin educated neophytes… if you think there was public institutions of higher learning in Catholic Europe in the Middle Ages then let’s end the conversation now… in reality you had to be initiated into a Catholic fraternal order to learn under the auspices of the Catholic Church… Latin was placed as a barrier for the uninitiated and this is apparent in the Vaticans mass concealment of historical documents they won’t even release until today… for example the document that came out a few years ago detailing the pope and Hitlers interactions during WWII… the Dark ages fell upon Europe under the Vaticans rule (we can debate about it)… while Muslim Europe was producing a Golden age of higher learning…
What’s so important about Tyndall’s work is for the first time Germanic English speaking people who might have depended on official clergyman to disseminate the information found within Holy Scripture… with the advent of Tyndall’s New Testament they could now go to anyone in their own communities who could read and hear what the Bible said… this unleashed a entirely new narrative not cloaked in the propaganda of a (and this is key) institution that assumed political and religious authority over every aspect of a people’s life who were born into a feudal society engineered by the Catholic cult…
The translation into germanic tongue had been done prior to Tyndall, he was burnt for heresy, not translation.
It’s important to know context… if you can bring forth a translation that was widely accessible (meaning mass printed) to common Germanic peoples of Western and Central Europe as Tyndall’s translation was then I will stand corrected… Tyndall’s New Testament was the most widely read and consequential translation in European history… if we follow the chronological timeline Martin Luther would only realize the Old Testament translation after Tyndall’s 1522 publication… without needing some Vatican neophyte to tell me this information sparked the Reformation… I can use common sense to understand that the Vaticans Latin language iron wall on information was destroyed by Tyndall’s courageous translation of scripture…
Since the printing press came around that time, I assume we are ignoring the Ulfila translation of 400ish and the Fulda and Reichenau translation of the 800s and the Aelfric translation of the 1000s and then the wycliffe translation in the 1300s.
They could simply not press it for wide circulation because of the technology, it was not the result of conscious suppression from the church - whereas even in the case of Tyndale, he got to write his final books for 2 years only because the church shielded him from the emperor which was who sentenced him to death because of the heresy rather than the church which does not use death as a sentence since the fourth lateran council in the 1200s.
Indeed, my assertion stands vindicated, because like I said, Tyndall’s work reached the masses… all of those translations you mentioned were limited to the libraries of aristocracy… Tyndall’s translation shook Catholic European hierarchy to its core… so much so, that the Crusading Frankish Nobility ran to the Ottoman Muslim Sultan’s court for help… considering that this same Frankish Nobility descended from Charles Martel the eternal defender of Catholic Christendom, you must admit that my original point is valid in the context that the pope and his Vatican feudalist system was uprooted when common germanic peoples gained access to Scripture… whether or not the Vatican suppressed other beliefs within their sphere, I don’t think any sound minded person would argue that the Saxon Wars (Ulfila the Priest was a Arian and his beliefs were espoused by many Germanic tribes including Visigoths) or the Inquisition was due to the enlightened tolerance of the Catholic cult.
Your assertion was that it was the catholic church rather than royalty that killed Tynsdale and that the cause of it was uniquely because of the translation.
He was killed by an emperor for heresy which served as an attack of legitimacy against the king, same went for the English kings during the wycliffe translation - meaning it is political not theological in the realms of aristocrats and warriors not the church. In fact the catholic church attempted to make it a theological discussion instead of an armed conflict.
Tyndalls translation barely shook anything, it had essentially no effect on the catholic world - I have no clue what yo uare talking about them asking the ottoman muslim courts for help as the saxon wars were three hundred years before the crusade.
You are trying to force a connection but without laying out the actual groundwork that connects the one to the other. Common germanic people relied on oral tradition for millenia before they became Christian and so also with the bible. Nothing strange about that.
Inquisition was against jewish subversion and resulted in only about 3000 deaths over 300 years and was mostly just an educational program. The reason you think it is so bad is because jews have for 80 years pushed massive propaganda showing it as cruel ignorance against everyone rather than specifically aimed at jewish influence. (which was the case of Luther if you read the jews' own account of the reformation as well as look at Luthers writing before he crashed out against the jews despite them having been a massively influential force towards shaping his theology to be a christian-talmudic syncretism)
The visigoths became arian because of an ancient friendship between an ancient king and a roman emperor, according to the goths own root sources. They became catholic over time quite easily once the ethnic divide of arian and catholic had been decayed and goths made up the catholic hierarchy as well.
And I can not even figure out what cruelty supposedly occurred with the saxon wars which just seemed like a unification war much like what had happened before in history under figures like Armanoric or Wodan.
It does not seem that anything was uprooted by the translation or common access to "true" information, it seems it was uprooted by a technological shift which allowed the agents on the outskirts such as jews an advantage in propaganda and subversion, much like they would come to accomplish with the medium of film and then social media.
I think I am talking past you… let me clearly explain this so you understand… since the 8th century when papal state aristocracy went to the Frankish court and petitioned Pepin the Short son of Charles Martel for assistance against the encroaching Normans… there has been no separation between the spiritual and temporal powers within the Catholic world… if you don’t know about the Saxon Wars and the unjustified massacres then don’t assume that Charlemagne’s campaigns against Gothic tribes were routine engagements of hostile forces… here is a direct quote from Charlemagne, which exemplifies the religious fanaticism of this institution…
"If any one of the races of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death."
~Charlemagne~
When you understand Catholicism was spread by the sword and those Saxons were Arians not pagans you can then see past the propaganda of the Latin Rite…
Furthermore, the Franco Ottoman alliance was a direct result of the Reformation, I never placed any connection to it with the 11th and 12th century Crusades… I only inferred that indeed the French are historically the same Franks who were known to the Muslims as Franj… Muslim historians make this important distinction when referencing the Romans of Constantinople to the Crusading Frankish Catholics… the Ottoman Franco alliance was established in the 16th century FYI…
Assuming Visigoths just adopted Catholicism wholesale is farfetched… on that token I guess I can assume they all mass converted into Islam… because both scenarios lack written sources, I believe a mass exodus of Visigoths into feudal Central Europe would be less appealing than living within a meritocratic Islamic society that offered class fluidity not even dreamed of in Middle age Catholic world…
Jews and Muslims were tortured and killed in the inquisition and expelled on the basis of their religious beliefs… if you believe the Jewish subversion narrative be my guest but in reality Jews didn’t have any status until atheist European aristocrats gave it to them on the basis of their adoption of European Zionist ideology… this ideology is inline with European aristocracies love of eugenics and colonialism… which again all traces back to the Catholic Church and their endorsement of the Doctrine of Discovery.
There is a primordial connection between Logres and Troy... in a spiritual sense. Of course Crimea is not literally where Troy stood, and the Saxons are not the same race as that of King Arthur, but the connection still stands. There is a back-and-forth between the two regions throughout the ages
Excellent article. Thank you !
I've enjoyed the first few of your Subverted History videos and read Pinkerton's book on the Goths/Scythians but the evidence points towards Pinkerton and yourself attributing too much credit to the Scythians.
Archaeogenetic data shows the Scythians after migrating into Europe, were at best 75% European with the remaining 25% being Asian admixture. While their ethnogenesis came from Europeans mixing with Mongolians.
Pinkerton makes unfounded claims of the Scythians migrating into Europe in 2200 BC while the DNA data shows the Proto-Scythians didn't exist until at the earliest 1500 BC in Central Asia. Also Herodotus states that the Scythians themselves date their origin to 1000 years before Darius, which coincides almost perfectly with the DNA findings.
I'll refer you to Survive the Jive, as he's published a video explaining the DNA findings much better than I can. In light of these facts, it's likely best to not attribute the founding root of Europeans to a mixed race people. I look forward to your future work.
I never knew there was an Anglo-Saxon migration to Crimea. It makes sense that little distinction was made between Goths and Anglo-Saxons. Even today I would regard Dutch and Germans as being practically indistinguishable from Scandinavians. 1,000 years ago, the Germanic peoples would have had that much less time to diverge.
Another interesting note: German communities in Pennsylvania are referred to as Dutch. In a few hundred years historians may view that as being as strange or noteworthy as we find using English and Goth interchangeably to be.