The Trap of False History

Double standards

Until now the international scientific world has treated as holy writ such Western chronicles as for example the work of Einhard about the life of Charlemagne. Despite the obvious absurdities practically every statement, every half sentence was taken at face value. This is the very same international scientific world which ignores in its entirely the medieval Hungarian chronicle literature and brands it from the viewpoint of historical science as untrustworthy. On what basis? Why are our historical scientists using such double standards in this matter? Why is a medieval Hungarian chronicler more untrustworthy than a Western counterpart? We know the answer: due to reasons of chronology. Namely, the official academic argument goes that the medieval Hungarian chronicle literature, which derives altogether only 104 years between the death of Attila and the Magyar reconquest, is guilty of such obvious stupidity that it is impossible to take it seriously from a historical-scientific point of view and accept its claims as trustworthy! Do we understand this? Our Lord Jesus Christ was also sentenced to death because when asked by Caiaphas he stated the truth about himself! They treat the Hungarian chronicle tradition the same way: the reason they don’t take its statements seriously and consider it untrustworthy from a historical-scientific point of view is that it states the truth! Because it courageously and simply leaves out – skips – the fictitious period which probably was smuggled retrospectively into history. The possibility that maybe the problem is not with the statements of the Hungarian chronicles after all, but that the chronology itself is incorrect and that some flaw slipped into our chronological system has so far not entered our scientists’ minds.

There is yet another aspect to this whole embarrassing situation which clearly sheds light on the impossible mentality of our historical-scientific academia. However unbelievable, in the middle of Europe lives a people who, concerning their own history, would rather trust its enemy, the Byzantine emperor, than its own medieval chroniclers! After all, the larger part of what we know about the period of the reconquest and the times immediately prior to it we take from the scholarly work entitled “De Administrando Imperio”1 written by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII2! Considering that the Magyars declared war on Byzantium and for a time even made it pay tribute to them, the question arises: can we consider the Byzantine emperor who our ancestors had offended and insulted so many times to be impartial to the Magyars? Obviously not! But despite this we accept without question every word of Constantine VII, while considering our own medieval chroniclers to be untrustworthy. Indeed, Constantine VII commits himself fully in this his ominous work to paint the honour and dignity of our ancestors in as much an unfavourable light as possible. Let us see:

“And the Hungarians were comprised of seven hordes, but at this time lacked a ruler. They had neither a native nor foreign leader but there were amongst them certain tribal leaders and the head of these leaders was the previously mentioned Lebediás… And the kagan, the ruler of Kazaria gave to the head leader called Lebediás a prominent Kazar lady as a wife, for the chivalry shown and military help he received from the Magyars, so that he may father children; but it is a matter of history that Lebediás never fathered any children by this wife. After some time had passed the kagan, ruler of Kazaria asked the Hungarians to send to him their head tribal leader, so Lebediás, when he had arrived and presented himself to the king of Kazaria, asked him why he had been sent for. And the kagan spoke to him thusly: For the following reason have you been sent for: since you are of noble ancestry and wise and chivalrous and the first among the Magyars, it is our wish, that you become the ruler of your race and that you be subject to our laws and regulations.”

In a word, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus at that time the Hungarians were the loyal subjects of the Jewish Khazar king, but we did not have enough brains to elect a leader for us among ourselves. The Khazar king drew our attention to the fact that it was high time we too had a chieftain. He asked Lebediás to lead his “hordes” and that he be the ruler of “his race”. But since Lebediás was a humble person, he referred this honouring request to Álmos and his son Árpád.

The initiation rite of Árpád went “according to Kazar customs and practices in such a way, that they raised him onto their shields. But before Árpád the Magyars never had their own ruler; therefore the Magyars elect their rulers from this bloodline [clan] until this very day.”

This would then be the genesis of the noble royal house of Árpád, according to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Naturally, our master forger does not miss the opportunity to emphasise that before Lebediás the Hungarians did not have a chieftain! He does all this obviously due to the ulterior motive of forcibly separating the Magyars from Attila the Hun, the Scourge of God, who, in the 5th century, at the head of his immense armies could force even the Roman empire down on its knees. In face of this, the Hungarian chronicles know of neither Lebediás nor the Khazar king nor indeed Khazaria! They do talk, however, of Scythia and call the Magyars alternately Huns or Scythians, and, where Attila is concerned, talk of him as a Hungarian king. To all this let us also add the statements of Heribert Illig, according to whom one of the originators of this medieval calendar forgery is none other than Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, whose statements concerning Hungarian history the Hungarian historical-scientific community has uncritically accepted. To this I believe no further comment is necessary.

  1. On the Administration of the Empire []
  2. Porphyrogenitus, “the Purple-born” []
, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metahistory. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

One Comment

  1. simone said:

    I would like to point out some weak points of this thesis.
    First, Islam was not started with the flight of the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace and benedictions) to Medina, but 13 years earlier in Mecca. This is well established in the history of Islam.
    Second, and this is well established as well, the reason for the Prophet’s flight (peace and blessings be upon him) was not fear of christian persecution, as indeed christian presence in Arabia was quite limited, although it existed, but rather the necessity to preserve Islam and its followers from the persecution of the polytheists in Mecca, who disbelieved the monotheism taught by Islam, as it also went against their economical interest: the Meccans gained much profit from the fact that their city was the centre of pilgrimage for all Arabia, and in its sacred precinct there were 360 idols, which were adored by the different Arab tribes. Go back to the One God preached by Abraham and Ismael (peace be upon them), and you will lose the money gained from the pilgrims.
    Third, the fact that Arianism and Islam share part of their beliefs, even if they are important tenets, does not necessarily indicate borrowings: similarities between religions can have two explanations: 1) borrowings and influence between cultures: this explains well the similarities, not so well the differences between religions;
    2) that these religions have a common source (God), so they share what is true in them, while their differences are because of men who have corrupted and altered the original teachings.
    They are both possible explanations, but I incline more to the second: it is stronger from my point of view, and this would entail that the Arian “heresy” is not a heresy at all, rather it is closer to a correct understanding of Jesus’ (peace be on him) teachings, confirmed by the later revelation of the Quran from God. There are studies pointing to this, based even on the Bible, and I suggest the book “Muhammad in the Bible” from Prof. Abdu ‘L-Ahad Dawud, former Bishop of Uramiah. It can be found on the web and downloaded.
    Fourth, the theory of the different ways of counting the years (Julian/Christian era) looks quite improbable (although not impossible) but it has two main limits:
    1) it adopts different counting systems according to what suits the theory of the 297 years gap. It should at least demonstrated, for this to be accepted, that the different sources used were actually following the counting attributed to each of them. It is obvious that a single source (for example any historical document from ancient times, like ancient Annals) would always use the same counting method UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE;
    2) it is not strong enough if it is not corroborated by numerous other proofs for the validity of the general theory “Islam comes from Arianism”.
    Lastly, the fact that the Patriarchs of the various cities opened their doors to the muslim invaders can have different explanations. Here I suggest a couple:
    1) the Patriarchs knew that under Islamic law christians are protected and can keep their freedom to worship in the Christian way, on condition of paying a certain tax (which is actually linked to the fact that they do not have to fight for the protection of the community, but rather are protected by the muslim army from foreign invaders). Therefore the Patriarch understood this was not like Roman persecution, and it was better for the christians to live and remain christians rather than to die (as this would not necessarily be martyrdom: they were not being persecuted for religious reasons, but rather were free to be christians). This would be attested by the words of the Patriarch of Antioch: ‘It is better if you submit and pay your levies to our lord, than to be killed or dragged into captivity!’
    2) many early converts to islam were Christians and Jews who saw in the Bible prophecies confirming the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, it could be said that one of the firsts to know that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was a Prophet was a Christian monk called Bahira, who based his deduction on what he found in the Scriptures. This probably goes back to the book I mentioned earlier, “Muhammad in the Bible”. It is possible that the Patriarchs had the same conviction. There are muslim sources attesting that the Emperor Eraclius believed in Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him) prophecy.
    I pray that God guide us all to what pleases Him the most, gives clarity to our minds and hearts and show us the Truth whatever it may be, making us gladly accept it. And may He forgive me for any wrong thing I said.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

  • My assertion that today there is no political system, no formation, and no party whatsoever worth devoting oneself to, and that everything existing must be denied, has disconcerted many. However, this denial and non-commitment do not derive from a lack of principles, but from the possession of principles, which are precise, solid and not subject to compromise.

    - Julius Evola