Forwarded from Mudflood Research, Tartaria, True Aryan History
The controllers didn't have to conspire to rewrite any history initially, historians and translators often "assigned" different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple "phantom copies" of these events. These "phantom copies" were often misdated by centuries or even millennia and ended up incorporated into conventional chronology. Hence for example creating the fictional Kingdom of Israel from Byzantium. Or the fake city of Jerusalem which was really rebuilt to as the Kremlin in Moscow (after the old one being destroy by the "Babylonians") which matches the denoscription given in the Old Testament. Perhaps later on the controllers took advantage of these misleading historical accounts, and even went out of there way to create new calendars and assign years to past events, sealing these false hiStories as "fact", as for example taking the "i" in the dates of many historical manunoscripts and reinterpreting it to be the number "1", boom 1000 new years added.
👍25👏10🔥2🤔1
Interesting choice of imagery on Henry Kissinger’s popular book “World Order”, who is Klaus Schwab's advisor. The programming of the book's noscript will be understood by anyone with an elementary understanding of our Matrix, what catches my attention is the map depicted on the cover art, which shows ancient Tartaria and Hyperborea. Perhaps it's a play on the fact that Schwab's "great reset" is an analogy to the great reset which erased the last Free Empire of Earth which was not under control of the parasites, the noscript in itself also interestingly is just "World Order", without the "New" as you would expect, which makes sense as the last Great Reset in the middle ages already established the World Order - there is nothing new with what is happening today. Among those there are probably other things I am overlooking.
👍48🔥10💩7🤔3
In Latin noscript the letter 'i' originally served the purpose of representing both the vowel sound i and the consonant sound y. The letter 'j' was invented relatively recently to represent the consonant sound y to clear up the ambiguity that was caused by that spelling convention, consider that outside of English, the letter j is used for the y sound in English, primarily in Germanic and Slavic languages. The same also goes for the letter 'v' representing both 'w' and 'u', those latter 2 letters never existed in Latin and were also invented recently to clear up ambiguity.
When the controllers introduced Christianity in Europe, around 500 years ago, they declared a new calendar, that it was now 1 AD, or 1 Anno Domini, literally "1 in the year of our lord", as Latin was and still is to this day the administrative language of the Roman New World Order (take a look at your banknotes and government buildings!). So they began by marking the year as i1, (1 AD), the 'i' stands for Iesvs (Jesus), and so on and so forth. So for example when supposedly Columbus discovered America in supposedly the year 1492 AD, it was really in i492, or simply 492. All text and numbers depicting years that were originally engraved or imprinted on various buildings or coins or documents all originally used 'i' in the place of 1. The change to replacing the i with 1 began roughly 400-300 summers ago after when (((Joseph Scaleger))) and many other NWO historians had began rewriting the historical chronology. Some innoscriptions didn't have the 'i', simply out of convenience, so our historians have dated them as being in the 1st millennia, while the other innoscriptions as being in the 2nd millennia. If you still don't understand what I am saying - there has only been 1 millennia, which we are still in, not two...
Note that one might be quick to deduce that the current year must be i1022, but that's not the case, because it's not just a matter of them adding 1000 years to the calendar, it actually amounts to 1300 years and 4 months once you have accounted for all of the calendar reformations which were done to this Roman AD calendar after it was introduced, this was likely done to confuse our historical timeline even further. Here is an example of multiple variations of the Roman Calendar which existed in different parts of Europe at different times, and the variations in the current year given by them.
Modern NWO Calendar = 2022 (+0)
Old Catholic Calendar = 1767 (+255)
Old Dutch Calendar = 1922 (+100)
Napoleon's Calendar = 1967 (+55)
Peter the Great's Calendar = 1867 (+155)
So on and so forth...
Our history has not been permanently erased by the controllers, it was simply miscalculated by them, maliciously to fit their agenda. Our true history can be reconstructed, and it has been, thanks to great minds such as Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, whose works I shall share with you shortly. Realizing our true history is only a matter of mathematics.
When the controllers introduced Christianity in Europe, around 500 years ago, they declared a new calendar, that it was now 1 AD, or 1 Anno Domini, literally "1 in the year of our lord", as Latin was and still is to this day the administrative language of the Roman New World Order (take a look at your banknotes and government buildings!). So they began by marking the year as i1, (1 AD), the 'i' stands for Iesvs (Jesus), and so on and so forth. So for example when supposedly Columbus discovered America in supposedly the year 1492 AD, it was really in i492, or simply 492. All text and numbers depicting years that were originally engraved or imprinted on various buildings or coins or documents all originally used 'i' in the place of 1. The change to replacing the i with 1 began roughly 400-300 summers ago after when (((Joseph Scaleger))) and many other NWO historians had began rewriting the historical chronology. Some innoscriptions didn't have the 'i', simply out of convenience, so our historians have dated them as being in the 1st millennia, while the other innoscriptions as being in the 2nd millennia. If you still don't understand what I am saying - there has only been 1 millennia, which we are still in, not two...
Note that one might be quick to deduce that the current year must be i1022, but that's not the case, because it's not just a matter of them adding 1000 years to the calendar, it actually amounts to 1300 years and 4 months once you have accounted for all of the calendar reformations which were done to this Roman AD calendar after it was introduced, this was likely done to confuse our historical timeline even further. Here is an example of multiple variations of the Roman Calendar which existed in different parts of Europe at different times, and the variations in the current year given by them.
Modern NWO Calendar = 2022 (+0)
Old Catholic Calendar = 1767 (+255)
Old Dutch Calendar = 1922 (+100)
Napoleon's Calendar = 1967 (+55)
Peter the Great's Calendar = 1867 (+155)
So on and so forth...
Our history has not been permanently erased by the controllers, it was simply miscalculated by them, maliciously to fit their agenda. Our true history can be reconstructed, and it has been, thanks to great minds such as Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, whose works I shall share with you shortly. Realizing our true history is only a matter of mathematics.
🔥34👍16❤13👏10💩3
An incunabula is a term of Latin origin used by our modern historians to refer to any books that were printed before the year 1500. The vast majority of of all text in the middle ages were written in Latin, and even the next most popular language being German only takes a mere 10%.
For two centuries our modern day historians have relentlessly shilled the idea that two thousand years ago there was an Iron Age Mediterranean Empire of Latin speaking toga wearing Greco-Romans, backed by countless documents and writings in Latin text.
We are told that by around the year 800 is when the Latin language stopped being spoken, so any claim that the Roman Empire existed until 200 years ago, or even to this day should sound absolutely fictious assuming "their" language died 1200 years ago.
What is overlooked is the fact that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Latin was ever spoken in Rome. All studies of the Roman Empire start off by assuming that Latin was the langauge not only spoken and written by Roman elites but also by Roman peasants, and from that assumption we will never get anywhere with uncovering the true history.
The reality is that Latin was merely a language for the elites, The Roman Empire occupied the entirety of Europe, there was no Roman culture nor Roman assimilation into such culture. What we call Rome was in fact the New World Order, all nations under Rome were free to speak their own languages, nothing was forced upon the peasants. If you study the monarchies of Europe's middle ages, you will discover that this is infact one Empire subordinated to many rulers and provinces.
If you still don't believe what I am telling you in regards to the fabrication of Roman history, here's a wall from "Ancient" Rome with Etruscan graffiti on it, if we are to believe mainstream masonic Scalergian chronological history, this graffiti should be absolutely impossible to exist, it is completely incompatible with any timelines given by our modern historians. Of course when you point out such inconsistencies to them, they like to ignore it and keep it unanswered. Small things like this can absolutely destroy their narrative of history.
The Roman Empire still rules our realm to this day.
For two centuries our modern day historians have relentlessly shilled the idea that two thousand years ago there was an Iron Age Mediterranean Empire of Latin speaking toga wearing Greco-Romans, backed by countless documents and writings in Latin text.
We are told that by around the year 800 is when the Latin language stopped being spoken, so any claim that the Roman Empire existed until 200 years ago, or even to this day should sound absolutely fictious assuming "their" language died 1200 years ago.
What is overlooked is the fact that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Latin was ever spoken in Rome. All studies of the Roman Empire start off by assuming that Latin was the langauge not only spoken and written by Roman elites but also by Roman peasants, and from that assumption we will never get anywhere with uncovering the true history.
The reality is that Latin was merely a language for the elites, The Roman Empire occupied the entirety of Europe, there was no Roman culture nor Roman assimilation into such culture. What we call Rome was in fact the New World Order, all nations under Rome were free to speak their own languages, nothing was forced upon the peasants. If you study the monarchies of Europe's middle ages, you will discover that this is infact one Empire subordinated to many rulers and provinces.
If you still don't believe what I am telling you in regards to the fabrication of Roman history, here's a wall from "Ancient" Rome with Etruscan graffiti on it, if we are to believe mainstream masonic Scalergian chronological history, this graffiti should be absolutely impossible to exist, it is completely incompatible with any timelines given by our modern historians. Of course when you point out such inconsistencies to them, they like to ignore it and keep it unanswered. Small things like this can absolutely destroy their narrative of history.
The Roman Empire still rules our realm to this day.
👍35🔥9
The Mongol Empire Never Existed
Until the end of the 19th century, there was no such thing as a so-called "Mongol Empire" or "Golden Horde" in the history books, this myth was invented very recently by the court "historians" (sci-fi writers) of the disgustingly corrupt Romanov dynasty in order to validate the Scalergian Chronology (the false historical timeline that we are taught today).
In reality, that what we know of as the Mongol Empire, was in fact a country named Great Tartaria which existed for thousands of years until Summer 7284 (1775) when it was almost completely eradicated following a nuclear winter. Ethnic cleansing of inhabitants who remained took place thereafter up until WW1. Numerous military campaigns were led in order to destroy Tartaria for centuries. The "French Invasion of Russia" - was really infact a joint military operation between Napoleon of France and Alexander I of Russia, who were Roman generals working together to exterminate Tartaria. In fact all wars of the middle ages only occurred between Tartary and the Roman Empire, with the goal of the Romans being a total crusade and eradication of the Vedic Aryans, to usher in control of the parasites in their lands through Abrahamic religion which they were defending against.
The "Mongols" (Tartarians), so called "invaders" were nothing more than Pagan Slavs, Balts, Turks, Bulgars, Huns, Finns, Uralics, among many other ethnic groups who had banded together to defend against the Christian invaders of Rome, in order to protect the eternal Vedic truth against those who seek total annihilation of the Aryans.
Why didn't the "Mongols" (Tartarians) attack Novgorod? Because there were many Pagans in Novgorod that were never persecuted. Same story in Smolensk and Pskov, amongst a few other principalities who were all Pagan. This was a civil war not an invasion. It's also pretty clear that all the most important urban centers were solely founded, built and populated by Slavic Aryan people. All these facts are taken from western sources. The reason why the people of Novgorod, Smolensk, Pskov and a few other principalities weren't invaded is because they were never involved in the brutally forcible Christianization of Pagans. The name of the Russian branch of Christendom used to be called "Pravo-Verya", simply translating into "right to believe" and was very much different from Byzantine Orthodoxy. This is why the supposed "conquerors" completely bypassed the very wealthy kingdom of Novgorod and went straight to Catholic Poland and Hungary. The fact that this was a religiously motivated conflict is very clear, by analyzing simple authentic chronicles/letters such as one written by Riccoldo da Monte di Croce (1243 - 1320) where he states that the intentions of the "Tartars/Moguls" is to destroy Christianity. Sounds like a pretty strange aspiration for simple minded central Asian nomads.
So how come we call them Mongols and not Tartars? First of all the original word for Mongol was "Mogul", which did not mean a designation for a single tribe or people at all. The word mogul simply meant a person or a group of people who in position of power, even this etymology has deeper origins. In Russian we have an adjective "Moguchii" which means powerful, the Greek word "Mega" is also a cognate. For instance, the Maghuls (mongols) of India were ethnically Turko-Iranic and had nothing to do with Mongolia. The first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica also mentions the Tibetan "moguleans". The word mogul simply meant a person or a group of people who in position of power. The N in "MoNgol" was probably the result of the nasal vowels in Old Russian.
Finally, modern day Mongolians have never called themselves "Mongols" in recorded history. What people know today as present day Mongols (who actually always called themselves only by their tribal names such as Oirat/Khalka) never had any folklore connecting them either Ghengis Khan or any empire. The reason why the name Batu Khan might sound non-Russian to some is because it's an old Russian Pagan noscript/nickname.
Until the end of the 19th century, there was no such thing as a so-called "Mongol Empire" or "Golden Horde" in the history books, this myth was invented very recently by the court "historians" (sci-fi writers) of the disgustingly corrupt Romanov dynasty in order to validate the Scalergian Chronology (the false historical timeline that we are taught today).
In reality, that what we know of as the Mongol Empire, was in fact a country named Great Tartaria which existed for thousands of years until Summer 7284 (1775) when it was almost completely eradicated following a nuclear winter. Ethnic cleansing of inhabitants who remained took place thereafter up until WW1. Numerous military campaigns were led in order to destroy Tartaria for centuries. The "French Invasion of Russia" - was really infact a joint military operation between Napoleon of France and Alexander I of Russia, who were Roman generals working together to exterminate Tartaria. In fact all wars of the middle ages only occurred between Tartary and the Roman Empire, with the goal of the Romans being a total crusade and eradication of the Vedic Aryans, to usher in control of the parasites in their lands through Abrahamic religion which they were defending against.
The "Mongols" (Tartarians), so called "invaders" were nothing more than Pagan Slavs, Balts, Turks, Bulgars, Huns, Finns, Uralics, among many other ethnic groups who had banded together to defend against the Christian invaders of Rome, in order to protect the eternal Vedic truth against those who seek total annihilation of the Aryans.
Why didn't the "Mongols" (Tartarians) attack Novgorod? Because there were many Pagans in Novgorod that were never persecuted. Same story in Smolensk and Pskov, amongst a few other principalities who were all Pagan. This was a civil war not an invasion. It's also pretty clear that all the most important urban centers were solely founded, built and populated by Slavic Aryan people. All these facts are taken from western sources. The reason why the people of Novgorod, Smolensk, Pskov and a few other principalities weren't invaded is because they were never involved in the brutally forcible Christianization of Pagans. The name of the Russian branch of Christendom used to be called "Pravo-Verya", simply translating into "right to believe" and was very much different from Byzantine Orthodoxy. This is why the supposed "conquerors" completely bypassed the very wealthy kingdom of Novgorod and went straight to Catholic Poland and Hungary. The fact that this was a religiously motivated conflict is very clear, by analyzing simple authentic chronicles/letters such as one written by Riccoldo da Monte di Croce (1243 - 1320) where he states that the intentions of the "Tartars/Moguls" is to destroy Christianity. Sounds like a pretty strange aspiration for simple minded central Asian nomads.
So how come we call them Mongols and not Tartars? First of all the original word for Mongol was "Mogul", which did not mean a designation for a single tribe or people at all. The word mogul simply meant a person or a group of people who in position of power, even this etymology has deeper origins. In Russian we have an adjective "Moguchii" which means powerful, the Greek word "Mega" is also a cognate. For instance, the Maghuls (mongols) of India were ethnically Turko-Iranic and had nothing to do with Mongolia. The first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica also mentions the Tibetan "moguleans". The word mogul simply meant a person or a group of people who in position of power. The N in "MoNgol" was probably the result of the nasal vowels in Old Russian.
Finally, modern day Mongolians have never called themselves "Mongols" in recorded history. What people know today as present day Mongols (who actually always called themselves only by their tribal names such as Oirat/Khalka) never had any folklore connecting them either Ghengis Khan or any empire. The reason why the name Batu Khan might sound non-Russian to some is because it's an old Russian Pagan noscript/nickname.
👍26🔥8❤7
TARTARIA was founded by the two children of Perun; Tarh and Tara.
Perun is the most high God in the Slavic pantheon, in other Aryan pantheons he shared similarly high status under different names (different languages will have different names for the same being, like how Allah = Yahweh = Jehovah = "God").
The most apparent names for this being; Perun, Perkunas, Piran, Perkele, Parun, Perkunija, Perendi, Perkon, Pirkuna.
Less apparently, the deities Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Indra, who are all the same deity as Perun, however their names derive from different root words, as a deity can have countless names but most cultures tend to favour one for common use.
This deity was worshipped throughout all of Eurasia all the way to South America.
According to legend, when Tartarians were met with foreigners, they introduced themselves as the children of Tarh and Tara, the two children of Perun. Tarh, also named Dazhdbog, and his younger sister Tara were considered patrons and guardians of the Russian land.
卐
Perun is the most high God in the Slavic pantheon, in other Aryan pantheons he shared similarly high status under different names (different languages will have different names for the same being, like how Allah = Yahweh = Jehovah = "God").
The most apparent names for this being; Perun, Perkunas, Piran, Perkele, Parun, Perkunija, Perendi, Perkon, Pirkuna.
Less apparently, the deities Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Indra, who are all the same deity as Perun, however their names derive from different root words, as a deity can have countless names but most cultures tend to favour one for common use.
This deity was worshipped throughout all of Eurasia all the way to South America.
According to legend, when Tartarians were met with foreigners, they introduced themselves as the children of Tarh and Tara, the two children of Perun. Tarh, also named Dazhdbog, and his younger sister Tara were considered patrons and guardians of the Russian land.
卐
👍24❤6🔥1