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