Welcome episode 40, Caribbean rhythm with Bronze Age Pervert. Today, I must use somewhat lighter voice. Somebody might say calmer voice. I had too much fire water last night and am still recover. But I think it's appropriate because the category five chimp out, I think now has to be downgraded. At most category one or even a tropical storm level chimp out because DC protests just fizzled out. I was afraid even military would stand down, maybe, or SS would stand down, and that they would storm a White House. And I don't want to give them any ideas, but why not have a Michelle Obama lead a crowd on the White House? Is that too obvious for them to do? But I think they might just do that. If not now, then in second quarter, second term Trump administration, would that crowd be stopped?

I think I would like to see this. And then Trump put Joe Pesci as coordinator of Black Outreach Program. And then he have Joe Pesci lead counter-protest and whole thing can be televised, wrestling show televised Joe Pesci with Michael Obongo in front of the obelisk. And you can have two masons in front of Obelisk Washington Memorial. You can put two masons in kitchen apron rubbing their hands, watching this with glee. The enlightenment is upon us. The people are awakened. How branch. I believe the best way for racial healing, the racial healing, I mean, is for Trump to elevate the black Hebrew Israelites to national prominence. I saw on YouTube long ago a black Hebrew Israelite telling people on Miami sidewalks that he

flushes the Koran down the toilet, and this is very appropriate given what I will tell you in the second half of the show, but I was very impressed with this bravery, much better than the PSYOP astroturf Westboro Baptist Church, which is an FBI, some kind of PSYOP like that. And black Hebrew Israelites are better, I think. They also take a strong position on many other matters of interest. For example, there was a very popular YouTube that has been hunted off the internet, but I think it was in San Francisco or New York, but I forget. Black Hebrew Israelites were preaching the word of God on the street after the Elliot Roger thing, and this fat white bitch come and she tries to give them a lecture. And the title of video was, White Liberal Cave Bitch Gets Educated.

And it was a pleasure to see because she became ever more hysterical. This kind of creature, almost washed out face, made of inflated rubber. And she got into their faces, tried to grab camera to where they had to physically push her off. violent with them. So, you know, she got arrested because she started to get very brutal. A lot of women today just cannot take being disagreed with. It's a problem in all countries, really. I was telling Brazil friends the other day. She asked, is the Karen an American thing only? American only thing? I don't know. But I remember I tell him I was in your Brazil country and that nice bar in Rio, a woman just lost everything, lost her mind, started to yell. She started to break glasses and get violent because she was saying the waiter dishonored her.

And I asked her what happened and nobody could explain. Something to do with the bill. It doesn't matter. This is worldwide problem. Whatever gets touched by zoggling matriarchal culture, the women go insane. But in America, it's beyond anything where women go through life with no one daring to question them. So this chubby cave bitch got violent in the black Hebrew Israelite video, and you can see the police arrest her, and she's resisting them too. She's crying. She can't believe it's happening while the men of God, the honorary Aryans of the black Hebrew Israelite nation, they are there yelling phrases of power such as, that's right. And also they yell out hashtag Elliot Roger was right. And I like this. This is righteousness.

So I believe maybe Kushner should elevate New York branch of this. He should invite a New York black Hebrew Israelites to White House Council on race relations with Joe Pesci perhaps presiding as pastor of the Sicilian Columbus nation. Well, what can you say? I did this at gym by the way. I go lift once and to hype myself up to get in the zone, I repeat over and over under my breath, white Keith bitch, white liberal Keith bitch and a Negro nearby over hear me. And he was very afraid. I maybe biggest news this week is about the Biden DNC riots and is no surprise to anyone listening to show. But the proof, at least for normies, finally out this week, important video by James O'Keefe. I know all of you know, I forget name of his organization, what is it?

But James O'Keefe, you know him, he make undercover video. And finally he released an important one. Many time he released Dutch, but this important, he showed Soros and Steyer and possibly other oligarch have been funding Antifa, which you all know, but whether this registers with the average American will depend on Trump and Tucker and whether people with big normy platforms like this can make the case. Because most people are unaware of what has been happening, where you have the Antifa as paramilitary branch of the DNC and the oligarch class, meant to terrorize anyone who promotes the well-being of the people, which is something totally unknown in America, but it's completely uncontroversial in Europe, by the way. Everybody in Europe knows this.

In Europe, if you're a nationalist thinker, you will get violently attacked by Antifa there. Your personal information will be given to them by the police or by local government offices, and then they come and they brutalize you. Police will not protect. No one will be prosecuted, and this has been happening for decades. The coddling, not just of Antifa, but of other right, I'm sorry, left, far left, red terror organizations, Badr-Meinhof and Red Brigades and others. And I tell you before, Henri de Montaland, a great reactionary author who wrote Chaos and Night, which I've recommended before, and also another book that exposes the female race most completely, more than any other writer he exposes, is the character of the eternal woman who's a faggot.

But he was attacked, I think 1968 or 70s, he was attacked by leftist fanatics on the street in Paris, and he was blinded. And nothing, no retribution. So that's just a case some people know about. But in this way, it's not even a nationalist politician, by the way, like Forteun, who was killed by some kind of green activist in Holland. And my point is, Montherland wasn't that. He was not a politician, he was not an activist, he was a highbrow writer, and he was blinded in the streets. For every man like Montherland, there are many others whose names you don't know, historians, writers of essays, others who are brutalized, because the post-1945 system in Europe, under New World Order occupation, they use this tactic of supposedly vigilante justice by the left that is never investigated.

And in fact, it's not vigilante, it's ordered on lists by local social democrat politicians, And it's done with blessings of the American Embassy that often coordinates such things from American Embassy because the people who work at American Embassies are mostly representatives of the cartel, not of America. So when I point out recently and on Twitter, for example, that Antifa is paramilitary Basiji militia of the left, of the DNC, the establishment, the soldiers of the oligarchs in this, you You know, and I've quite viciously attacked. It surprises some people. When I say that particular thing, that really attacks vicious attacks from supposed conservatives. From nobody conservative and Libertardian commentators, third, fourth-rate people, ankle-biters.

Do you want to know why they are so worked up by that comparison? Let me tell you why. Do you see Mitt-Newton Romney march with Black Lives Matter in front of White House? Do you remember when Mitt Romney defended Antifa violence after Charlottesville? He openly defended. He said, there are good people in this. Do you remember when salt stick caramel foam Rubio, salt stick Rubio, when he defended Antifa violence, he said, too, it's justified. You can't expect people not to get violent. He says this, but he's a major Republican politician. So you do the connection, Rubio and others, Paul Ryan, especially, are on record taking money from Soros, from the same sources that James O'Keefe exposed as funding Antifa, which of course was already known.

But this already came out in 2016 about Paul Ryan taking money from George Soros. And it's hard for Normans to accept, hard even for some friends to accept. But it is true, what I'm telling you now, that never Trump, that the establishment GOP works with Antifa. They hire them, they use them for their petty gay ops against Trump and against us online. They are friends, they have polite conversations, they move in the same social circles sometimes, they get contracted, the Antifa get contracted for honky-tonk, second-rate jobs at the conservative think tanks or smear machines, they get hired for fellowships and all this. It's all the same biomes because it's funded by the same people and have a common interest in co-opting or destroying nationalism.

So when somebody points out, and when points out like me, that there are Antifa-adjacent people among us, you get attacked viciously. And of course their purpose ultimately is to try to get you fired, or if they can't do that, to try to physically attack you, to make you subject to physical attack. I don't want to repeat myself, I say this on show before, but in this connection you You must understand what I say must be repeated that Antifa, with the left in general, is always coordinated. It's always top-down. They work off of lists, in other words. This doesn't mean your average white chumpster cave bitch or deranged Antifa ice nigger is in on every plan or knows where the funding has come from or where the lists are coming from. They don't know what they're doing or why.

They get told to do it by their immediate higher up and its need to know it works, much according to Fuhrer Princip, by the way, but there are lists, is the point, there are lists. And this is why you can have a Harvard professor who lives in Cambridge where, again, forgive if I repeat myself, but there are commie bookstores in Cambridge for a long time. Antifa is everywhere there. And you can have a guy who's supposedly a Catholic monarchist, who supposedly is a Catholic reactionary integralist who argues for Catholic authoritarian society, but somehow Antifa never targets him, never a demonstration outside his office. Not that I want or approve such things, but it's actually impossible, it's inconceivable

if you know what the northeast cities are like, and for this not to happen, unless of course you realize that Antifa works off of lists. And if Vermula is not on that list, and he's not on that list for a reason, they leave him alone, because he is on a safe list, perhaps. And he's not on the list, maybe, because in 2008 he wrote an article with Cassianstein about cognitive infiltration of extremist movements. And lo! In 2016, Vermula suddenly has a road to Damascus moment, and Adrian Cornelius wasp Vermula, he is suddenly a Catholic integralist, fresh off the Mayflower. All of them are like this, by the way. Look them up, whether it's Ross Douthat, whose family bizarrely all converted to Catholicism when he was 16, and whose social milieu is the CIA milieu, if I may get into it at some

other time, or whether it's any of the so-called integralist conservative journalists who are trying to grift off the alt-right. There are quite a few minor ones, I even forget their names, they all look the same. Some are running dox rings, by the way, but they're all converts almost to a man, and they all come from security state background or are law enforcement adjacent, or have declarations of glo-jiggery like Vermula does, who openly tells you again in 2008 what he will do later. And all of these nearly to a man again, and Vermula most of all, they are all very close with the so-called left cats, the leftoid Catholic, hard to call them traditionalists, that left Catholics, some who were profiled recently in New York Times, again by this

girl who's been obsessed with me, but who are all in fact either Antifa or Antifa adjacent, to whom they pass off some of their dirty work and all this, because again, American Catholic integralism is in fact the American version of South America liberation theology, Marxist Christianity, designed by the same people, funded by the same people, with the same operational ties at crucial nodes, and which has been redesigned for American burger consumption, even conservative burgers. These are your conservative movement Catholics. And this is just one small example of a very big, very extensive collaboration between what, on one hand, you know as Antifa, which is just the physical arm of the oligarchs, and on the other hand, the so-called conservatives.

So it is not necessary for Trump or those close to him to get into all these details. That is for artists like me, which I did before on this show and which I will continue to do in much greater detail very soon. But Trump can cut off the head of the stake by indicting Soros for funding terror. And not just Soros, but a number of his associates and of his tools in American political system. Will he do it? I don't know. He doesn't listen to me. That's for second term. listen to me. When I hear, he will install me as head of special operational group on anti-American activities, special forces group with office in a White House. We will see. I will be right back. Vermula is here. In fact, he is giving me foot massage. That's

a good boy, Vermula. I'll be right back. East versus west of two Roman Empire. I don't mean Eastern Empire versus Western Empire, the way people usually do, but actually eastern west of two Roman Empire. I brought up on previous show where I discuss crisis of third century and how Roman Empire break in three in the two hundreds. There was crisis and wars and this break in three and Queen Zenobia of the Palmyran Empire or the eastern portion that broke off from Rome, which was centred on Syria in that iteration, but Egypt and Syria were the two main rich provinces of the east in the Roman Empire. But so Queen Zenobia gets set up there, become a big hero to the peoples of the region who have always had an inherent passionate nationalist bent, and who were never happy to be ruled

from Rome, or by Greeks before that for that matter. And the decisive early conflict took place at a battle of Actium in 31 BC, this is 13 years after the death of Julius Caesar, and at battle of Actium 31 BC, the two main rivals for succession, Mark Antony and Octavian, they face off with Mark Antony and Cleopatra representing the east of the empire and Octavian the west. I'm not talking about when Roman Empire breaks formally into Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire later called Byzantine. Those both were Roman Empire, in my view, and these divisions of which I'm talking now, which are more fundamental, they persisted even within the Byzantine Empire. I'm trying to tell you that the East, the Orient, the Near East, always formed a kind

of self-conscious apartness within the Roman Empire, never comfortably within either the Byzantine or the Roman Empire when it was united. In any case, this battle of Actium 31 BC was a naval battle where Marc Antony was a land military commander and he got outwitted. And Camille Paglia is, I think, perceived on this as usual. She's a very good psychologist and she understands human nature and human types very well. And she says that Mark Antony was a pragmatic, hard-headed Chad, land commander, and he made a mistake. He got lured into a naval battle against the cerebral Octavian, soon to be Augustus Caesar, and so this way Mark Antony lose. This was Western Empire triumphing over the East, not the Eastern Empire, but over the East.

And Mark Antony, I think, by the way, was a great man, a general and ally of Julius Caesar who after Caesar's murder in 44 BC, Mark Antony undertook upon himself to avenge Caesar and to stand up against a corrupt Republic ruling class. And he defeated them, the corrupt oligarchs, together with Octavian. And this is just so you remember that if anything is done against Trump, our incipient Caesar, if anything is done against him, all bets are off and there will be many Marcantones across America. But so you have this battle 31 BC, which is beginning as such old Roman Empire, a victory of the West over the East, where Augustus becomes emperor and Rome triumphs again. And it is not coincidence that Dante knows this is not coincidence that during the reign

of Augustus, the first emperor, you have the birth of Jesus Christ, this is not coincidence. And so that's very profound matter for another time. But you see where I go with this, because West triumphed over the East, but the East then triumphed over the West through this new religion. And not only that, but the East, the Syria and Egypt were also much richer at the time. And they arguably had a higher civilization level than the West. They were next to Persia. This was Rome's only serious civilization arrival. And they received all the trade of the Orient through the Red Sea. It was coming through at the time. That was the route. And also through Persia, the Persian Gulf. So that the cities of the Near East, Antioch and Alexandria chiefly, they became incredibly rich.

They were opulent cosmopolitan centers of civilization. And the Hellenized populations of these areas, these were mostly Semitic peoples of various kinds who spoke Greek as a second language, especially the educated among them. But they participated in this remnants of high Greek culture or Hellenistic culture, which of course there were also many ethnic Greeks, actual Greeks, resident in Egypt, in Syria also, and so on. So Greek and not Latin was spoken in the East. So by the way, even in Rome, very educated people from certain classes, somebody like Cicero for example, before all of this happened, but Cicero probably knew how to write better in Greek than in Latin, and this is not to disparage Roman-Latin culture because I believe

actually Roman culture to be superior to Greek in some important ways. It was Rome that conquered the world, not Greece for a reason. The Romans are the manliest and noblest people ever, with supreme political inborn skill, the toga-bearing Romans, lords of the earth, like Virgil said. And in fact, true Romans had very little use for so-called Greek culture in Roman proper, in Roman times proper I mean, in Roman society, and not at the end when there were not even let's say 6,000 of the original Romans left in the city when Rome fell to the barbarians. But in Rome proper, the Greek culture, in fact, never penetrated far into Roman culture and society. Romans were quite assured of their own identity. But in the East, it is a different matter.

And that whole area spoke Greek, all of the Near East, Anatolia and so forth, spoke Greek as its language of learning, while the people spoke a variety again of Semitic languages. And in fact, Nassim Taleb is right about this, that they remained unchanged, mostly since ancient times. They were Phoenicians, Moabites, Arameans, their descendants, and varieties of this. Such people as their descendants today, if you go to any kebab shop, you know this. They're very strong nationalists, all such people. And what I mean to say is that religion is often a cover for ethnic nationalism, or at least it's something very symbiotic with it. So for example, as a community of Maronite Lebanese, it is descended from Christians

who decided to follow a particular revision of Christianity promoted by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. I will get to this in a second in a future segment, but the point is whatever the confessional or religious belief may have been, the religion became one of the marks of this people in much the same way that the Jewish people is determined by blood and the religion is something that only came after, only came later, to justify that. And yet, quite aside from these local tribal squabbles and so forth, you know, peoples of this area always engage in these Arabs, fight each other, they fight the outsider and so forth, but quite aside from these, all of the peoples of this area have always understood themselves in a collective way too.

You can think maybe Near Eastern nationalism or Oriental nationalism, and it's been defined in opposition to Rome specifically. The religions of these peoples, the varieties of Christianity they embraced, they were heretical forms of Christianity, but they never only had to do with belief, they were never just about theology, but they had to do with supporting this nationalist anti-Roman orientation. And it's true, not just of the Jew who is Rome's ancient and implacable enemy, but It's true of this entire region. Even when they were Christians, they were never really interested in reconciliation, theological reconciliation with Rome or the second Rome Byzantium. They were never interested because the forms of Christianity they embraced for the most

part, they were there to support their own nationalism and it's inseparable from their own nationalism. The ones who remained Orthodox or Catholic Christian in the Near East, let's say, they They were called Melkites, it's a word for the king's men, Melik meaning a Semitic word for king. It referred to the people who were only able to continue their religion because they were under the protection of Caesar, that's who the king was, Caesar. So that was a minority, the majority of Christians in that area embraced these heretical nationalist forms because they wanted to reject the West, they wanted to reject Rome and Greece. So against the kind of Christianity that was embraced by Rome, by the West, which was Orthodox

or Catholic Christianity, they were the same thing, as you all know, at least until the year of 1000, although in fact the two churches remained together sometime after that. But against the main form of Christianity embraced by the emperors of Rome and by the Roman people, there developed distinctive Eastern forms, heresies, the main two being a Nestorianism and monophysite Christianity. Monophysite means one nature, Greek word for… So both of these on theological grounds, purely if you consider them that way, they had to do with a dispute regarding the nature of Christ. So Nestorianism is saying that Christ was human and therefore denying his divine nature and monophysitism, which I think was the Egyptian-Christian variety coming out of Alexandria, whereas Nestorianism

came out of Antioch in Syria, but monophysite Christianity went in the other direction and said no, the nature of Christ was purely divine and not human. So you see these kinds of disputation, it's not that they didn't matter, but the two of them were opposite in theological grounds and yet they were allied against Rome because they were secondary, I think, to the one-upmanship that local priests wanted to engage in. You know, let's get one over on Constantinople and over on our neighbors and this. And on the other hand, they worked to support local nationalism. They were vehicles for that, because the other side of everything that happened theologically or in terms of religion was that the innate nationalism of the East was intensified for

other reasons also during this time, having to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. So I said that the West triumphed over the East at Actium before, but the East ended up winning in these more significant ways, having a superior economy, wealthier, more literate advanced civilization based on Greek learning. And this was not lost on the Romans themselves, who, as you know, they moved their capital from Rome, they moved it east to Constantinople. And Emperor Constantine moved his capital east, likely saved the empire from destruction. It was a very far-seeing move. It continued in Constantinople, you know, as the Byzantine, as the Roman Empire continued there under this name, but they themselves, it was still called Roman Empire.

And it was the actual fall of the West in the 400s and the 500s and so on, the major port centers of the East, the former centers of Syria and Egypt, the cities of Antioch and Alexandria, they suddenly became much poorer. They no longer had access to the markets of the West, because they were gone. And more important than this, their traditional trade routes to the East, to the Far East, to the Far Orient, I mean, through the Red Sea, and that's how it was taking place at the time, through the Red Sea with the Arabs as middlemen, all of this was cut off because of the fall of the Abyssinian or the Ethiopian empire, which was itself a Christian empire by the way, Ethiopia had a Christian empire, but that empire fell as well, I think in the 500s.

There was war with Persia actually, who was coming into Yemen, same as now. So these disturbances led to these very wealthy centers of the Near East, the eastern half of the Roman Empire, they became quite poor. The trade routes across Persia were also cut off, the war between Persia and Constantinople only got worse and then even beyond this Constantinople saw an advantage to itself in moving the trade routes away from Persia and away from the Red Sea and that area that now was in any case very unstable and instead Constantinople encouraged that the routes across the steppe, the trade routes, silk road caravans and so forth across the steppe which arrived finally at a Black Sea and the markets of Constantinople itself.

You know, the Vikings named Constantinople Miklagard or Megalopolis, you could say, the great city. That was the Viking name for Constantinople. It became the great nexus of all trade routes from Asia and from the north. It sucked up all the wealth of the Near East. So Emperor Constantine had chosen this place very well. This kind of political decision you see here is very rare in history and is not studied enough this kind of understanding of geopolitic, even though the position of Byzantine Empire was horrible. It had long indefensible borders, but it managed to survive for so long through the genius of this new Roman political system. And by all this, what I mean to say is that as Rome itself moved east for various reasons, the formerly wealthy east became impoverished.

So it deeply resented this new Rome of Constantinople. And so these two eastern varieties of Christianity, Nestorianism and Monophysite Christianity, although they may seem opposed in their claims about the nature of Christ, they were actually united in that both were simple, they were simple faiths, they were much simpler than Orthodox or Catholic Christianity with its subtleties about the dual nature of Christ. And they furthermore insisted on simplicity in ritual, they had much less pomp, less luxury in their services, because of course they were also poorer now. And I believe also iconoclasm was much supported in Near East, the hatred of images and all this, maybe. So anyway, this old nationalism of the East, the hatred of Rome was only intensified by

these great events, and also by the fact that the Byzantine Empire was actually much more centralized than the Roman Empire, and taxation was much more efficient, and often there was very high taxation to continue, for example, wars in the West to retake Italy and so forth. Justinian did that, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian retook Italy from the barbarians, but to do that he had to jack up taxes to enormous levels and the East didn't care about the war in Italy and so forth. So the resentments against Roman rule from Constantinople now just kept growing and growing. So this is a long way to tell you that basically this whole barely Hellenized part of the Near East, it groaned under the oppression of Rome and what they saw as oppression.

And they sought to break free, they wanted very much to break free. And the Jews in this area are only a part of this story because they also hated Rome They actually hated all the Christians, including the local heretics. And it was, in other words, a very unstable situation in Near East. The split, the political and spiritual split, came well before Islam. The Near East was always much interested in, let's say, decolonization. They were always interested in selling your old manuscript inherited from old ancestors. You know, you go to any market in Egypt, Cairo now, and they say, yes, hello my friend, I old papyrus from grandfather's cellar. It's always like that. They have something to sell but it's always counterfeit history. That's what I'm telling you. I'll be right back to continue

with the story. I want to talk about some unusual conspiracy history or crazy idea of history that my favorite about what really happened in the 600s in time of Islamic expansion and following events I just say in the last segment, but first I want to tell you a normal version of events because it's quite exciting and the movie made about 600 Roman Empire, call it Byzantine, whatever you want, but Roman Empire versus Persian. This would be more exciting than Game of Thrones and I don't know why they don't do this. They make shows like Borgia instead or make up stories that are actually much less interesting than actual history. But in any case, the tension between East and West, in this case, I don't mean as

usually people do, again, between Byzantine versus Western Roman Empire, but within both Roman Empires, the actual Near East, Syria, Egypt, adjoining regions that had never been happy under Roman rule. And frankly, this doesn't get said as much, but they resented Hellenism too. The adopted parts of Hellenic culture, but you know, unlike the barbarian West, these were all civilizations that had been civilized prior to Greek and Roman conquest. So they were always not very happy with that. Even if they happened to be inhabited by subject races, they never liked hegemon, especially from so far away and in crucial ways who were so different to them in customs and language and so forth. By the way, one of the chief ways that Greeks distinguish themselves from barbarians, and

in particular from oriental barbarians, from Easterners, is that the Greeks were always proud to be nude. I'm not making this up, now you say Bronze Age pervert makes this up because he's a nudist pervert. No, I'm telling you, the Greeks, how they understood it, they always knew the barbarian was he who is ashamed to be naked. And this does not speak very well, by the way, for porn-addled American burgers when they go to sauna culture like Finland or Iceland and they always want to interpret nudity in sexual way and associated with shame and such. And Greeks saw that as the mark of the barbarian. So you see on very primal way that Easterners resented Greek culture, you have always these areas willing to break away from a hegemon when arrival comes, even when they are close in culture.

Such areas of old civilization do not like to be ruled by others, even though they often do not have the energy to rule themselves. But sometimes also local leader rises up and they go then with that rebellion, I mean. So always it's hard to rule such areas. This part of the Greek or Roman world never liked Greek or Roman rule, this is my point. And they could not bend behind the Jews because many Jews perhaps wanted this or dreamed of leading the colored peoples of the world against Rome. But the local Near Easterners knew Jews too well and did not want to be led by them because of long-standing local rivalries. But they could perhaps band behind the Arabs, who are somewhat outsiders, you know, they were on the edge, they were traders, but they were not really involved in the history of

the region in direct way until they took it over. So you can see where this goes, where Islam is the cover for the Near East or the Orient's rebellion against Aryan rule. But so anyway, you have the condition of tension I spoke of in previous segments, and it's beginning of 600s now, and there is a push, there is a coup in Constantinople. The Emperor Maurice is deposed by a centurion, a soldier of lowly origin named Phocas, who declared himself Emperor in 602, and who instituted a rule of terror in Constantinople, massacring his opponents and all this and neglecting completely the affairs of the empire. And it was very threatened at the time, the empire. By the way, always Byzantine empire was threatened simultaneously on all fronts.

And it was the great genius of its organizations that actually it lasted for a thousand years, even threatened as it was, because it always knew how to play enemies off against each other. But Fokas was an idiot and he allowed many losses to take place and the story extends beyond this in matters of personal intrigue into which I will, you will excuse me, I will go for just one moment so you understand political situation at the time. But the Emperor Maurice who Fokas had, you served, who had deposed in the coup, well the Emperor Maurice, the Persian king Khosrow II, the king of Persia at the time, was married Emperor of Moris' daughter. And in fact, Emperor Moris had helped King Khosrowes of Persia regain his throne some time before.

I forget, I think there was a coup even then in Persia, and Moris helped Khosrowes regain his throne. So they were allies, they were good friends, they were bound by ties of marriage. So because of the coup in Constantinople, the King of Persia, Khosrowes, I'm going to avenge my friend Maurice, but at least that was the justification, but possibly it was just to take advantage of the chaos. So the king of Persia invades the Roman Empire in 610 AD. Now this actually was the year when the usurper and the brutal fool Phocas himself, he was deposed in this year, not by the Persians, but he was overthrown by a man named Heraclius. And if there's any name you should remember among all the ones I say tonight of personages

from history, you should remember this one Heraclius, because he's one of the great men of history, one of the great emperors of Roman history, of Byzantine history, have what you will, but he's also the first crusader. And Heraclius was born in, he was the exarch of Africa, okay, basically you know the Viceroy, Arc is almost same as Viceroy, ruling governor of Africa for the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire and he rebelled against Phocas while the coup took place and then he came to Constantinople, defeated Phocas and had him executed. So from 610 AD Heraclius, this general, savior of the empire, he becomes emperor of Rome, He removes the usurper, but he finds himself in charge of an empire that was completely

weakened on all fronts by neglect, by a reign of terror at home, and face-to-face with a Persian invasion that was more dangerous than any that Rome had faced up to that time. And he was unable in the beginning at all to oppose this Persian invasion. So the Persians ended up, after 610 AD, taking over Syria, Anatolia, even Egypt, and Jerusalem itself. With Jewish help, by the way, this will documented, you find it in Gibbon, he talks about this, but he relies on numerous primary sources where the Jews of Jerusalem opened the gates to the Persians and proceeded to massacre tens of thousands of Christians. Some people say 90,000, which you can do as a math what that would have meant in the numbers of at the time, killing 90,000 Christians in a pogrom.

And this was never forgotten, by the way, in the Christian world. This is not just an anti-Semitic hate fact. It's repeated or used to be repeated by major historians like Steven Runciman and others who are actually quite fond of the Jews and of the Byzantines. But it's important fact to understand where the hatred between the sects come from and also prelude to the Crusades, which I will talk about the Crusades proper on another episode. But during this Persian occupation of Jerusalem was terrible massacre and the Holy Cross and other relics of Christianity were taken from Jerusalem by Khosrowes, the Persian king, and they were given as a gift to his Nestorian Christian wife. And actually, Kosrowitz had two wives, and both were either Nestorian Christian, or one

of them was actually from a very similar schismatic Syrian sect called the Ebionites, which is a Judaizing form of Christianity that, again, they rejected Jesus' divinity, they rejected Saint Paul and they followed Jewish law, but they still followed Jesus' teachings, much like the Nestorians in some way. So anyway, the normal story continues, which normal story is exciting enough on its own as I tell you, but after the fall of Jerusalem to Persians, this was a big scare to all of the Christian world, but Heraclius could still do nothing. He was on the defensive for many years and only in the year 622, 12 years after the Persian invasion and after he came to power, he experienced loss after catastrophic loss for 12 years because of what he inherited, and this is what I try to tell you.

Many of you are much too soft. You give up its first sign of adversity. You start to black pill. You want Trump to be your daddy, and you black pill when he can't be. But 12 years of catastrophic losses, including Jerusalem and the Holy Cross, and finally in 622 Heraclius, Emperor Heraclius, finally able to take the offensive, and as a historian, Again, I like this Stephen Ransyman, his history of Crusades, and he says beautifully he dedicated himself and his army to God and he set out as a Christian warrior to fight the forces of darkness and he was successful. And after many moments were all seemed to be lost, he finally defeated the Persians near Nineveh in December 627. So it took five very difficult years of war. Finally he defeats the Persians near Nineveh.

After this, the King Cosroes II was murdered by his successor, who immediately sued for peace, and by 629 Rome regained back its lost provinces, and the following spring Heraclius carried the Holy Cross back to Jerusalem in grand style. And this is widely known throughout the Christian world. Much later, when the history of the Crusades was written, the first history of the Crusades written in the 1100s, I think, by William of Tyre. He includes this story of Heraclius as the first crusade. So this was always understood in the Christian world as a crusade, Heraclius, the first crusade. And the attempts of Heraclius after this conquest were mixed back. He was great man, great general, savior of Rome.

But to rectify the tensions I mentioned previously, to bring back the Easterners into the Roman fold, he tried to design new theological doctrines that could maybe bridge the gap, that could convince the Easterners to return. And all of his efforts were rejected. He designed, it was called, you don't need this very abstruse, autistic detail about Christian theology, but something called monoenergism and also monotheletism, and these were competitors to the Eastern heresies designed by the imperial court. But they found no followers, no adherents, they were totally rejected by the peoples of the East, except in very small minorities. So as I tell you, the Lebanese Maronites, who still exist to this day, and they are

very brave fighters and defenders of Christendom, but they are descended from one of Emperor Heraclius' attempted reforms. But mostly these reforms didn't catch on because, as I tell you, their religion was just an excuse for hating Rome, hating Whitey. They didn't want to be part of the West. And the situation was much the same as before, before the Persian-Christian Wars, because The Christians of the area, under King Khosrow as the Persians, they saw actually that they were better treated than under the Byzantines. They had less taxes and all of this. So anyway, the story here that you can maybe anticipate is that Islam had a relatively easy time taking over these regions. And that happened very soon after in the 630s, so barely 10 years later.

And Islam had easy time taking over because they were very unhappy with Rome, always, with Roman Christianity, with Roman taxation, and that unhappiness did not go away after Heraclius' successes. So the main story goes, out of Arabian Peninsula emerged Mohammed's immediate successors, Caliph Omar and such, with Arabian tribesmen riding horses, very fast, powerful light cavalry, motivated warriors and quickly managed to defeat both the Persians and the Byzantines and take over this gigantic empire. Another side to this is that there was a plague that also decimated both the Persians and the Byzantines, leaving them open to the Arabs, although in that story I can't understand why the Arabs themselves also wouldn't have been devastated by that plague, but who knows?

But look, so the Muslims later invaded Spain, I think 710 or 711. So stretching from North Africa to India and so on, this gigantic Islamic Arab empire overnight. But here is where I want to discuss briefly an alternative theory that disagrees with this, an unusual theory. But again, I take a break. I go outside for a moment to chew on birch bark, the bark of the white birch tree. I be right back! I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you I want to see you, I want to see you

I want to see you, I want to see I want to see you, I want to see I want to see you, I want to see I want to see you, I want to see There is a sinister theory that much of the story I just told you is not true, that Heraclius, For example, Emperor Heraclius did not take back the lost provinces from Persia. And you have to admit it is a little bit suspicious that he would take these provinces back, everything from Anatolia, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, all this, that he would take them only to lose precisely those areas again a few years later against the Arabs and Islam. And you know, there is a precedent for Roman chronicles lying about success versus the Persians in particular. For example, during the reign of Alexander Severus, where Gibbon says that a victory

against the Persians was fabricated. And for the following theory I'm about to tell you, I direct you to a book by Robert Spencer on whether Mohammed existed, a very good book, and also Emmett Scott's article on just this theory I'm telling you now, were the Arab conquests a myth, because of course what I tell you is not the only evidence, the strangeness of Heraclius' win, there is also much else that is very odd about the whole story of early rise of Islam, including basically, to make story short, there is no evidence that Islam existed in early years, Nothing, no archaeological evidence, no textual evidence, nothing. Did Mohammed himself really exist as he's told in this story? The earliest coins depicting Mohammed, they date from quite late, from the time of first

Umayyad Caliph in the 670s, I think, and they show Mohammed carrying a cross. Now Mohammed just means the chosen one in Arabic and Syriac, so this actually is probably an image of Jesus. In other words, Mohammed was just their name for Jesus. And there are German linguists, Christoph Luxenberg and Gunter Lühling, who I will post their names so you have them. But they've done, I think, indisputable work actually that shows the Quran is a forgery or rather a plagiarism. The Quran began its existence as a Christian devotional text. It was originally written in Syriac rather than Arabic language. So this is why Luxembourg says that the mistranslation into Arabic makes it so that one-third of Quran makes no sense at all.

And I'll tell you what all this means in a moment, but maybe you can already piece it yourself before, especially when I tell you that in this alternative version of history, this alternative theory, much is made of the fact that Arab coins, soon after the supposed Arab takeover of Persia, where the so-called Arab coins continue to be Persian coins, with the face of the Persian king, whether it's Khosrowis, the king I've told you before in a previous segment, or Yazdegerd, who is widely known to be the last Persian king, with the only change to prove Arab rule supposedly being that the reverse side says Bezma'Allah, or in the name of God, in Syriac. Now, if this were the only argument to be made, I think it would be a weak argument

because conquerors, it is true, do not always change things like this, especially if you have conquerors from a more backward society. They're not going necessarily to change the coinage, although frankly, I don't see why they would not put, say, the image of the caliph on the coin. Why not? But you could make the case they wouldn't bother. For much the same reason as, let's say, you take Bronze Age Europe, and if you see an Aryan mannerbund take over, let's say, the natives of some region of Europe, a valley or series of valleys, they will not necessarily be concerned with the locals changing their pottery styles or their way of life on a day-to-day basis, because they are conquerors, they did not get in there to change pottery and this. But I don't know.

I think in this case is a little bit different, both because it's a much later time period because it's not much effort for a caliph as supposedly existed, Caliph Omar, in early Arabic conquest to tell the Persians, well, you should put my face or my name on the coin, not the Persian kings. But the argument doesn't stop there. It's not just that the Arabs continue to use Persian coins, let's say for convenience or some other reason, but that they continue to issue coins with the face of King Khosrowis. In other words, under supposed Arabic rule, they were issuing coins with the face of King Khosrowis, who supposedly died in 629 or 628, according to the main accepted history. In other words, before their conquest.

So it's not as if they were continuing, as a matter of convenience, to keep issuing coins with the face of King Yazdegerd, the last Persian king, when Persia fell to the Arabs, supposedly. But in fact, the face appears on coinage much later, the face of King Yazdegerd. Instead, Arabs actually issue coins with the face of King Khosrowis. So I think this one fact is very, very suggestive, if not convincing, as is that everything else, by the way, not just the material culture, but all of the symbology of Islam, the crescent and the star, all of it, all Persian. It's all Persian. And so this alternative theory of history goes something like this. Maybe you guessed already, but that King Khosrowis was actually converted by his wife to Nestorian

Christianity that he won, that Heraclius never took back those provinces from the Persians, but that King Khosrowes was acting as a Christian monarch, although a heretical one to Nestorian or Ebionite Christianity, for which, by the way, there is explicit known evidence that he was a Christian convert, except people like Gibbon, I think, assumed that he was not a very, let's say, sincere convert, but that he invaded, this is what alternative theory says, that he invaded Byzantium on behalf of Nestorian Christianity and that the Persian Empire actually remained intact, stretching from Libya to India as it had in the time of Cyrus and Xerxes, and that it was only a Nestorian Christian Empire, not not a Zoroastrian one any longer, nor a Muslim one, but that it followed some type of Judaized

Christianity like Ebionitism, with a Persian and Semitic military caste. The second part of this theory goes that later on, with what coincides with the time of the Umayyad caliphs, which were later, there was a civil war in which the Arabs usurped power from the Persians. The Arabs were already present in the region. The Persians used them as part of their armies, their militaries, as light cavalry to take over much of this area to Egypt and Cyrene, Libya and so forth. But that in fact it was the heavy Persian cavalry cataphracts and not the Arabs who who took over this empire, that the Arabs only usurped the empire later through subversion. And there was no Arab conquest of Persia, let alone of Egypt and North Africa and Central

Asia and this, but simply an internal Arabic coup or takeover, much like they are trying to do in Europe now and other places. So this is why there is no evidence actually of an Islamic faith of any kind existing before the Umayyads. All the images that have survived from early days supposedly of Islam are not of Islam, they are Christian images. They are consistent with the state religion being Ebionitism or Nestorianism, including the first coins emitted by the Umayyad caliphs themselves in the 670s and so on, where again Mohammed is carrying a cross. And only later was Islam invented in this theory, or rather it was falsified. retconned, changed from Christ into a different prophet to justify the Arab takeover of the ancient Persian empire.

So in the same way, they would find devotional texts from the same sect, a Syriac Ebionite text, some random book of prayers, and they would translate it into Arabic, make some changes, it becomes Gomel de Gok in Arabic and pretend it was whispered by God into the ear of their made-up prophet. And in this case, the history that is accepted now is then fabricated history, in part fabricated by the Byzantines or Romans to cover up their own loss, but mostly by the Arabs in which this whole religion is invented as a justification for Arabic supremacy and nationalism, for the usurpation of the Persian Aryan Empire. So against Taleb, who might like this theory, but against Taleb I might say that whichever

story is true, the main story I told you before or this crazy alternative, it is indisputable that most of the peoples of the region, that they spoke Semitic languages related to Arabic, maybe Aramaic or Phoenician and such, and so they were ready to accept Arabic leadership as one of their own, so to speak, as their own spearhead, the spearhead of the Punic Semitic race against Roman Persia, against imperial Aryan rule. This is early history of the world. And so you see this kind of faint and falsification of history take place in our time also. You see it now in different way. But they do it right in front of you and lie and pretend that people will believe them and often they do. Their MK ultra-fanatics believe them and maybe on future show I will discuss even stranger

things like what Nietzsche said when the priesthood of Israel falsified the history of that nation as well. Some people say this. I said before, Rudolf Gmerkin says this because you may not like what this means. Until next time and let's see what this week brings. By the way, on closing, I must tell you I received a special text message just now from Hakan. He tell me his own strange theory, that Mohammed was a traditional Catholic and that the Arameans never Arabized, and this is true, this Semitic people in Middle East, the Arameans, they did not Arabize because he was a traditional Catholic. I don't know, it's crazy a theory, completely opposed to what I'm saying, but I support Akan. But anyway, let's see if this next week brings finally Trump pushing back with divine force.

We will see. I do show until next time before rally. I say back out Oh