Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

For those who wish to establish a relationship with Satan.

Topics of discussion include: Demons, Magick, Satanic Witchcraft and much more!

http://www.joyofsatan.org/

Moderators: HP Mageson666, High Priest Jake Carlson

Europe Gladio
Posts: 104

Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Europe Gladio » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:03 am

I have recently sparked an inquisitive interest in the vague and little known ancient European civilizations named above and have came across a video basically stating that the Illyrians are essentially barbarian versions of the Greeks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsyhkAovFc), and some people even saying that the Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians(there also seems to be a lot of people who state otherwise). With the Romanians, they are considered descendants of the Dacians, Romans, and Slavs. With the Bulgarians, it is the Thracians, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs. And Yugoslavians and Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians, Romans, and Slavs. If you disagree with these hypotheses, please tell me politely(I know I say that a lot but I think having respectable dignity is an honorable characteristic). Thank you.
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Annunaki, and Bel, the Lord of heaven and Earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and make him great among the Igigi

ss666
Posts: 371

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ss666 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:21 pm

Europe Gladio wrote:I have recently sparked an inquisitive interest in the vague and little known ancient European civilizations named above and have came across a video basically stating that the Illyrians are essentially barbarian versions of the Greeks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsyhkAovFc), and some people even saying that the Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians(there also seems to be a lot of people who state otherwise). With the Romanians, they are considered descendants of the Dacians, Romans, and Slavs. With the Bulgarians, it is the Thracians, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs. And Yugoslavians and Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians, Romans, and Slavs. If you disagree with these hypotheses, please tell me politely(I know I say that a lot but I think having respectable dignity is an honorable characteristic). Thank you.


The ancestors of Romanians were mostly Dacian people. The Roman occupation didn't last long, it's highly unlikely that the population went a drastic romanization like most historians want to portray, especially for a province at the border, plus the conquered territory was a fraction of the Dacian land.

Romanian language is a latin based language. In the romanian dictionary there are very few words of Dacian origin (maximum 100), which is extremely strange. As "modern" historians assume that roman soldiers flooded the country took dacian wives by force and forcefully replaced all their culture. This is really a fantasy explanation. There are accounts were Dacians were able to speak with Romans directly, meaning the Latin language and Dacian language were very close related. This showing how Romanian is a Latin language until today, not that it derives from it.

The Dacian are also one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, with writings that predate East Civilizations like Sumerian, Akkadian by approximately 2000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt ... ia_tablets

Like most European civilizations, much knowledge has been lost.

DiscipleOfSatan
Posts: 71

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby DiscipleOfSatan » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:16 am

I've read a lot about the lies in history, especially relatsed with the Balkan nations, and the Thracians. The "Thracians" are just another jewish lie... Same for the "slavs" ... The truth is that Thracians means literally Barbarians. In many history documents the people who lived in eastern europe were called Thracians (barbarians) but this doesn't mean they were "thracians". They didn't called themselves thracians. If you take a look at the ttoman Empire history documents you wll see that the white eastern european people were called "Rayah" by the ottomans. "Rayah" means "non-muslim slave". Does this means that the white people who lived in eastern europe between 13th and 19th century were not arian, but rayah?

According to the (corrupted by jews) history that is being taught in schools Thracians were the second biggest nation in the world, but suddenly they just disappeared just like that and slavs, indo-europeans, and others came and took their land. Without wars, without anything, just like that. There is no explanation how this (supposedly) has happened. It's just pure nonsense, same as with all jewish theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians#/media/File:Thrace-ostrusha.jpg This is a painting of a "thracian" man. I can't imagine a more typical white, Arian person!

There are no "thracians", there are no "slavs". The people who were called thracians, slavs, and many other names are all the same - Arians - bulgarians, hungarians, etc (Bulg- ARIAN, Hung-arian) etc. There are many different tribes, but they are all Arians. Just because some people are called with different names this doesn't mean they are different people. Even today German people call themselves deutsch, and they call Germany Deutschland, french and danish people call Germany 'Tyskland', in eastern european countries they call the german people "Nemtsy" and so on... But germans, deutsch, nemtsy, etc are all the same people.

The jew corrupts history in order to make people forget their origin and their culture. "You are not Arian goy. Just because you and your nation look white doesn't mean you are white. And just because your ethnic group name contains arian (Hungarian, Bulgarian, etc.) doesn't mean you're arian. Your ancestors were a mix of thracians, slavs,africans, arabs, barbarians, mongols, and 60 other other nomadic tribes. You have no race, you are a citizen of the world ".

HP Mageson666
Posts: 2213

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby HP Mageson666 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:15 am

These People were all Scythians even the current named Saxon is from this. The Yezidi are also part of them as they extended all the way into Persia, India and central Asia. This just seems to be the common name for the Aryans. Even the Buddhist texts claim Gautama was a Scythian. Because the Aryans living in Northern India were Scythians. You can tell Attila was taking back the ancient Scythian lands from Roman domination. Attila was an Aryan King and his People today directly are the Hungarians and Romania's. Hungary was given to the Hun's by the Roman's for their own land in reward for service to the Empire. This is why nonsense historical claims by people like Kemp in March of the Titans are easily debunked. The Hun's were Aryan's. I worked with Hungarians who told me they were taught about Attila as the father of their nation in school in Hungary.

The other nonsense is the Arab invasion into Spain.....Arab does not mean much back then. They were Indo-Aryan Berbers who spoke Greek and Latin and were part of the Roman Empire and went back to the Aryan Phoenicians. They were also mixed ethnically with other Aryans such as the Germanic Vandals. You see the images of the Berber's in Spain they are Aryan's with Greek names. This is the secret of the civilization of Islamic Spain it was all Greek, Roman engineering with White Berber's ruling over other White Peoples. Its strange how the anti White fake history of the Jews over this region and period meets with March of the Titans.

Europe Gladio
Posts: 104

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Europe Gladio » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:28 pm

I have posted a discussion regarding Dihya, a Berber princess warrior who fought against the Islamic invasions in Tunisia, but it never gained traction so I thought I'll try again here. It has been said by ahem..."modern" historians saying that Dihya was a Jew and her enemies said that she used witchcraft as stated by the invading Arabs. I think Dihya being Jewish is kosher washing nonsense because why would she fight against an Abrahamic army for her people?
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Annunaki, and Bel, the Lord of heaven and Earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and make him great among the Igigi

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:24 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:These People were all Scythians even the current named Saxon is from this. The Yezidi are also part of them as they extended all the way into Persia, India and central Asia. This just seems to be the common name for the Aryans. Even the Buddhist texts claim Gautama was a Scythian. Because the Aryans living in Northern India were Scythians. You can tell Attila was taking back the ancient Scythian lands from Roman domination. Attila was an Aryan King and his People today directly are the Hungarians and Romania's. Hungary was given to the Hun's by the Roman's for their own land in reward for service to the Empire. This is why nonsense historical claims by people like Kemp in March of the Titans are easily debunked. The Hun's were Aryan's. I worked with Hungarians who told me they were taught about Attila as the father of their nation in school in Hungary.

Wait wut? This is the very first time I hear someone putting Romanians and Hungarians in the same pot, merged together by Attila. I have a massive interest in history and there's indeed a great deal of confusion when it comes to this part of Europe. Yet some things don't add up. In Dacia (today's Romania), Attila didn't take any Scythian land back from the Romans because the Romans left Dacia some 170 years before Attila's campaigns against the Roman Empire. And given the fact Romanians and Hungarians are not related but come from completely different families ("Latin" and "Finno-Ugric"), it makes no sense why should both these nations be "of Attila"? Also, in Romania Attila is a total stranger and he's not seen as a hero, father or founder of anything Romanian.

I know you said in another message that Slavs and Saxons are Scythians. If Romanians and Hungarians are Scythian too, then by extension pretty much all Europeans are Scythians (all Slavic, Germanic, Latin, and Finno-Ugric peoples)?

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:08 pm

DiscipleOfSatan wrote:I've read a lot about the lies in history, especially relatsed with the Balkan nations, and the Thracians. The "Thracians" are just another jewish lie... Same for the "slavs" ... The truth is that Thracians means literally Barbarians. In many history documents the people who lived in eastern europe were called Thracians (barbarians) but this doesn't mean they were "thracians". They didn't called themselves thracians.

Barbarian meant non-Greek speaking. Thus "Persian," "Egyptian," "Dacian," and indeed "Thracian" etc., = barbarians.
"Sunday" literally means "day of the Sun." But I highly doubt "Thracian" literally meant "non-Greek speaking" aka "barbarian." It's irrelevant whether they called themselves Thracian's or by another name. What's important is the fact they existed.

All technicalities aside, this theory is all new to me. I know that many ancient Greek authors mentioned Thracian's in their works and I have read some of them but it never occurred to me it could be a generic term for the Eastern Europeans of the time. Personally I always regarded Thracian's as a part of the same stock as Getae and Dacians. Just as there were and still are many different German tribes making up the great German stock, so were there many different tribes making up this Thracian or Geto-Dacian stock.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:If you take a look at the ttoman Empire history documents you wll see that the white eastern european people were called "Rayah" by the ottomans. "Rayah" means "non-muslim slave". Does this means that the white people who lived in eastern europe between 13th and 19th century were not arian, but rayah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians ... trusha.jpg This is a painting of a "thracian" man. I can't imagine a more typical white, Arian person!

Yeah, but nobody argued Thracians were not Aryans, just as nobody argues "rayah" are not Aryans either. One can be both "rayah" and Aryan at the same time, and also Thracian and Aryan at the same time.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:There are no "thracians", there are no "slavs". The people who were called thracians, slavs, and many other names are all the same - Arians - bulgarians, hungarians, etc (Bulg- ARIAN, Hung-arian) etc. There are many different tribes, but they are all Arians.

I don't see this as an argument because Aryan is the name of a human race, while Bulgarian, Hungarian, German, are names of nations/peoples within the Aryan race. And there's a difference between the two terms for a reason. It's like saying there are no Siamese, Maine Coon, Bengal, and the rest, but only cats. Of course they're all cats, but there's nothing wrong with giving a name to each and every one of these cat breeds. Same with nations. All Aryan nations are Aryan, but at the same time they are different and there's nothing wrong with each having a specific name.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:According to the (corrupted by jews) history that is being taught in schools Thracians were the second biggest nation in the world, but suddenly they just disappeared just like that and slavs, indo-europeans, and others came and took their land.

Well there have been Celts as well. And today there's no Celtic country or people. This doesn't mean Celts never existed. How exactly did they "disappear"? Same story with the Romans, they undoubtedly existed and dominated Europe and beyond, and now they're "extinct." And I could go on with such examples. Thracian history might fall along the same lines.

DiscipleOfSatan
Posts: 71

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby DiscipleOfSatan » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:09 am

ThomaSsS
What's important is the fact they existed.
You got me wrong... I've never said Thracians didn't existed! What i am saying is that Thracians and Bulgarians and other eastern europeans are the same people! The people who live today in Bulgaria are exactly the same race the Ottomans called "rayah", and the Greek and Roman historians called Thracians!

Yeah, but nobody argued Thracians were not Aryans

WRONG! In the Bulgarian schools kids are being taught that Bulgarians "were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars They are literally saying that the ancestors of nowadays Bulgarians were Turks or Mongolian nomads, even though Bulgarians literally don't have ANYTHING in common with them. Also all monuments, history documents, etc - they all prove that the ancient Bulgarians were not nomads. They were a settled society. Bulgaria was not Created in 681 as the "historians claim". Bulgarians were mentioned by historians BEFORE 681. You can't "create" something that is already existing!

" V-VI century- Ioannes Malalas: "The so called Achilles went with Atreidai and led his own army of three thousand men, then called Myrmidons and now Bulgarians", "- Michael Attaleiates: History - ''the Moesi ... are certainly Bulgarians who later received their new name ... Bulgarians Myrmidons ..." (according to this Achilles and the myrmidons were Bulgarians) "- John Zonaras: ''Paeonians - Latins or Thracian people of Macedonia. These are so-called Paeonians. Paeonians were Bulgarians. " XI century- ''Bulgarians who are named Thracians according to the previous (old) monuments'' - "
III-IV century
"- Mavro Orbin cites evidence of Marcus Aurelius Kasiodor that Bulgarians fought with the Romans about 390 AD." ,"- Cassiodorus writes that the Bulgarians are old Moesian or Illyrian people", "- Ennodius Ticinensis (473-524, Bishop, court historian of the Gothic King Theodoric) indicate that Bulgarians are old Moesian and Illyrian people. "
I-II century "-Flavius Josephus writes ''Dacians called Bulgarians''

How can Bulgaria be created in 681 by some turks or mongoloid nomads, when Bulgarians existed in 1st century? And where are these turks and mongoloids now? Why nowadays Bulgarians are Arians, not turks or mongoloids? The "history" that is being taught in schools is so retarded and contradicts to ANY logic and common sense so much, that i don't know how anyone could believe in it... This so called history is so retarded that even the corrupted Bulgarian parliament realized it and was going to remove the lie that Bulgaria was created in 681 by some turks and mongloians, but it was stopped probably by some jews... Because the goyim must think he is a mixed race, he shouldn't know that he is a pure arian and his nation is among the oldest in the world.

DiscipleOfSatan
Posts: 71

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby DiscipleOfSatan » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:25 am

What i meant by "there are not Thracians" is that Thracians are not a nation, or a race. Thracians is only a term Greek and Roman historians used. The same way Ottomans called all eastern europeans "rayah", Greek and Roman historians called eastern europeans Thracians. The people who lived in nowadays Bulgaria 2000 years ago were not Thracians. They were Bulgarians. Many historians prove it, i quoted some of them in my previous post.

I don't know about the Romans, and how they disappeared, or if they really ceased to exist, or nowadays Italians are descendants of Romans. I haven't read much about their history, but i wouldn't be surprised if their history is corrupted too. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that nowadays modern Italians don't descended from the barbarian tribes from different countries as historians claim, but of ancient Romans... But there is a difference - Rome was destroyed by plagues, wars, christianity, immigration, etc and it took centuries. While Thracians according to the corrupted by jews history were destroyed without wars, without plagues, without anything - Some turks and mongolians just came and took their land without wars, Thracians disappeared in just a few decades,(how can a whole nation just disappear like that without wars or without any natural disaster or anything?) and nowadays Bulgarians are descendants of these turk and mongolian nomads....That's the "history" kids are being taught at schools!

That's how nowadays Bulgarians look... Do they look like descendants of turk and mongolian nomads to you?

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

And it's not only the history. The media is working to impose this lie too, they purposely do not discern gypsies from Bulgarians. Gypsies, also known as roma people, are around 10-15% of the Bulgarian population. I don't want to offend anyone or to be a "racist", but gypsies are extremely uncivilized ethnic group originating from modern-day India and Pakistan. Everytime when some gypsy from the ghetto, who barely know how to read commit a crime such as murdering someone for 10$ or stealing scrap metal, or when they marry and became a parent of 10 kids at the age of 12, or when they are racing with their carts etc (many of the nowadays gypsies still use horse-drawn carts, this is not a joke). But the media purposely doesn't discern gypsies from Bulgarians....They call the gypsies Bulgarians. "The word gypsy is offensive and racist" they say, "we are all the same, gypsies are Bulgarians!"

On the media when they talk about Bulgaria or the Bulgarian people they show an image like this one, but don't mention the word Gypsy. To them Gypsies and Bulgarians are the same...
Image

This is done in order to erase the racial memory of the Bulgarians. "You are not arian goy, you are not a descendant of the Thracians, you are a descendant of turks and mongolians, you are no different racially from the gypsies"...

HP Mageson666
Posts: 2213

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby HP Mageson666 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:42 am

Dacian's were Scythians as well. The regions the Hun's attacked in the eastern Empire were Scythian lands still under Roman control.

ss666
Posts: 371

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ss666 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:49 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:Dacian's were Scythians as well. The regions the Hun's attacked in the eastern Empire were Scythian lands still under Roman control.


While Romanians and Hungarians are both Aryans, I really don’t see a connection with Attila being the founding father of Romania. Since Attila campaign was some centuries after Dacians. Burebista is the founding father of Romania, the one who united the ancient tribes of Romania.

Romanians are more related with Greeks (there are many Greek settlements on the territory of Romania). The city of Constanta was the Greek colony Tomis, same goes for Histria and Callatis (Mangalia). Just as Romans are also descendants of Greeks.
Those settlements were founded about 700 BCE.

This also explains the similarity between Romanian and Latin, and why Romania is the only Latin country in a sea of Slavic countries.

The Greek population in time adopted its own customs and named themselves Dacians. Romanians are descendants of ancient Greeks, not Scythians.

Romanian land is defined by Carpathian land and even in Jews admit in their writings that Riphat is the nation connected with the Carpathian mountains. It was those mountains full of gold that Trajan wanted to conquer.

HP Mageson666
Posts: 2213

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby HP Mageson666 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:02 pm

I didn't state Attila was the founding father of Romania. I did however state my Hungarian friends told me that he is consider to be such in their own history like a King Arthur. I did however state Romania was a Scythian region and that Attila was pushing the Romans out of Scythian regions. There is no Slavic they were just Scythians all the way to the Uyghurs region in central Asia. Dacia was called Romania because it was conquered and settled by the Roman Empire. Take a look at the ancient Greek images they also look Scythian as well in the dress. Because there was just the Aryan race. You can call it Persian, Vedic, Scythian, Greek.

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:54 pm

I'll use the term Slav for the sake of the argument since that's the term by which they're known today. Slavs being Scythian's it's new to me as well as to many others. So to avoid confusion I'll refer to them as Slavs.

@DiscipleOfSatan: I won't cite you messages piece by piece to save time. Thanks for the explanations, there were bits I wasn't aware of. But from your reasoning and from the quotes you posted above, something doesn't add up. If Thracian's were Bulgarians, and if Bulgarians were Dacians, how comes the language of Bulgaria is a Slavic one, while the language of Dacia (Romania) is a Romantic/Latin one? How can the same people come to inherent such different languages more or less naturally? The language of a people is not something that's replaced over night, let alone in a natural way. A people never gives up it's own language to adopt another just like that. So if Bulgarians speak a Slavic language, and Romanians a Romantic/Latin one, it's maybe because they're just different peoples and not at all the same. And if they have the same roots as Don says, they're rather distant; certainly more distant than 2000 years.

You have to keep in mind also that real Dacians had settlements to the south of the Danube, in modern day Bulgaria. The word "Bulgar" might very well not be inherent to the Slavic tribes who, at some point (be it in year 680 C.E., or in the 1st century, or even earlier), came to live south of Danube. Bulgar could be a toponym or something from the area south of Danube. That would explain why that author calls those Dacians "Bulgarians." Of course this is a hypothetical conclusion, given parts of the premises were hypothetical, but it does make more sense than saying Bulgarians (of today) are the Dacians (of antiquity). It's also possible that the author simply made an error, be it intentional or not.

Bulgarians are Slavs (given their language.)* Slavs are partly Asiatic and this was stated by Maxine somewhere on the yahoo groups. From this it logically follows that Bulgarians are partly Asiatic. I'm not saying partly Mongolian, but Asiatic nonetheless.

*Indeed not every Bulgarian has Asiatic blood since not every Bulgarian is a Slav by blood. But what's clear is that at some point there was a group of real Slavs who arrived in the south of Danube and, be it by wars or otherwise, took possession of that land. What happened to the locals? Either migrated or were absorbed. What happened to their language? Simply ceased being used. This happened in other cases too. So today's Bulgaria is likely a mix of Slavs with locals from the south of Danube; otherwise I don't see how the language could be explained.

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:59 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:I didn't state Attila was the founding father of Romania.

Well things are finally clear then :)

And it's good to know that by "Attila was an Aryan King and his People today directly are the Hungarians and Romania's" was not meant Romanians were actually "a people of Attila."

ss666
Posts: 371

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ss666 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:30 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:I didn't state Attila was the founding father of Romania. I did however state my Hungarian friends told me that he is consider to be such in their own history like a King Arthur. I did however state Romania was a Scythian region and that Attila was pushing the Romans out of Scythian regions. There is no Slavic they were just Scythians all the way to the Uyghurs region in central Asia. Dacia was called Romania because it was conquered and settled by the Roman Empire. Take a look at the ancient Greek images they also look Scythian as well in the dress. Because there was just the Aryan race. You can call it Persian, Vedic, Scythian, Greek.


Were Aryans a global empire in that time (before 1000 BCE) and Persia, Scythian, Greek, Vedic, Egypt were just names of the regions of that Aryan empire? This could make sense if they shared the same Gods that were leading the empire through regional kings. You mentioned the global empire of Aryans, I assumed wrongly that it was before the flood.

HP Mageson666
Posts: 2213

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby HP Mageson666 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:40 am

The Vedic histories state up till five thousand years ago there was a global Aryan Empire that was ruled from what is now India. Other texts mention these was ruled by the Naga Emperors the Emperor had 13 Maha Siddhi's making 13 all together for the ruling council. Shiva was called the King of the Naga's as this is Satan and its giving a racial linage. Like with the Pharaohs and such who were leaders of the Dragon courts.

Around five thousand years ago there was another planetary disaster that brought this about to an end and created the dark age we are still living in. Note the jews claim they appeared on this planet right after this disaster. The Vedic texts mention the Jews as subversives in the form of spreading Jainism then moving further west to desert area's. Jainism was a movement to overthrow the Satanadhrama and replace it with materialistic communism of the period. Note the Jains are from the MERCHANT class. The power behind these people got Buddhism put in the same way the Jew got Catholicism put into power. And I note the Court of the Emperor responsible for Buddhism which is Jainism in a sun god myth was also directly connected to the Jewish power brokers in Alexandria. Who then took Jainism and put it into the Christian ideology they created. Buddhism was the key factor that weakened Northern India which allowed the Islamic forces to sweep thought it. Probably also jews in India in key positions handing it over from within.

Adi Shankara who subverted the Vedic rebirth by putting Buddhism into Vedic terminology and was denounced for doing this. Was from Kelara which is the jew York city of ancient India. I read some of his writing its obvious he was a subversive with the agenda of creating a proto xianity to weaken the Goyim.

Note the Jews always had a big presence in Persia and there is Zoroastrianism a early Christian movement that tells the Persian's their ancient Gods are all evil monsters who are leading them astray and they have to reject their whole culture as evil and turn to the ONE GOD who is fighting the evil god.......Ahriman which is literally Aryan Manu.......Aryan Man. However Manu is also a title of our God Satan in the east. This is Mana in the west the God who is the linage creator of the Aryans.

Its no mistake the Persians are taken over by a ideology imposed on them by a Imperial ruler who fought a civil war to rob power from the rightful Vedic Kings and then force this Zoroastrianism on the populace by the sword. Its also no mistake Zoroastrianism is identical to JUDAISM. That's where it came from.


ss666 wrote:
HP Mageson666 wrote:I didn't state Attila was the founding father of Romania. I did however state my Hungarian friends told me that he is consider to be such in their own history like a King Arthur. I did however state Romania was a Scythian region and that Attila was pushing the Romans out of Scythian regions. There is no Slavic they were just Scythians all the way to the Uyghurs region in central Asia. Dacia was called Romania because it was conquered and settled by the Roman Empire. Take a look at the ancient Greek images they also look Scythian as well in the dress. Because there was just the Aryan race. You can call it Persian, Vedic, Scythian, Greek.


Were Aryans a global empire in that time (before 1000 BCE) and Persia, Scythian, Greek, Vedic, Egypt were just names of the regions of that Aryan empire? This could make sense if they shared the same Gods that were leading the empire through regional kings. You mentioned the global empire of Aryans, I assumed wrongly that it was before the flood.

User avatar
Stormblood
Posts: 1664
Location: Academy of the Dragon, Dinas Ffaraon

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Stormblood » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:42 am

ThomaSsS wrote:A people never gives up it's own language to adopt another just like that.


I don't know if that's the case with Romania but it's not unheard of in history. When the British illegally occupied Ireland they put death penalty for those who dared to speak the Irish language instead of the British one. Flash forward to now and the Irish language is going extinct. The true speakers are very few. Sure they teach it primary schools but it's not the official language and many young pupils consider it a drag because they're accustomed to speaking English with family and relatives. No doubt the bloody kikes were behind that What I'm implying is that this may have happened also either in Romania or Bulgaria.

This contribution is the only one I can make to the conversation. So you probably won't be seeing another post of mine here.

DiscipleOfSatan
Posts: 71

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby DiscipleOfSatan » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:23 am

ThomaSsS
If Thracian's were Bulgarians, and if Bulgarians were Dacians, how comes the language of Bulgaria is a Slavic one, while the language of Dacia (Romania) is a Romantic/Latin one?


Until the middle of 18th century Romanians used Old Church Slavonic language, which is known as Old Bulgarian Language in Bulgaria. It's a slavic language. Until the middle of 19th century, Romanians used the Cyrillic writing system/alphabet. Romanian language became Romantic/Latin one because of political reasons after 1861, when the Principality of Moldavia and the Principality of Wallachia formally united. Before that, the Romanian language was a "slavic" one. Romanian and Bulgarian, and most of the white people in Eastern Europe are not distant at all, they have the same origins, and ethnically they are the same. Jews did their best to make European people think they are different, and have nothing in common in order to destroy them. Even though, even in nowadays Romanian language around 15-20 % of the words are of 'Slavic' origin.

It's also possible that the author simply made an error, be it intentional or not.
It would be possible if he was the only one. But there are literally hundreds of other authors stating the same. It's not possible that they all made an error.

Bulgarians are Slavs (given their language.)* Slavs are partly Asiatic and this was stated by Maxine somewhere on the yahoo groups. From this it logically follows that Bulgarians are partly Asiatic. I'm not saying partly Mongolian, but Asiatic nonetheless.


Slavs who arrived in the south of Danube and, be it by wars or otherwise, took possession of that land


There were no wars, and there is no other way to took possession of a land except war, therefore this is not possible. This is pure nonsense. Genetic studies on Bulgarians already proved that nowadays Bulgarians are the same people who lived on this land (Bulgaria) 2000 years ago. History documents also prove this. They were called by different names, but they were the same nation, the same ethnic group, the same people.

Slavs are partly Asiatic and this was stated by Maxine somewhere on the yahoo groups. From this it logically follows that Bulgarians are partly Asiatic.
I'm sure that HP Maxine meant the "slavs" from the Russian far east, such as Kazakhs, Avars, etc. The "slavs" who live eastern from Ural Mountains have Asiatic blood, but the "slavs" who live western from Ural do not, they are Arians. Because of this reason many geographers have, over the centuries, placed Europe's eastern boundary around the Ural Mountains.

Bulgarians, and other white eastern Europeans are not mix of anything. The term "slavs" is a fictional term, created in 18th century by the Russian Empress Catherine the Great in order to unite the people of the Russian Empire. Mongols, asians, etc from the eastern parts of Russian Empire, and the White, Arian Russians are both considered "slavs". This term is wrong. But most of the Russians are Arians.

The medieval city of Kyiv, which later became Kievan Rus, and Kievan Rus became the Russian Empire, was named after his founder in 7th century - Kyi. And Kyi was a brother of the Bulgarian king Kubrat. That's where the term "slavic brotherhood" is coming from. The Bulgarian King Kubrat, and the founder of Kyiv - Kyi were blood brothers (historians don't deny this). I can't think of better proof that we have the same origin.

HP Mageson666
Posts: 2213

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby HP Mageson666 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:01 pm

What are peoples opinion the claim of Russian Veda's....

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:42 pm

Stormblood wrote:
ThomaSsS wrote:A people never gives up it's own language to adopt another just like that.
I don't know if that's the case with Romania but it's not unheard of in history. When the British illegally occupied Ireland they put death penalty for those who dared to speak the Irish language instead of the British one. Flash forward to now and the Irish language is going extinct. The true speakers are very few. Sure they teach it primary schools but it's not the official language and many young pupils consider it a drag because they're accustomed to speaking English with family and relatives. No doubt the bloody kikes were behind that What I'm implying is that this may have happened also either in Romania or Bulgaria.

You're indeed right. That's a clear case of one people imposing it's language on another. There are plenty of such instances all over the globe; look at South America where Spanish and Portuguese were imposed on the local peoples. However, what I was saying is that a nation never gives up it's own language naturally and by themselves, like waking up one morning and saying, "Hey, you know what, from today on we quit speaking Irish and we take English as our own national language."

So if a language is imposed rather than freely adopted, it naturally follows that at some point some Slavic tribe must have arrived in the region south of Danube, and either imposed their language on the Dacian/Getae people, or simply drove them away. Because the Dacians in the area didn't just wake up one morning and said, "You know what, from today on we quit speaking our Romantic/Latin language, and take a Slavic one as our own."

For one cannot expect Irish to adopt English without an English presence on Irish lands, just like one cannot expect Dacians to adopt a Slavic language without a Slavic presence south of Danube.

(And I purposely avoided using the term "Thracian" because DiscipleOfSatan maintains it's just a generic name for the Eastern Europeans. I disagree with that, for I believe "Thracian" is the name of a specific people, just like "Dacians" "Iberians" or "Helvetii" is.)

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:01 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:What are peoples opinion the claim of Russian Veda's....

I have to admit it's the very first time I hear about this. But it makes sense the Aryans would take with them them such knowledge. Do you have a good source for this? I think it's a very interested topic

User avatar
Wotanwarrior
Posts: 433

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Wotanwarrior » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:16 pm

I can already imagine why Attila attacked many of the sites occupied by the Romans and was one of the most acerbic enemies that Rome had at that time, and it was because Rome had become the banner of Christianity and Attila wanted xianity far from his people.
"I want my children and my people to call me by my real name" Astarte

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:11 pm

I just wanna point this out real quick. My aim here is not to argue nor to prove you wrong by all means. I'm here to learn as well and in no way I have all the answers. I got involved in this topic since it's of great interest to me as well. So by sharing information, asking questions and correct and logical reasoning, I hope we together can arrive at truth. I wanted to mention this since I heard my way of writing sounds rough to some people :)
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:ThomaSsS
If Thracian's were Bulgarians, and if Bulgarians were Dacians, how comes the language of Bulgaria is a Slavic one, while the language of Dacia (Romania) is a Romantic/Latin one?
Until the middle of 18th century Romanians used Old Church Slavonic language, which is known as Old Bulgarian Language in Bulgaria. It's a slavic language. Until the middle of 19th century, Romanians used the Cyrillic writing system/alphabet.

I am aware of that, but it doesn't prove anything. Slavonic was used simply because at that time Romanian language did not have it's own alphabet and writing system. This doesn't mean everyday Romanians spoke Slavonic on their fields or about their business. During the Middle Ages Latin was the written language for Western European nations but this doesn't mean all these nations were Latin. Latin was used because the other languages have not yet developed their own writing. That's all.

So the language difference question still stands.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:Romanian language became Romantic/Latin one because of political reasons after 1861, when the Principality of Moldavia and the Principality of Wallachia formally united. Before that, the Romanian language was a "slavic" one.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:Even though, even in nowadays Romanian language around 15-20 % of the words are of 'Slavic' origin.

That would be true if rulers could change a language by snapping their fingers. But that's not the case. I know during the Communist era them Joos tried so hard to prove Romanian was Slavic. Books were written, studies were conducted, and dictionaries were compiled proving words came straight from Slavic languages. Did all this make Romanian Slavic? No. German and English contain a dozen words from Greek. Does this mean these languages came straight from Greek? No. A linguist said Spanish has some 20% Arabic words in it's vocabulary. Would you reason Spanish is an Arabic language? Of course not. Given Slavonic was the written language used by Romanians for a long time, it makes sense Slavonic words would slip in.

The name "Romania" was indeed adopted to promote the idea this was a nation founded by the Romans. The language, however, has always been what it is: a Romantic language. I have no idea how this came to be given Romania is almost entirely surrounded by Slavic nations. This topic puzzles me a lot. The answers could very well be somewhere in the middle.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:ThomaSsS
It's also possible that the author simply made an error, be it intentional or not.
It would be possible if he was the only one. But there are literally hundreds of other authors stating the same. It's not possible that they all made an error.

I'd be more careful in making such assertions :) "Hundreds" mean more than 200, right? I won't ask for that many, but if you could bring up 20 different ancient authors who state Bulgarians were Dacians, I'd be thrilled.

ss666
Posts: 371

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ss666 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:31 pm

DiscipleOfSatan wrote:
Until the middle of 18th century Romanians used Old Church Slavonic language, which is known as Old Bulgarian Language in Bulgaria. It's a slavic language. Until the middle of 19th century, Romanians used the Cyrillic writing system/alphabet. Romanian language became Romantic/Latin one because of political reasons after 1861, when the Principality of Moldavia and the Principality of Wallachia formally united. Before that, the Romanian language was a "slavic" one. Romanian and Bulgarian, and most of the white people in Eastern Europe are not distant at all, they have the same origins, and ethnically they are the same. Jews did their best to make European people think they are different, and have nothing in common in order to destroy them. Even though, even in nowadays Romanian language around 15-20 % of the words are of 'Slavic' origin.
.



Nonsense, there are surviving writings in Romanian dating from 1600s and although the language uses a style of speaking not in practice today, it is readable and understandable.

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letopise% ... i_Moldovei

Fost-au acestu Ștefan vodă om nu mare de statu, mânios și de grabu vărsătoriu de sânge nevinovat; de multe ori la ospéțe omorâea fără județu. Amintrilea era om întreg la fire, neleneșu, și lucrul său îl știia a-l acoperi și unde nu gândiiai, acolo îl aflai. La lucruri de războaie meșter, unde era nevoie însuși se vârâia, ca văzându-l ai săi să nu să indărăpteaze și pentru acéia, raru războiu de nu biruia. Și unde-l biruia alții, nu pierdea nădéjdea, că știindu-să căzut jos, să rădica deasupra biruitorilor.


Any Romanian can understand what he says.

The writing system is irrelevant it was imposed by the church to conform with Orthodoxy. I have an old Bible in Cyrillic alphabet and can read it perfectly if I have the alphabet table. Moldovians also speak Romanian and until 1990 they used Cyrillic alphabet.

The original language of Romania was what Aromanians (who didn't get language modernization) speak today, I already written this in another post. Romanian was a language similar with Latin from Dacian times.

DiscipleOfSatan
Posts: 71

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby DiscipleOfSatan » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:27 am

OK, but even if Romanians spoke Latin during the middle ages, this still doesn't prove that Bulgarians and Romanians have different origins.

i'm not a linguist, and i don't speak Romanian, but if you think that the original Dacian language was a Latin/Romanic one, and was not related to the Thracian/Bulgarian language then how would you explain that Romania is the ONLY country in eastern Europe nowadays with a Romanic/Latin language?

To me the only logical explanation is that Dacian language was influenced by the Celtic invaders of the 4th century bc and the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1861.Or maybe the Romanian language descends from the Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces...

All genetic studies on Bulgarians and Romanians show that they are very similar, therefore they can not have different origins.

ss666
Posts: 371

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ss666 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:56 am

DiscipleOfSatan wrote:OK, but even if Romanians spoke Latin during the middle ages, this still doesn't prove that Bulgarians and Romanians have different origins.

i'm not a linguist, and i don't speak Romanian, but if you think that the original Dacian language was a Latin/Romanic one, and was not related to the Thracian/Bulgarian language then how would you explain that Romania is the ONLY country in eastern Europe nowadays with a Romanic/Latin language?

To me the only logical explanation is that Dacian language was influenced by the Celtic invaders of the 4th century bc and the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1861.Or maybe the Romanian language descends from the Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces...

All genetic studies on Bulgarians and Romanians show that they are very similar, therefore they can not have different origins.



The has been advanced civilizations living in those areas before Dacian/Thracian times. Tartaria tablets found on territory of Romania date 5500 BCE.

There was a what is called today as Bronze Age collapse in 1300 BCE. It was a planetary disaster that wiped out most civilizations and traces of it.

I suspect that those parts were part at one point of Greek Empire, that collapsed. Latin language evolved from Greek, why couldn't Romanian language do the same?

User avatar
Ravenheart666
Posts: 65
Location: In a tree by the brook

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Ravenheart666 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:01 pm

It might be off topic but , in my opinion , it would be enough to take a glance at the symbols the ancestors adopted and maifested in their artistic and also tribal expressions to see just how closely related they were , here in Europe, before any very sophisticated empire starting to rise up, and I'm talking about the period of time now under the "bronze age" title....one of these glyphs is the Tetraskelion for example(you will not find a single ancient european sight without any of these or very similar carved on some rock or object)-you know the symbol that in time came to be the Swastika Nazi Germany used..another one is the Dragon or some version of it ( in fact the so called Dacian stindart had a dragon with the head of a hound placed at the end of a staff-and it was also called Draco by the Romans), and The Uppermost symbol you can't possibly say "nay"---the horse---and it's linguistic value as a word and intrinsic value as object, just picture it how the need of such means of transportation transformed the way territories were looked upon as and how it can be that there's no single european population known to have existed that didn't used horses... Other than simply that and the fact that you won't find horses just everywhere on these territories ready to be "saddle" on , Europe had it's so called pool of indo-european languages which is product of a common language that start splitting once MIGRATIONS started ... and the only possible source for such massive migrations on the continent can be only eastern. Greek , Latin , Slavonic , Scandinavian , Germanic , "Celtic" are all by products of the who knows how many migration routes , and who knows how much generations spent in separated territories by a people of common origin. We all have a sacred Cow (literally) in our folklore , and racial tendencies never die , no matter how the tongue curls.
The way I feel about Roumania and it's delimitation as a territory, the way it came to be and under who's consent and administration lets me cold as to what this nation was probably --intended-- for , not saying that the people therein are bad or smthing (alcoholic epidemy and overall decay it's common to all nations that fell under the URSS) , but is its milenial administration of which little to nothing it's known , the dubbious lineage of the royal class and just how everytime Roumanians pushed for something of "roumanian importance" this moves benefited almost always the jewry in that place, mainly the shitty croptodox church that has everybody by the balls since always ... it's like it never grown out of the middle ages , really , if it wasnt for Antonescu and his willfully aliance with Hitler , I highly doubt there would have been such thing as an alive educational system still strifing around , or even functioning hospitals (for the way they "work" either way)... A parallel to what could (((cause))) such unreliable functioning of public administration could be the fact that roumanian is the 5th (or 6th) most speaked language in pissrael, any guess?
Romania is full to the 150% with (((politicians))) and (((functionaries))) , (((historians))) and related ilk that kiss the hand in the picture of phopah' Stalin and rabbeh Lenin everytime they cross the front dor of their luxurious apartments. Anything that gets out from history propaganda it's about how roumanians should be proud of their position as just and mighty slaves, showing how roumanians should be proud of being bowdownyoutards , just because Burebista was the last Pagan leader to go against conquest and portraying him as some sort of platonic mioritic "Zalmoxe was the only God worshipped by Dacians"(you can see the tie there), and how Stefan the Great and his cousin built churches wherever they fucked some turkish invasions, like hell yeah Vlad was a hero , but his father was some shabes goy of the Habsburgic Caste , with connexions in every part of Europe and hand in hand with the vatican...yes indeed.. I tell you , no Robin Hoods around and no let's really unite these lands without the sword till the 1850s of Alexander Ioan Cuza(much to Mihai Viteazul success around year 1500)...even these with the jewry screaming their balls off "A country as-- we --want or none at all!" (You can go search for Mihai Eminescu's reports on the unification question - he was and it is even now the most exponential of romanian leterature authors and most influential analyst of his time, he was clear and concise about the jews and for that matter he was assassinated- he also composed a lenghty poem under the title "The Lucifer"-that'be "Luceafarul" and it's beyond words).
Therefore telling me "you can't just impose a language or change a nations culture on the basis of administration needs" it's the equivalent of , "ouh well you know you can't just impose something with the sword and call it religion" , course of actions prooved far otherwise.
We have the responsability to return as Heros from this fog and bring honour to our ancestors and the Ones that stood on their behalf (as They still do today), and it is only us , Spiritual Satanists that are capable of such karma bending , personal and generational.

sip
Posts: 152
Location: 666

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby sip » Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:40 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:These People were all Scythians even the current named Saxon is from this. The Yezidi are also part of them as they extended all the way into Persia, India and central Asia. This just seems to be the common name for the Aryans. Even the Buddhist texts claim Gautama was a Scythian. Because the Aryans living in Northern India were Scythians. You can tell Attila was taking back the ancient Scythian lands from Roman domination. Attila was an Aryan King and his People today directly are the Hungarians and Romania's. Hungary was given to the Hun's by the Roman's for their own land in reward for service to the Empire. This is why nonsense historical claims by people like Kemp in March of the Titans are easily debunked. The Hun's were Aryan's. I worked with Hungarians who told me they were taught about Attila as the father of their nation in school in Hungary.

The other nonsense is the Arab invasion into Spain.....Arab does not mean much back then. They were Indo-Aryan Berbers who spoke Greek and Latin and were part of the Roman Empire and went back to the Aryan Phoenicians. They were also mixed ethnically with other Aryans such as the Germanic Vandals. You see the images of the Berber's in Spain they are Aryan's with Greek names. This is the secret of the civilization of Islamic Spain it was all Greek, Roman engineering with White Berber's ruling over other White Peoples. Its strange how the anti White fake history of the Jews over this region and period meets with March of the Titans.


I always wondered about Kemp. I actually bought his book some years ago. Thank you for clearing this all up HP.

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:04 pm

@ss666, That's my point exactly. There is classical Greek and modern Greek and between them a continuity can be seen. Same with old and modern English. But no such thing can be seen between Bulgarian and Romanian. DiscipleOfSatan maintains both Bulgarians and Romanians are Thracian's. I'm not saying they're not, but this just doesn't add up in terms of language. All Germanic tribes speak a Germanic language, be it German, Dutch, Danish, and so on. So one would naturally expect all Thracian tribes to speak a "Thracian" language, right? But this is not true of Romanians and Bulgarians because the later speak a Slavic language while the former speak a Romantic/Latin language.

Romanian and Aromanian are obviously very closely related and if I read a text in Aromanian, I get what it says. Take German and Dutch. If one speaks German, s/he can understand things in Dutch. Same thing across the Romantic languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, etc); for these are related languages. Now if Bulgarians and Romanians were Thracian's their language MUST have been similar. But they're not. They are part of different language families.
DiscipleOfSatan wrote:To me the only logical explanation is that Dacian language was influenced by the Celtic invaders of the 4th century bc

I also see in that a possible explanation to some extent. As about the second part....
and the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1861.Or maybe the Romanian language descends from the Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces...

....it cannot be the case and I explained why. When Moldavia and Wallachia united, they were both speaking Romanian. It's not like they united and boom, over the night they changed their language. As about "descending from Latin" part, it cannot be. The Roman legion that stayed in Dacia was called "Legio quinta Macedonica" (The Fifth Macedonian Legion) and was obviously made up of Macedonians not of Romans. So if your reasoning would be correct, Romanians would now be speaking a Greek language not a Latin one :P

User avatar
HeilOdin666
Posts: 151

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby HeilOdin666 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:33 pm

Speaking of a global aryan empire. I find it fascinating that they have found things such as a stone covered in runic text in Minnesota. Other items have been found as well that are clearly very ancient and very aryan.

I have seen before, I believe it was actually on TV, evidence that the Vikings were in North America before columbus. The show pretty much destroyed the Columbus theory. I'm surprises they ran the show. Perhaps the Norse had lands they called their own in North America.

Makes me think one of the largest gaps in our history is in North America and what happened. Maybe we didn't steal land from Indians after all. They used the Indians story to guilt trip us. And make us feel unwelcome in our own lands.
IRON CROSS - TRUE MEANING AND SPIRITUAL BASIS - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1863

User avatar
ThomaSsS
Posts: 41
Location: Romania

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby ThomaSsS » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:49 pm

Ravenheart666 wrote:Therefore telling me "you can't just impose a language or change a nations culture on the basis of administration needs" it's the equivalent of , "ouh well you know you can't just impose something with the sword and call it religion" , course of actions prooved far otherwise.

I see you put words in people's mouths in order to prove your point. No one here "told you" a culture cannot be changed by political decisions or by other means. It's a too known fact that this sort of things were done time and again by Joos and their programs, and so on. No one here argued against that.

The fact is, I explained just a few messages above that a language CAN be imposed. But when this happens, and if the process lasts long enough, the imposed language REPLACES the native one. They never mix. That's why Irish people now speak English and NOT a new language resulting from the mixing between Irish and English. Irish was replaced by English. Native languages from South America (or at least most of them) were replaced by Spanish or Portuguese. They never mixed to create new languages. Now this is all so obvious but from what I see, mentioning it will do good to some: English had to exist before it was imposed on the Irish people. Portuguese had to exist before it was imposed on Brazilians. In other words, English was taken from somewhere and imposed somewhere else. So if you were right and one day politicians decided to impose Romanian on Romanians, they had to take Romanian from somewhere! One cannot impose on someone, something that doesn't already exist. So where did they take Romanian from?

The other possibility is for two or more languages to exist side by side, when one language is not intended to replace another. In this case again, they don't mix to give birth to a new language. See Luxembourg, a tiny little country that has 3 official languages (Luxembourgish, German and French); these three exist side by side and most Luxembourgish people speak all three of them. This is why the "Latinization theory" is debunked because, if the Romans would impose Latin on the "Romance/Latin" peoples, those people would now be speaking Latin NOT French, Spanish, Romanian, Italian, etc. This is so beautifully explained by linguist Carme J. Huertas.

And you need to keep in mind culture and religion do not equal language. One can eliminate fundamental parts of a culture, or twist them entirely. But one cannot do the same with fundamental parts of a language. Joos twisted the whole Satanic year and replaced all our Satanic holidays with Joodeo-Xian "saints" and holidays. Yet they could not have imposed on a population that from now on "future tense" is "past tense," that "I will write" means "I wrote." Forbid a people to celebrate Belane's Eve and if they have no choice, they'll submit. But try forbid a people to use "adverbs" or "pronouns" see if you can.

That's why language in my opinion is so important here. No one denies all European Nations have the same Aryan origins. But during millennia they developed differently and I see nothing wrong in studying them based on this.

Europe Gladio
Posts: 104

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Europe Gladio » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:27 pm

HP Mageson666 wrote:These People were all Scythians even the current named Saxon is from this. The Yezidi are also part of them as they extended all the way into Persia, India and central Asia. This just seems to be the common name for the Aryans. Even the Buddhist texts claim Gautama was a Scythian. Because the Aryans living in Northern India were Scythians. You can tell Attila was taking back the ancient Scythian lands from Roman domination. Attila was an Aryan King and his People today directly are the Hungarians and Romania's. Hungary was given to the Hun's by the Roman's for their own land in reward for service to the Empire. This is why nonsense historical claims by people like Kemp in March of the Titans are easily debunked. The Hun's were Aryan's. I worked with Hungarians who told me they were taught about Attila as the father of their nation in school in Hungary.

The other nonsense is the Arab invasion into Spain.....Arab does not mean much back then. They were Indo-Aryan Berbers who spoke Greek and Latin and were part of the Roman Empire and went back to the Aryan Phoenicians. They were also mixed ethnically with other Aryans such as the Germanic Vandals. You see the images of the Berber's in Spain they are Aryan's with Greek names. This is the secret of the civilization of Islamic Spain it was all Greek, Roman engineering with White Berber's ruling over other White Peoples. Its strange how the anti White fake history of the Jews over this region and period meets with March of the Titans.

So essentially, all Aryan tribes(Greeks, Germanics, Celts, Amazigh, ect) are Scythians?
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Annunaki, and Bel, the Lord of heaven and Earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and make him great among the Igigi

User avatar
Ravenheart666
Posts: 65
Location: In a tree by the brook

Re: Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians

Postby Ravenheart666 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:30 pm

ThomaSsS wrote:
Ravenheart666 wrote:Therefore telling me "you can't just impose a language or change a nations culture on the basis of administration needs" it's the equivalent of , "ouh well you know you can't just impose something with the sword and call it religion" , course of actions prooved far otherwise.

I see you put words in people's mouths in order to prove your point. No one here "told you" a culture cannot be changed by political decisions or by other means. It's a too known fact that this sort of things were done time and again by Joos and their programs, and so on. No one here argued against that.

The fact is, I explained just a few messages above that a language CAN be imposed. But when this happens, and if the process lasts long enough, the imposed language REPLACES the native one. They never mix. That's why Irish people now speak English and NOT a new language resulting from the mixing between Irish and English. Irish was replaced by English. Native languages from South America (or at least most of them) were replaced by Spanish or Portuguese. They never mixed to create new languages. Now this is all so obvious but from what I see, mentioning it will do good to some: English had to exist before it was imposed on the Irish people. Portuguese had to exist before it was imposed on Brazilians. In other words, English was taken from somewhere and imposed somewhere else. So if you were right and one day politicians decided to impose Romanian on Romanians, they had to take Romanian from somewhere! One cannot impose on someone, something that doesn't already exist. So where did they take Romanian from?

The other possibility is for two or more languages to exist side by side, when one language is not intended to replace another. In this case again, they don't mix to give birth to a new language. See Luxembourg, a tiny little country that has 3 official languages (Luxembourgish, German and French); these three exist side by side and most Luxembourgish people speak all three of them. This is why the "Latinization theory" is debunked because, if the Romans would impose Latin on the "Romance/Latin" peoples, those people would now be speaking Latin NOT French, Spanish, Romanian, Italian, etc. This is so beautifully explained by linguist Carme J. Huertas.

And you need to keep in mind culture and religion do not equal language. One can eliminate fundamental parts of a culture, or twist them entirely. But one cannot do the same with fundamental parts of a language. Joos twisted the whole Satanic year and replaced all our Satanic holidays with Joodeo-Xian "saints" and holidays. Yet they could not have imposed on a population that from now on "future tense" is "past tense," that "I will write" means "I wrote." Forbid a people to celebrate Belane's Eve and if they have no choice, they'll submit. But try forbid a people to use "adverbs" or "pronouns" see if you can.

That's why language in my opinion is so important here. No one denies all European Nations have the same Aryan origins. But during millennia they developed differently and I see nothing wrong in studying them based on this.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Tomwolf666 and 18 guests