Чтобы выжить, Израиль должен превратить 2023 год в новый 1956 год.
Contents
Introduction
I. Between Israelis and Palestinians peace can be achieved with justice only from now on
II. Two conditions for success in achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians
III. Why the entire population of Gaza should be temporarily relocated for 3-4 years to Kazakhstan
IV. Why the borders with Egypt from Rafah to Taba should be entirely closed forever
V. Why all the existing structures on the surface of the earth (in West Bank) should be entirely demolished and removed
VI. Why the Palestinian State should share common borders with Israel but not with Jordan
VII. 1956, 2023, and a different contextualization of the Israeli-Palestinian problem
Содержание
Введение
I. Мир между израильтянами и палестинцами может быть достигнут справедливо только отныне
II. Два условия успеха в достижении мира между израильтянами и палестинцами
III. Почему все население Газы должно быть временно переселено на 3-4 года в Казахстан
IV. Почему границы с Египтом от Рафаха до Табы должны быть полностью закрыты навсегда
V. Почему все существующие сооружения на поверхности земли (на Западном Берегу) должны быть полностью снесены и удалены
VI. Почему Палестинское государство должно иметь общие границы с Израилем, но не с Иорданией
VII. 1956, 2023 годы и иная контекстуализация израильско-палестинской проблемы
Following the publication of an article of mine about Kazakhstan’s chances to bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians and to resolve the Palestinian problem once for all, a Muslim friend wrote to me, asking me to expand on the reasons for some of my proposals. The present article is my reply to his questions. My previous articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including subtitles and units) and links to them you will find at the end of the present article.
Introduction
What most people do not properly assess about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the inevitable fact that every development does not only count as such, but it also adds on the accumulated problems, which therefore involve -amongst others- increased mistrust, unreadiness to negotiate, unwillingness to discuss about a common future, total disbelief of the intentions of the other side, and suspicion about the reliability of the interlocutors.
As I fully understand this situation, I don’t believe that peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians would be an easy affair. In fact, the negotiations are always difficult between two parts of which
– the winner is not sure of his victory, and
– the loser reached a level in which he has nothing more to lose.
This is a very dangerous situation.
I. Between Israelis and Palestinians peace can be achieved with justice only from now on
In this regard, all those, who declare ‘no peace without justice in Palestine’, are nonsensical because they involve an element (namely justice), which threatens the presence of the Israelis on the lands that they control. Israelis know that what was done to the Palestinians by their forefathers before 75 or 100 years was unjust; it is absurd to even imagine that they do not know. As a matter of fact, the Zionist project is an undeniable plan of specific usurpation of land.
So, the rightful mediator cannot possibly relate justice to peace when trying to resolve the Palestinian problem; the reason for this is entirely psychological. To oppose adversary demands of justice, the Israelis will instinctively resort to cases of unjust deeds perpetrated by the Palestinians. Then, this will become the dialogue of the deaf, because every part will easily come up with numerous examples of unjust acts for which the other part will always have a ‘convincing’ interpretation.
If we refer to major acts, which cannot be misinterpreted and are accepted as such by all, we will encounter a particular and constant trait of the conflict; it all started with the total rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (also known as General Assembly resolution on Partition; 29 November 1947) by the Palestinians and the surrounding countries of Syria, Transjordan, Iraq and Egypt. In the ensuing low-scale civil war (1947), full scale civil war (1947-1948), and Arab-Israeli War (15 May 1948 – 10 March 1949), the Palestinians and their allies opposed indeed the international community. By so doing they lost. In other words, if they accepted the UN Partition Plan, they would have 50% of their land; by rejecting the Plan and by fighting against a resolution voted by a 2/3 majority of the UN member-states, they were left with only 22% of their land after the war, and in addition, no less than 700000 Palestinians were forced to migrate.
This trait persisted after 1948; it simply took another form, namely that of unrealistic evaluation of the rapport de force (balance of power); in fact, the anti-Israeli alliance lost all the wars. The so-called ‘Egyptian victory’ in the 1973 (Yom Kippur) War is in reality a filthy lie and a propaganda artifice, because what truly happened at the time (following meticulously prepared and secretly concluded agreements between US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and Anwar el Sadat’s representative Hafez Ismail, the Egyptian National Security Adviser) is that Egypt got the Sinai Peninsula back, but Israel totally neutralized Egypt. This is how Tel Aviv managed to infiltrate first there and thence elsewhere.
I expanded on the topic because it is essential to understand that today, 75 years after the first explosion of the Palestinian problem at the international level, it is essential for a potential mediator to know that part of what the leading administrative figures and the most charismatic representatives will inevitably have in their heads will be forged myths and absurd misperceptions; they certainly know most of the true facts related to the topic, but they view them in the light of altered perceptions of reality. Consequently, this situation affects them sentimentally and mentally, and for this reason peace can certainly be made, but with no reference to justice.
This may look cynical or even odd to righteous people, but it truly is not; human justice is not Divine Justice, and every attempt to make it look similar to that concept will certainly fail. Divine Justice is forever; human justice is instantaneous. Among humans, justice can be made with some delay; but there is no ‘justice’ to be made for undeniable crimes committed by the great grandfather of a person against the great grandmother of another person. If this is so at the personal level, it must certainly be the same at the collective, social, ethnic or national level. It goes without saying that revenge (which can be taken after much time) is not justice; it is rather an injustice perpetrated in response to an earlier unjust act. That’s why revenge is a synonym for retaliation.
Faithful people know that the Ultimate Judge is God; nothing ends here, and an injustice made in our material world brings forth an inevitable punishment either during our lifetime or in the Hereafter. But those, who intentionally commit crimes now in revenge of evil deeds and crimes perpetrated by others before 50 or 75 years, lose their souls in vain. No one comes to this world as an avenger. These things must be very clear to anyone willing to suggest solutions to a grave problem that gets incessantly worse.
By all means, one has to always bear in mind that the condition of a winner, who is not sure of his victory, is never enviable. Israelis know that in few months, they can destroy all the buildings of Gaza and they can push the entire local population out. I don’t expand on the consequences which may cause further wars, but I limit myself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the top Israeli governmental and military authorities also know that even with the entire Gazan population evacuated, the Palestinian problem will not end. Israelis will still have to live with the Palestinians of the West Bank and with those called ‘1948 Palestinians’ in Israel proper; their grave radicalization will be inevitable. Even if the Israeli authorities manage to effectively evacuate them all at a later date, the only possible result will be that Israel will then have to face extremely noxious developments in surrounding lands and to expect a real war of attrition involving attacks from the North, the East, and the Southwest. It will never end.
II. Two conditions for success in achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians
That is why the position of a mediator between a winner, who is not sure of his victory, and a loser, who reached a level in which he has nothing more to lose, can be effective and his work successful only under two conditions:
– he has to leave justice aside and to compartmentalize the past (in other words, to put the jinn in a bottle) and
– he has to find another context in which to place the entire problem and thus, by introducing new factors, manage to assuage the worries of the winner and to console the sorrow of the loser.
Through this approach, the effective mediator is not in search of justice, but peace. This implies that all the necessary guarantees will be offered to both parts and that major concern will be deployed as to how no further hatred, rancor, and malignancy will be allowed to take hold of the hearts of people. Justice and equity will have to apply from the moment the new agreement is signed.
Consequently, and in striking contrast to the Oslo Accords, great effort will be carried out and detailed measures will be taken as regards the educational systems, the scientific life, the intellectual milieu, the national identity and the cultural integrity, the socio-behavioral principles, and the moral values of both nations. Politics do not and actually cannot play an exclusive role in the negotiations and the deliberations concerning the resolution of this long conflict; quite contrarily, the civil society -from both sides- must come to the forefront. The negotiations will have to look like an initial encounter between two communities meant to live together in peace.
Final success will be achieved when all fears, doubts and worries will disappear from the minds and the hearts of both sides. Fully understanding this need, I came up with the proposal for an initiative, which I am sure that Kazakhstan can effectively carry out. My responses to the questions asked by my Muslim friend can be better assessed in the light of the aforementioned thoughts.
III. Why the entire population of Gaza should be temporarily relocated for 3-4 years to Kazakhstan
At this very moment, Israel is under an unprecedented shock; this is attested on many occasions and at all levels of the Israeli administration, army and society. The acts of the military forces dispatched in Gaza testify to unnecessary brutality that causes further damage to Israel. There are not many in the Israeli political elite to understand that it is absolute pointless to attempt to exterminate an elusive adversary while at the same time massacring dozens of thousands of innocent civilians, children, women and elders who cannot possibly be held as responsible for the 7th October 2023 attacks. By so acting, Israel turns against itself the outright majority of people worldwide and sends an alarming warning to capitals of great nuclear powers like Beijing and Moscow.
The disregard shown by Israel to the numerous Muslim states for many long decades did not have an impact; this was due to the, hypocritical but undetected, Western support to Tel Aviv that the Israelis quite unfortunately for them have taken as true and sincere for too long. It was also due to the importance that the major Western countries (US, Germany, France, England, Italy) happened to have at the economic, military, diplomatic and political levels. However, this situation does not exist anymore. The Western powers are eclipsed by the rising BRICS at all levels; even more importantly, by allying with the BRICS, other -hitherto deemed unimportant- countries started acquiring a greater impact on the world affairs.
Israel needs therefore a certain space of time to absorb the shock and to realize that not only the Hamas attacks were a dreadful and horrible event, but also that it took place in 2023 – and not 1991 or in 2001. The world is not anymore as many among the country’s ruling elite think or believe.
I therefore proposed that the entire population of Gaza should be temporarily relocated for 3-4 years for two reasons:
– first, the country is being destroyed by the invading Israeli army, which leaves ruins everywhere; what has already been done in the northern part of Gaza will take place in the southern sector too. It is clear that there is no force, no state, in the world that will interfere in order to stop Israel by force; if this was attempted by a nuclear power, it would apparently entail nuclear confrontation. So, the Western nuclear powers (US, France and England) are certain that no other nuclear power (Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran) will be exposed to reprisals only for the sake of the Palestinians.
It is therefore evident that for the main targets of the Israeli military operations to be achieved, Israel will need to push the totality of the Gazan populations out of Gaza Strip to North Sinai, Egypt. This intention risks certainly giving an entirely different dimension to this hitherto limited war and triggering a major conflict in the region. Either Egypt’s el-Sisi is going to enter to war with Israel to prevent the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza or he will fail to oppose this and will be overthrown in a most thunderous Islamist rebellion. In the case of an Islamist insurgence, the new Islamist regime of Egypt will inevitably clash with Israel in a most bloody war.
By intervening in Gaza as mediator between Israelis and Palestinians and by offering a plan for peace, involving also a temporary (for 3-4 years) relocation of the entire population of Gaza in Kazakhstan, Astana offers
– to Israel the opportunity to peacefully achieve their military goals (total elimination of Hamas) without further casualties;
– to Egypt the chance to avert all nefarious scenarios, namely a war, a revolt, and/or a permanent relocation (‘resettlement’) of the Gazan populations in North Sinai (that many extremist Zionists want to carry out);
– to Palestinians the perspective of safe survival, peaceful relocation, humane living conditions in the near future (within the next few months), and return back home under better, highly improved, terms after few years;
– to Chinese and Indians the possibility to get initially involved as partners of Kazakhstan in the construction of the new urban centers to accommodate the temporarily relocated Gazans and thus later make a strong impact as warranty powers of the final accord between the states of Israel and Palestine.
– second, the unprecedented destruction of the local infrastructure caused during the Israeli military operations in the northern sector of Gaza is only the preliminary stage of this war. After the entire local population is evacuated (one way or another), the Israeli army will carry out similar operations in the southern sector of the Strip; that’s why I suggested and I do hope that this part of military activities will take place peacefully and with no more casualties. It is to be anticipated that the Israelis will continue demolishing innumerable buildings in search of potential terrorists, hidden arms, and secret passageways to Egypt. They will apparently do the same in the labyrinthine system of underground tunnels of Gaza that were constructed over the past decades. This will surely take several months after the completion of the evacuation process.
Then, the ruins of Gaza will have to be removed and cleaned off. A totally new landscape will appear. This process will also take much time; in the meantime, a consortium of Kazakh, Chinese and Indian construction companies will prepare the complete design of New Gaza’s urban plan. The building phase will certainly take more than two years according to the best scheduling calculations.
It goes without saying that the entire reconstruction of Gaza project will have to be undertaken under the meticulous inspection of Israel’s military forces because the Israelis have to be placed in total command of all security measures so that they are fully and permanently aware that nothing will be in a position to be smuggled into Gaza again and no anti-Israeli activity will possibly take place in the Palestinian state that they will agree to accept and help build and recognize at the international level.
IV. Why the borders with Egypt from Rafah to Taba should be entirely closed forever
As it is well-known, the main issues for the Israelis are the safety and the security of their state; I stated this fact from the very beginning. In this regard, there is a truly crucial difficulty; security and safety are feelings, and this means that they are not possibly quantifiable.
One can measure the area and the population of a land, the performance of an economy, the demographics of a nation, the artifacts of a museum and the weapons of an army. The security and safety measures are indeed quantifiable; but the feeling of security or safety is not.
One can firmly quantify the training of soldiers, the knowledge of the officers, and the arguments of diplomats; but there is no such thing as a phobo-meter to help us measure the fear, the worries, and the anxiety of people – let alone the consternation and the angst of statesmen and politicians who do not trust the intentions of their neighbors and do not believe the words of the rulers of the surrounding countries. The suspicions about the ulterior motives of the others are not a quantifiable affair.
The parallel that one can draw, rephrasing the contrast that I made in the third paragraph of the present article, is the following; coming to the table of negotiations, both sides will instinctively and reciprocally acknowledge that
– the Israelis have lost their safety, their security, and their trust of the Palestinians;
– the Palestinians have lost their land.
There is evident loss on either side, but the type of loss is of diverse nature.
One can therefore conclude that both sides’ desiderata are -at the same time- unequal and different.
The loss of the Palestinians is visible to the naked eye; and so is the loss of the Israelis because, as I already stated, their overreaction to the 7th October 2023 attacks and their asymmetrical response to Hamas’ killings fully demonstrate that they are under the impact of a shock.
Furthermore, it is also known that for a very long period the Palestinian resistance movements and organizations did not set as final target of the Palestinian nation the acceptance of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, but they constantly evoked the total annihilation of the state of Israel. Following the signing of the Oslo Accords (1993), Hamas started a campaign against them, thus dragging a certain part of the Palestinian people to extreme positions, which were always at the antipodes of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II). https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/038/88/PDF/NR003888.pdf?OpenElement
The radicalization of the resistance against a formidable adversary can have negative results, and this is what actually happened over the past two decades, notably after the death of Yasser Arafat.
That is why I believe that, if peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians can ever have a chance to end in a true, sincere and final agreement, the state of Israel must be offered full responsibility for the security and the safety of both states. In other words, the Israeli security forces must be in full control of
a) the borders with Egypt and Jordan,
b) the harbors, and
c) the airports.
I don’t mention the borders with Lebanon and Syria, because the Palestinian state does not have borders with these two states. Unity of land and unity of people are to be safeguarded as West Bank and Gaza shall be linked with elevated highways and underground trains.
However, to erase every reason of fear and anxiety from the minds and the hearts of the Israelis, an effective mediator should offer them the exclusive privilege to guard the borders and have control over every person and every item, i.e. every baggage, parcel, and cargo that enters the land in which the two states will coexist.
The basic concept behind my approach, which involves exclusive Israeli control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, is that of a complete enclave; to put it otherwise, for security reasons, Palestine must become an entire enclave within Israel. A small strip of 100 m wide land across the Palestinian-Jordanian and the Gazan-Egyptian borderlines will have to belong administratively (not politically) to Israel. When it will be the task of the Israelis to patrol the borders and to control all the persons and all the items that enter or exit the territory, they will not have any reason to worry about their security and safety.
There will certainly be a civilian police authority in the state of Palestine, but it will be trained, equipped and supervised by the state of Israel. In addition, as I already said, a major effort will be deployed (in striking contrast to the processes and the methods used before the Oslo Accords) at the level of education, science, culture, and civil society.
Every indication noticed and every incident occurred on either side, which may have involved racial contempt, ethnic disregard, social enmity, religious antagonism or spiritual/national superiority will have to be timely and properly denounced, tackled and resolved.
V. Why all the existing structures on the surface of the earth (in West Bank) should be entirely demolished and removed
In fact, what I suggest for the West Bank is a mere repetition of what I proposed for the Gaza Strip first. Consequently, all the Israeli settlers shall first be permanently relocated elsewhere in Israel; their urban infrastructure shall remain intact and then be offered to the West Bank Palestinians, who shall be temporarily relocated to Kazakhstan (after the Gaza Palestinians return in the newly reconstructed Gaza) and then return.
The temporary relocation of the West Bank Palestinians to Kazakhstan will offer Israelis plenty of time to fully inspect the land, the structures, and the underground, remove potentially smuggled and hidden arms and ammunitions, and perfectly clear the territory up.
The repetition of the temporary relocation process, which I suggested first for the populations of Gaza, and its application to the West Bank Palestinians will simply help remove all the remaining doubts and worries from the minds of the Israelis because the process will offer them the possibility to fully inspect the entire territory from where several attacks against Israelis emanated in the past.
VI. Why the Palestinian State should share common borders with Israel but not with Jordan
As I already said, a narrow, 100 m wide, strip shall be delineated alongside the old borderline between West Bank and Jordan; this strip shall belong administratively to Israel. As I stated above, to assuage all the worries and the security concerns of the Israelis, the state of Palestine must take the form of a complete enclave within Israel. The same concept must apply in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
VII. 1956, 2023, and a different contextualization of the Israeli-Palestinian problem
The concept of pacification between Israel and Palestine is inevitably linked to the rehabilitation, reconstruction, and salvation of the wider region between Eastern Mediterranean, India and Central Asia. This vast area comprises lands, which in the past belonged to major empires (like the Ottoman, the Safavid Iranian, and the Mughal states) and nomad kingdoms (like the Kazakh, Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand khanates).
The various types of colonial rule that were applied by the French and the English during the 19th and the early 20th centuries caused divisions, nefarious repercussions, conflicts and wars; quite contrarily, Russia/USSR -being a continental empire- was never a colonial power in Central Asia. That’s why Kazakhstan is not Syria and Uzbekistan is not Yemen.
If we momentarily forget the nightmarish past of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while looking back at the historical heritage of this wider region, we will instantaneously realize that many wars took place, great antagonisms developed, and sectarian rivalry was intentionally incited in numerous locations throughout this vast land. There are many spots where the evil colonial deeds can trigger endless wars and extraordinary destructions; in other words, the Israel-Palestine problem is only one of the numerous troubles deliberately caused by the colonial gangsters of France and England, and their successor, America.
Many among the numerous states, which exist nowadays in the said region, have been characterized by a certain form of direct or indirect involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey. Notably and up to a certain extent, the Armenia-Azerbaijan hostilities and enmity hinge also on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It is therefore essential for an effective mediator to envision not only the right means, the inventive approaches, the correct steps, the solid arguments, and the convincing motives that can bring permanent peace, coexistence and cooperation to Israelis and Palestinians, but also the way this propitious and auspicious development will affect positively other parts of the wider region. Slowly but steadily, other countries in the region, which currently do not officially recognize Israel should be called to enter into peace agreements with Israel, thus consolidating the final accord between Palestine and Israel.
For this purpose, after successfully mediating between Israelis and Palestinians, Kazakhstan -in cooperation with China, India and Russia- should spearhead further initiatives in view of first, several bilateral agreements of mutual recognition and pacification and second, a wider regional peace accord.
This perspective will consolidate the Israel-Palestine final accord; it is exactly the opposite of what was attempted by Donald Trump, namely the Abraham Accords or normalization treaties. The 7th October 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks were the logical consequence of those absurd and biased agreements, which are by now almost cancelled. It could not be otherwise; the Americans did not truly care to solve the Israel-Palestine problem, and this must sound as an alarming warning to the Israelis. The true target of the US diplomacy was merely a hypocritical initiative triggered by the ridiculous need to achieve spectacular but meaningless results, which would be duly used by the criminal mainstream mass media in order to fascinate ignorant and idiotic people across the Earth without truly changing anything.
Kazakhstan, China, India and Russia must make it clear to Israel that the only proper manner to proceed in order to convince several surrounding, currently unfriendly, countries to accept its existence and to consolidate and fortify its presence in the wider region is the exact opposite of all hitherto deployed attempts. Problems are like health issues; they are solved from inside out. The resolution of the Israel-Palestine problem is the inevitable priority no 1.
After all, it is clear to all that even if Saudi Arabia and Qatar recognized Israel and established diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, there would still be more than 25 UN member states, which would not do so. More importantly Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran would still remain staunch opponents constantly demanding the dismantlement of the state of Israel. All these countries would certainly reconsider following a final peace accord between Israel and Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel#Present_situation
At this moment, it would perhaps be necessary for Israeli decision makers to recall the humiliating experience that their country underwent in 1956; the older among them surely remember and the younger certainly studied in nauseating detail the Operation Kadesh and the Anglo-French-Israeli planned invasion of the Sinai Peninsula and the Suez Canal (between 29th October and 7th November 1956). This colonially brilliant project was highly successful from a military viewpoint, but it proved to be a disastrous failure for the three allied countries, as they were proven unable to resist the concerted diplomatic pressure exerted by the US and the USSR.
Israel realized then that it was on the wrong side of History, because when it refused to withdraw its army from Sharm el Sheikh, other parts of the Sinai Peninsula, and the Gaza Strip, President Eisenhower rebuffed all demands made by representatives of the Zionist lobby and spoke in public, stating that there was “no choice but to exert pressure upon Israel”. Although initially the Tel Aviv government rejected the UN demand to remove all the Israeli soldiers from the lands that they had conquered in alliance with France and England, finally Ben Gurion was forced to call Eisenhower (8th November 1956) and tell him that Israel would finally comply with the UN Resolution 997 (ES-I), which was a US proposal (General Assembly vote of 2nd November 1956: 64 in favor, 6 abstentions, and 5 against, namely Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, and Israel).
Due to that humiliation, Israel decided not to be anymore the close ally of Paris and London, and to start relying exclusively on the US as regards its security. As a matter of fact, 1956 was a turning point for Israel. From that year on, Israeli politics, defense and diplomacy were attached to and intertwined with the US administrations. Now, it is high time for the Israeli decision-makers to reconsider their alliance and bond with the Sick Man of the Western World, evaluate the multiple benefits ensuing from a Euro-Asiatic alliance with Kazakhstan, China, India, Russia and other major states, resolve the unnecessarily deteriorated Palestinian problem, enter into reciprocal and mutual recognition with major regional powers (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and other neighboring countries (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.), and finally become a full member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and a significant partner of the world’s major superpowers across the New Silk Road.
It is high time for Israel to choose:
– either to remain an ally of the West and experience further killings, terrorist attacks, wars and bloodshed
– or to abandon the West, become a partner of the East, and live in peace, cooperation and prosperity with all the other forces of the rising new, de-westernized, and multipolar world.
——————————–
Earlier articles about the Palestinian-Israeli problem (titles, subtitles, units and links):
Palestinians vs. Israelis: 11 Hidden Historical Truths about a Futile War
I. No Religion subsists without Moral, and no Nation exists due to Fake History II. 11 Points of Historical Clarification about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Point 1: the Israelis are not ethnically Hebrew Point 2: the Israelis are not religiously Hebrew Point 3: ‘Judaism’ is not identical to the Ancient Hebrew religion Point 4: Jews represented an apostate minority of the Hebrews Recapitulation Point 5: the last historical state of the Jews was named Judah / Judaea, not ‘Israel’ Point 6: there is no right to the Promised Land for the Jews Point 7: the entire Old Testament is a posterior fabrication full of distortions Point 8: among today’s so-called ‘Jews’ only 10-15% are truly Jews: the Sephardi Point 9: today’s so-called ‘Jews’ are not ethnically Jewish: the Ashkenazim Point 10: Reform Judaism is not Judaism Point 11: Modern Hebrew (Ivrit) is a fake, constructed, non-Semitic language
Israelis vs. Palestinians: 6 Concealed Historical Truths about the Lost Wars
I. The Spiritual and Moral Conditions of National Resistance II. 6 Points of Historical Clarification about the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict Point 1: Palestinians are not Arabs, but victims of Arabization and Pan-Arabism. Point 2: The Aramaean and Philistine Past of the Palestinians Point 3: The Sea Peoples and the Peleset-Pelasgian-Cretan Ancestry of the Palestinians Point 4: Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Zionists: Criminal Accomplices in the Formation of a Deracinated Nation that functions as Expendable Material Point 5: Lack of Self-criticism brings Disaster, Death and Damnation Point 6: the Interminable Failures of the Palestinians
Response to Ayelet Gilboa’s Letter about Hamas in Israel
Проблема Израиля – это Запад, а не ХАМАС!
Ответ на письмо Айелет Гильбоа о ХАМАС в Израиле
When I first read Ayelet Gilboa’s letter, I was shocked to the extent that I initially thought that it was eventually written by an Israeli woman with the same personal and family names as the well-known archaeologist whose publications about Tel Dor (Tell el Burj in Arabic) and several other topics pertaining to the Archaeology of Palestine draw only positive comments and praise. But no! It was the famous excavator and professor!
UN Palestine Partition Plan 1947
The brief text (1300-1400 words) is not only a personal outburst of emotions that anyone can understand and certainly expect from everyone who happened to be exposed to such an adversity and iniquity; beyond that level, which was perhaps the main motive behind this unusual text, the Letter involved historical, sociological, religious-theological, educational, political, and geopolitical notions, considerations and suggestions that are the main reason of my present reaction and response.
Содержание
Введение
I. Огромный образовательный разрыв между израильтянами и палестинцами
II. Не существует нации без надлежащего национального строительства и национальной истории.
III. Колониальная ловушка была приготовлена евреям перед возвращением (Алия)
IV. Помощь палестинцам стать полноценной нацией с национальной историей — лучшая линия защиты еврейского государства.
V. Либо еврейские востоковеды убьют колониальный «арабский» миф, освободив все окружающие народы, либо вы все будете уничтожены.
VI. Западная колониальная фабрикация «арабов», несуществующей нации
VII. Намереваясь вернуться евреями, вы прибыли жителями Запада.
Дальнейший поиск в Интернете
Contents
Introduction
I. The enormous educational divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians
II. There is no nation without proper nation-building and National History
III. The colonial trap was prepared for the Jews before the return (Aliyah)
IV. Helping Palestinians become a proper nation with a National History is the best line of defense for the Jewish state
V. Either Jewish Orientalists kill the colonial ‘Arab’ myth, liberating all the surrounding nations, or you will all be annihilated
VI. The Western colonial fabrication of ‘Arabs’, a nonexistent nation
VII. Intending to return as Jews, you arrived as Westerners
Further online search
Introduction
Of course, if Prof. Ayelet Gilboa were a mathematician, an economist or a chemist, I would not be surprised; but her field of specialization, her knowledge of History, and her comprehension of field findings are -all- related to fights, battles, sudden attacks, and deaths. I still remember the noticeable sentence from the famous Anitta Text (the Deeds of Anitta of Kuššara), the earliest text written in an Indo-European language (i.e. Hittite): “one rainy night, Anitta conquered the city” (said about Neša or Kanesh, namely Caesarea of Cappadocia, today’s Kayseri). This is what History has always been: unexpected and unforeseen developments, involving killings and assassinations, destructions and detrimental loss.
A historian and an archaeologist are by definition the people who have to anticipate anything anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever; otherwise their life quests, interests, explorations and studies are worthless. Beyond this level, several key issues matter greatly and absolutely determine the chances of nations to survive or disintegrate: identity, integrity, cultural heritage, state conceptualization, foe identification, threat contextualization, etc.
Undeniably, there are many other also serious dimensions in this problem, like the perception of the other, the treatment of the other, and the attitude toward the other; if the ‘other’ is your enemy, you can certainly study the case in depth and eventually terminate this mutually disastrous attitude. But if a state’s attitude incessantly generates enemies, that state, however formidable at the military level, will never become viable. It is like killing Hamas military leaders; in real, historical terms, it is not a victory but a failure. Why? Because, quite unfortunately, the Israeli army turns them to Russian Matryoshka dolls! They kill one fighter, but another fighter prompts up! It is futile.
Last, but not the least, all historians and all archaeologists know that there is no ‘problem’ that lasts for 75 years; it is imperative to understand this. There are wars that lasted hundreds of years (Assyrians against Babylonians, Seleucids against Ptolemies, Romans against Iranians, etc.), but the wars were not ‘problems’. Wars are the most common normalcy of human life. It is up to a society and up to a state to decide whether they will live in war or in peace; but there is no peace with a problem that lasts 75 years. This is either a lie or a misperception; in this case, the state is clearly manipulated, managed and maneuvered without its choosing. Then, all the lies and the forgeries, the misperceptions and the fallacies must be unveiled and dealt with, if we want to make it sure that the state is not a product with expiry date.
Papyrus with the text of Wenamun
Following the 7th October terrorist attacks, all the constituent myths of Israel as a Jewish state must be questioned in depth; I use the term ‘constituent’, because I don’t want to be confused with the famous book of Zeev Sternhell. That is why I decided to publicly respond to Prof. Ayelet Gilboa’s Letter.
-Open Letter Response to Prof. Ayelet Gilboa’s ‘Hamas in Israel’-
Dear Prof. Gilboa,
It is with great consternation that I read your Letter; this is so because I had already gone through some of your excellent papers and publications about Tel Dor, notably about ‘Dor and Egypt in the early Iron Age: An archaeological perspective of (part of) the Wenamun report’.
As I have published a book with extensive introduction, comments and the only Modern Greek translation of Wenamun (1992), I found your research very useful and quite enlightening; although I studied Egyptology in France, England, Belgium and Germany, the adventures of Wenamun is a narrative that always reminds me of Jerusalem and Mount Scopus University where I studied precisely this story with Prof. Sarah Israelit Groll back in 1984. She made a wonderful analysis of the famous 11th c. BCE account of travel, and I included many of my notes in my book, which I also dedicated to her. In addition, I had very fruitful conversations with Prof. Hayim Tadmor at the time.
The Greek edition of Wenamun, edited and commented by me; Athens, 1992
My sojourn in Israel at a time no Intifada had started was an enriching period during which I did not only visit archaeological sites and museums but I also observed and studied social, cultural, economic and political trends and situation. I later pursued my researches in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, but my conclusion about the ensued consequences of the UN Palestine Partition Plan (1947) and the then only 37-year long Palestinian Problem was very somber and dark. It was clear to my eyes that disastrous events would follow and the whole situation would erupt very badly.
Sarah Israelit Groll
I. The enormous educational divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians
It is perhaps necessary to brief you about my observations back at those days, because the same situation persisted in the period of 39 years that have passed since those days. I will start from education because I was astounded with what I observed and you already mention in your Letter three words related to ‘education’. Although Orientalist, Egyptological, Assyriological, etc. seminars and courses in European universities customarily had an international attendance and in spite of the fact that a large part of the local population was Palestinian, all the participants of the seminars of Sarah Israelit Groll were Israeli students; same for the courses of Hayim Tadmor! Not one Palestinian!
I am sure that as an Israeli academic, you understand what I am talking about. The bizarre situation would end in disaster. In Egypt, there are Egyptian Egyptologists, in Iraq there are Iraqi Assyriologists, but Palestinians do not have specialists in the different branches of Orientalism. In fact, there is no National History of Palestine at the level of the Palestinian universities and, even more catastrophically, for the primary and secondary schools. If this is truly disastrous for the Palestinians, it is absolutely calamitous for Israelis. Deracinated people are expendable stuff for all evasive connivers, and by this I don’t mean the state of Israel but the real enemies of both nations. I did not develop a comprehensive understanding of the subject when in Israel; I only collected pieces of data.
However, ten years later (1994), while teaching in Turkish and Northern Cypriot universities, I realized the depth and the extent of the problem; my Palestinian students were very happy with me speaking about their land, the locations and the monuments, but they were absolutely stupefied when I started speaking about the Peleset and their origin, the Sea Peoples and their invasions, let alone the inscriptions on the walls of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. Among my students, there were Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt; none of them knew about the Ark of the Covenant having been captured by the Philistines, none of them had heard anything about the Aramaean Synagogue of Dura Europos (and the frescoes transported in the National Museum of Damascus), the Samaritans, and Palestinian Aramaic.
Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, Luxor West
Ramesses III fights the Sea Peoples
The First Intifada had ended and the Oslo Accords were signed (Oslo I Accord), but I kept having a doomster’s idea about the future of that land, not because many among my Palestinian students did not trust the agreement, but on account of their ignorance of their own historical past and heritage, and of that of their presumed enemies, i.e. the Israelis. When I spoke to them about Flavius Josephus and his story concerning the encounter of Alexander the Great with the priest Jaddua in Jerusalem, my Palestinian students immediately asked me whether the Macedonian invader of Iran met with any Palestinian magistrate.
I believe that you can guess that my response astounded them even more; I referred to Eusebius of Caesarea and to his friendship with Constantine the Great. When they heard that the greatest historian of Early Christianity was a Palestinian, they were shocked and proud at the same time. Useless to add that their knowledge about the History of the Islamic World was next to nothing; they knew Ibn Hajar al Asqalani only as a name. The same is valid for Al Biruni, Tabari, Al Farabi, and many others.
Al Biruni, ‘Chronology of the Ancient Nations’
This is the beginning of the problem; as long as this situation persists, all the fights, all the security measures, all the reprisals, and -unfortunately- all the agreements will be futile or superfluous. Have a look at Birzeit University portal! There is Palestinian Archaeology, but the History of Palestinians starts with the arrival of Islam – which is a colonial lie. As you certainly know quite well, the fundamental texts with which their History starts are the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions of Ramesses III and the cuneiform Assyrian Babylonian texts of the 1st millennium BCE (mainly the Annals of the Neo-Assyrian Emperors).
II. There is no nation without proper nation-building and National History
For the Palestinians to reach the average nation level with their National History, it would therefore take an entire nation-building effort involving several Palestinian specialists, historians and writers, who would first write down a National History of Palestine. This was done in Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey, in Iran, and in several other countries, notably Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. As I have lived in many countries in Asia and Africa, I can eventually postulate a plausible response to the above statement; the serious problem that the Palestinians currently face occurs also in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, etc. That’s true; in their primary and secondary education, there is no proper, coherent, and effective presentation of their respective past and heritage.
What is even worse with all those bogus-systems of education of the aforementioned fake states is that, in the historical manuals for the primary and secondary education, there is not even proportional presentation of all the historical stages of their past and heritage; it is absolutely ludicrous that in the schools of Egypt, pupils learn about Akhenaten, Tutankhamun, Ramesses II, and Ramesses III, only to be forced to move thence straight to the Islamic times.
Today’s disastrously ignorant and perversely educated Egyptians know
– nothing about the rivalry of the 25th Cushitic (: Sudanese, called ‘Ethiopian’) dynasty with the Berbers (called ‘Libyans’) of the 26th dynasty,
– nothing about the Achaemenid Iranian invasion and rule of Egypt (let alone the famous Darius I the Great’s inscription and the re-opening of the Suez Canal),
– nothing about the Ptolemies and the Romans,
– nothing about the diffusion of Isiac cults and spirituality throughout Greece, Rome, the Roman Empire, and the rest of Europe,
– nothing about the Periplus of the Red (‘Erythraean’) Sea,
– nothing about Philo of Alexandria, Onias IV and his temple, the clashes between the Jews and the Greeks of Alexandria, the Gnostics and the Nag Hammadi texts, Hermes Trismegistus, and the Manichaeans of Alexandria, who constituted for Diocletian a danger greater than the Christians, and many other glorious pages of the Egyptian past.
I could expand more, but I am sure that you understand quite well what I mean. But then, you don’t just have a ‘Palestinian’ problem but also an ‘Egyptian’ problem, and similarly many other problems that you as a society, as well as your present and all the previous governments, failed to even identify, let alone deal with. You did not understand that not one properly and nationally educated citizen would possibly become a terrorist. All these sick and rotten postcolonial societies are made of fake people without national identity, without any sense of their role in the History of Mankind, and without any elementary knowledge about the true History of Islam.
They therefore automatically become expendable stuff in the hands of various local and international crooks, gangsters, and pseudo-Muslim sheikhs who totally misrepresent the Islamic religion, tradition, integrity and history. Then, this is a purely colonial affair in which you and they are taken as hostages of the criminal Western European powers (France and England), and of their successor (after 1956), namely the US.
The Stela of Shaluf, issued by Darius I on the occasion of the re-opening of the Suez Canal – totally unknown to the average Egyptians
III. The colonial trap was prepared for the Jews before the return (Aliyah)
The abysmal truth is that the Western Europeans and the Americans, who always smile to you in order to exterminate you, did not send you back to your ancestral land but to the world’s worst trap that they had prepared accordingly ever since Napoleon set foot in Abuqir, west of Alexandria, back in July 1798. They deliberately produced this educational, academic, intellectual, academic, scientific, socio-behavioral and cultural backwardism and obscurantism throughout the lands that they colonized in the wider region in order to duly utilize the local populations at will.
When the Zionist movement came up with the idea of the ‘return’, it was already too late. You certainly went through the excellent book by Donald Malcolm Reid “Whose Pharaohs?” (University of California Press, 2002); this is a must for every Orientalist, Africanist and political scientist. Amongst others, the book reveals to the non-specialist reader something that is very well known to all Egyptologists: only 100 years after the decipherment of the Egyptian Hieroglyphic writing by Jean-François Champollion was an Egyptian Egyptologist properly formed at last.
This colonial attitude, behavior and environment corresponded to the interests of the French, the English and the Americans, but as you know quite well, they did not live in Algeria, Egypt or Syria; they effectuated brief or long sojourns there. If suddenly things turned worse, they could go back home. Even the Pied-Noirs left in 1962 in a rather anodyne form. But for you this situation can become lethal. You therefore truly need to open your eyes now!
You are not surrounded by Muslims; your ancestors were in the Ottoman Empire, in Mamluk Egypt, in Umayyad Cordoba, and in Abbasid Baghdad. And they lived in peace with the Muslims at the time. Maimonides left Cordoba and lived in Morocco, Palestine and Egypt, but he did not go to France or England. Quite unfortunately, you do not live at the time of Moshe ben Maimon, and your neighbors are not true Muslims but misfortunate people who, after a long period of cultural-intellectual-spiritual decadence and social decay, were defaced because of the colonial rule, impaired by the Orientalists, and fooled by uneducated political stooges, idiotic military officers, and ignorant pseudo-imams. Your neighbors constitute merely a well-produced expendable stuff. You can call them robots, cyborgs or humanoids, if you like, because they are fully programmed to react according to the needs of their colonial masters. They are totally deprived of proper education, nation-building, national dignity, historical identity, and cultural integrity.
So, can’t you see how futile it is to attempt to kill all the fighters and the leaders of Hamas? You will kill 100000 (a hundred thousand) people only to realize that the next Hamas shift will start – eventually under another name, but does this really matter? Will the next shift be made by Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Algerians, Iraqis or Pakistanis? Would you really care about this? There will always be some expendable stuff to be used by your true enemies, who really enjoy the spectacle from far. Your enemies do not dwell in Ariha (Jericho), Khalil (Hebron), Jenin or Nablus; they live in London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Dublin, Rome, Canberra, Ottawa, and Washington D.C.
IV. Helping Palestinians become a proper nation with a National History is the best line of defense for the Jewish state
So, it was your fault to move to a place that you had not properly studied and to live in your country, having an absolute disregard of the ‘others’; you should have cared about what had been done to the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the rest. And it was the fault of your ancestors, who did not notice that the name ‘Lebanon’ is a bad joke, that the country north of your borders is Phoenicia, and that its historical name should by all means be its true national name. In fact, Syriac-Aramaic is the only true national language of Lebanon, and as long as it is not proclaimed as such, the fake state of Lebanon will be a special factory that produces expendable stuff.
You were not the victims of the colonial powers until 1948; but by relocating and living among the highly victimized people of Palestine, by having as neighbors the disastrously deluded people of Lebanon (Phoenicia), Syria-Mesopotamia (Aram-Nahrain), Egypt (Kemet or Masr), and Libya-Tunisia-Algeria-Morocco (Berberia), and by failing to rescue them from their colonial engulfment first for your own sake, you became victims of the colonial powers too.
You may say that the Palestinians back in the 1890s and the 1920s did not show an interest for their pre-Islamic past and heritage; but this is a non-response! Similarly, the Egyptians back in the 1750s and the 1810s did not have an inclination to explore their pre-Islamic heritage, history and identity. It should therefore be your own true concern to explain to the Palestinians that no nation exists without historical identity and cultural integrity. And I don’t speak for the 1950s or the 1990s but the 1920s and the 1930s, because I know that you are fully aware of the progress that the Orientalist studies and disciplines made at those days.
Over more than a century, you had the chance to contemplate and examine how you would live in peace, concord and cooperation with your neighbors in Palestine and all the surrounding lands, but you failed to find the path; quite contrarily, you truly disregarded them all in exactly the same colonial manner that the gangsters of England, France and America have dealt with the indigenous populations that they colonized.
The very disastrous result was that you wanted to return to the ‘Promised Land’ as Jews, but you arrived as non-Jewish Westerners. The entire problem exploded when in 1969 the then Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in an interview with Frank Giles (The Sunday Times) made the paranoid statement that “there was no such thing as Palestinians”. In real terms, the absurd sentence was more lethal than Hamas attack because it forced you to disregard all the Palestinians, to act in your ancestral land as colonial aliens, and to push the undeniably ancient nation of Palestinians to the most extreme forms of resistance, reaction and retaliation.
The problem had already existed for more than two decades before Golda Meir’s disastrous maxim; its earlier form encompassed also the nonsensical appellation ‘Israeli Arabs’ for the Palestinians who stayed within the territory of Israel after the 1948 war, thus becoming Israeli citizens. In fact, there are no Arabs at all! This was the colonial invention that plunged the entire region between the Atlantic and Pakistan in chaos, ignorance, obscurantism and hatred.
Peleset/Palestinians and other Sea Peoples as depicted on the walls of Medinet Habu mortuary temple of Ramesses III, more than 3150 years before Golda Meir’s absurd words
V. Either Jewish Orientalists kill the colonial ‘Arab’ myth, liberating all the surrounding nations, or you will all be annihilated
Actually, there were no Turks, no Iranians, no Uzbeks, no Kazakhs, no Somalis, no Yemenites and no Indians prior to the colonial arrival in all those vast lands. The concept of ‘nation’ in the Eastern Roman Empire, in the Islamic Caliphates, and in the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Empires was very different, and the connotation of this word involved totally different worldview and world conceptualization. As you know quite well, this fact goes back in time and it does indeed concern the Achaemenid Empire of Iran and even earlier universal(-ist) states.
However, if the modern concept of nation had to be diffused from the African Atlas to Oman and from North Mesopotamia to Hadhramaut, the national identity at the local level would have to be based on the historical knowledge, the archaeological record, the philological documentation, and the interdisciplinary interpretation of the data. The cultural integrity of a nation does not encapsulate any ideological indoctrination or a theological approach but popular religion, folklore and traditions that may eventually antedate the arrival of the latest prevailing religion.
Not a drop of Arab blood can be found in the veins of all the various nations of the wider region; similarly not a vestige of Arab culture can be attested among them.
The Libyans, the Tunisians, the Algerians, the Moroccans and the Mauritanians are all ethnically Berbers.
The Egyptians are ethnically Copts — except for few Berbers in the NW, the Nubians in the South, and the Beja in the SE.
The Sudanese belong to many nations, either Cushitic (like the Beja, the Furi, and the Arabic-speaking people of the central provinces) or Nilo-Saharan {like the Nubians, the Nuba, and the Berta, who also live in the Benishangul province of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia)}.
The Yemenites and the Omanis are the descendants of the Ancient Yemenites and Ancient Omanis, who were ethnically Semitic but not Arab. Ancient Yemenite inscriptions have been deciphered thanks to the Ancient Abyssinian writing and language (Ge’ez), which is entirely Yemenite of origin (and this shows that the Amhara and the Tigray are not Africans, but Yemenites who crossed the Red Sea and settled initially around Massawa). As you know, during the last 100 years before Islam, there were several bilingual inscriptions Sabaean and Arabic, Himyaritic and Arabic, and this shows that the idea that the Yemenites are Arabs is entirely wrong. Simply, they were linguistically Arabized because they accepted Islam; but this fact did not turn them to Arabs, pretty much like the African Americans are not Anglo-Saxons.
Last, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Lebanese, the Jordanians, the Palestinians, the Arabic-speaking populations of SE Turkey and SW Iran, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris, and the Emiratis are Aramaeans (Semitic like the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Assyrians and the Babylonians, the Canaanites, and the Yemenites, but not Arab).
In this wide region, the Aramaeans were linguistically Arabized because they accepted Islam; but this fact did not turn them to Arabs.
VI. The Western colonial fabrication of ‘Arabs’, a nonexistent nation
In fact, «Arab Nation» has only been a fake Western colonial Orientalist construction to which the Western scholars attributed any repugnant trait they wanted in order to make it as disgusting as possible. It was an ahistorical, illusory description and an intentional, fallacious fabrication; its use was double.
First, the concept was gradually projected onto all the colonized populations of Algeria, Egypt, Aden, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, Libya, etc. ‘Arabization’ campaigns were undertaken for this purpose; but as you surely understand very well, you can ‘Arabize’ only the non-Arab.
Second, colonial lies in extraordinary multitude started being propagated at home (in Western Europe and North America) as early as the beginning of the 19th c. about the Berbers, who were falsely depicted as «Arab», i.e. the fallacious construction that I have just mentioned. Europeans and Americans started then having a very wrong idea about the Berbers.
Locally, in their colonies, the French authorities did the exactly opposite work: through their stooges, they forced the Berbers to stop being culturally Berber and to become something similar to the caricature of Arab that the colonial Orientalists had constructed. For this spiritual genocide to be done the criminal French colonials killed as many Berbers as they needed; they prohibited pre-Islamic Berber popular traditions and sacred festivals in order to tyrannically turn the existent Berbers into something nonexistent: «Arabs»; they did their best to uproot Berber language and to extinguish Berber identity.
This is the trickery that all the silly political leaders, cruel military officers, fake academics, servile journalists, and ignorant pseudo-sheikhs from Morocco to Oman and from Syria to Yemen failed to detect, let alone understand; but before 250 years, not one man among their ancestors would identify himself as ‘Arab’. Yet, the elites of the colonized nations fell into the trap that the Western colonials prepared for them, thus causing enduring disastrous conditions for their respective peoples.
– What is an «Arab»?
– The lawless villain, the filthiest rascal, the most execrable felon!
This is the Western response.
But this concept is unreal; it does not exist.
It is the delusional fabrication of the Orientalists.
Have a look at Delacroix’s Sardanapalus, and you will grasp the extent of the extreme fallacy!
In fact, after Prophet Muhammad, historical Arabs ceased to exist; by accepting Islam, they were culturally Aramaized and totally de-Arabized. All the same, 18th-19th c. European colonials fabricated them and, by tyrannically projecting them onto Berbers, Copts, Aramaeans, Cushites and Yemenites, they carried out multiple spiritual genocides. This claim is not extraordinary because, in the process, the criminal Western colonials exterminated the Berber, the Coptic, the Cushitic Sudanese, the Yemenite, the Aramaean cultural integrity, tradition and superiority which so much disturbed the Europeans and their evildoing.
Tadmor-Palmyra, a high place of Aramaean heritage
Ethnically viewed
Ethnically speaking, historical Arabs do not exist either. They progressively vanished after they spread outside the Arabian Peninsula because they settled in different lands and there they intermingled with Aramaeans, Iranians, Turanians, Indians, Yemenites, Copts, Sudanese Cushites, Somali Cushites, Berbers and even Iberians (Spain and Portugal). From another viewpoint, the Arabs became ethnically extinct because many Muslims from various parts of the Islamic World used to relocate and settle in the Hejaz in numerous waves, thus extensively amalgamating with the local Arabs who remained in their ancestral land. This process took place uninterruptedly for no less than 1400 years.
Linguistically viewed
Linguistically, Arabic is a dead language — just like Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Ancient Phoenician, and Biblical Hebrew. This is easy to understand because the so-called ‘Arab-natives’ (a totally fallacious term) cannot fluently read the texts written by a major author of the Golden Era of Islam, namely Al Farabi, Al Biruni, Ibn Sina, etc.
Classical Arabic was developed as language on the basis of Quranic Arabic and incorporated numerous Aramaic, Farsi, Coptic and other words during the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization. But none of these languages is the mother tongue of any person today. The mixed dialects that prevail from place to place cannot become the proper national language of a sound nation. The so-called Modern Standard Arabic ( الفصحى) is an alien Orientalist construction and standardization, which apparently failed to support proper education in any country it was used.
Quite contrarily, Berber, Coptic, Afaan Oromo, Mahri Yemenite, and Syriac Aramaic have the historicity and the cultural interconnectivity with the historical heritage of the respective nations and can therefore become the true national languages of those targeted and deliberately divided nations. But then, this great perspective would calamitously damage the interests of France and England; this would be inevitably so, because -to offer an example- the entire North Africa from Siwa to Nouakchott would automatically become an enormous Hamitic Berber confederate secular state the size of Brazil (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Chad, Niger and Mali) with all the chances to become a major power worldwide.
Modern Standard Arabic, imposed by the colonial powers, was then the lethally divisive factor, which triggered educational-academic obscurantism, socio-economic misery, unnecessary political divisions, endless fratricidal conflicts, incredible bloodshed, unprecedented oppression (from the part of the Pan-Arabist idiots) and strong chances for an Islamist drift (and this is what we observed at last).
Culturally viewed
Last, culturally, the Arabs disappeared when they accepted Islam (610-632 CE) in the form in which it was preached by Prophet Muhammad, because in real historical terms, the process of Islamization of the Arabs (acceptance of the ‘new’ faith by them) is tantamount to cultural Aramaization. They abandoned the old Arab idolatrous, nomadic and barbaric culture, and they accepted Aramaean culture with a religion that was slightly different from Aramaean Nestorian Christianity. For this reason, the early caliphates were consolidated in Syria and Mesopotamia, whereas Hejaz remained a marginal zone throughout the Islamic times.
And that’s why the History of Early Islam has been so much distorted in Western universities where they teach a false, extremist (and quite often Arabized) version of History only to show that the execrable traits of this fictitious «Arab» concept involve razzias (raids), thefts, rapes, conquests, killings, massacres, atrocities, unrestrained rage, uncouth behavior, womanizing, homosexuality, pedophilia, and all the other hideous acts that you can imagine. In fact, properly fabricated in the darkness of the Orientalist ateliers, 19th c. Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are communicating vessels.
As long as Berber, Coptic, and Syriac Aramaic do not become respectively the official national languages in all these states, with Mahri in Yemen, Dhofari in Oman, Beja in Eastern Sudan, Furi in Western Sudan, and Afaan Oromo in Central Sudan, all the useless and fake postcolonial states will be simple playthings pitilessly thrown against one another or multi-divided and ruined. Without having formerly been anti-Jewish, these colonized populations have intentionally and craftily been turned into the enemies of the Jews or of anyone whom the colonial powers intend to involve as per their evildoing and schemes.
Call to Prophethood; miniature from a folio manuscript of Hafiz-i Abru’s Majma’ al-Tavarikh (Compendium of Histories); 15th c.
Because you failed to identify the colonial deeds carried out locally and regionally, you arrived in the trap which was set there and you did not understand that Aliyah would automatically backfire on you, if you did not deploy an enormous academic, educational, intellectual, scientific and cultural effort to liberate all those different nations from the already implanted colonial myths that victimized them. Then, the ignorant sheikhs, who have no idea about the true, historical Islam, and the knowledgeable Israeli academics, who know much but fail to identify the vicious colonial plots of England, France and Vatican, are equivalently and unequivocally driven to mutual calamity, terminal destruction, and undeserved ruination. Can’t you see that?
All the diverse nations that surround you failed to find in you the true ally against the evil colonial powers that had already ruined them; and you failed to find in them your sole valuable partner and protector against the Western forces that mercilessly killed you in Europe and now want to exterminate you in Asia. The reciprocal error threatens you all; the indigenous nations were in a long decadence process, but you had a very crucial problem of identity: the right to the Promised Land, which has -as you know quite well- questionable historical credentials, is not relevant to Law, International Law, Politics, International Relations or Human Rights but exclusively to Religion, namely the Ancient Hebrew Religion and its surviving branch, i.e. Judaism.
VII. Intending to return as Jews, you arrived as Westerners
I don’t intend to reproduce here the vast literature that many modern rabbis like the deferential Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro have created, rejecting and condemning Zionism as an alien system that ‘hijacked’ Judaism (see below); but I am sure that you are well aware of their approaches, analyses and criticisms. There is however an undeniable fact; you, in your Letter, described yourself as “a sworn leftist activist”. The statement is the epicenter of your personal problem, and at the same time, it highlights aspects of the overall problem.
Dear Prof. Gilboa,
I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a ‘leftist Jew’; modern concepts are alien to all religions; the very paradoxical and totally unnatural marriage of Anglo-Saxon ‘politics’ and French ‘Lumières’ with local cultures and regional religions has caused diverse types of wars and conflicts which are entirely due to the monstrous essence of the Western system of governance that we call politics; the maladroit and rogue system is totally unsuitable to all, because it disregards, erodes and eradicates all local traditions, cultures, and popular religions.
Various types of systems of governance existed throughout Human History; in every land, governance reflected local traditions, world conceptualization, and moral values. The systems were different from but not opposite to one another; that’s why it was easy for Benjamin of Tudela, who was familiar with the tawa’if (taifas) of the Iberian Peninsula, to accept all the locally diverse types of rule and spend time peacefully in the lands that he visited in the second half of the 12th c. But in the colonized and therefore traumatized region where you intended to return in the first half of the 20th c., a terrible shock had occurred due to the overwhelmingly rejected, colonially/tyrannically enforced, Western intervention and brutal regime change that the disreputable Sykes-Picot trash had triggered.
There cannot be ‘Socialist Christian’, ‘Liberal Muslim’, ‘Leftist Jew’, ‘Extreme Right Hindu’ or ‘Conservative Buddhist’; Renaissance, Classicism, Enlightenment and the Western European – North American political system of governance prevailed in those lands as a local reaction against, and rejection of, the earlier normal, natural and historical systems of governance.
What is abnormal in its own place cannot possibly become the norm in another location!
But unfortunately many Jews, returning to the ‘Promised Land’ in the early 20th c., arrived there not as true Jews, but as real Westerners.
How can you not see the enormous difference that separates you from the Sephardic Jews who were invited to the Ottoman Empire in 1492 by Bayezid II?
They arrived as Jews, but you arrived as Westerners.
What do you think the fate of the expelled (from Spain) Jews would have been in 1492, had they arrived in the Ottoman Empire under the mask of a Crusader?
Göke was the flagship of Kemal Reis; before constructing the large ship (1495), he was dispatched (1492) from Istanbul to Spain in order to transport Andalusian Jews to Izmir (Smyrna) and Selanik (Salonica).
Certainly, pretty much like nowadays, the Jews who arrived in the Ottoman Empire in the first half of the 20th c. belonged to different branches of Judaism, movements and systems of faith; but the undeniable fact that many of them were Westernized fully jeopardized your chances of peacefully settling and living with the indigenous populations.
It was only normal for them to consider and perceive you negatively as an extension of Western colonialism or as a second stage of colonial enmity and hatred against both, the Christians and the Muslims of Palestine.
And you, by arriving as Westerners, only aggravated this feeling, whereas if you returned as real Jews, you would be accepted and befriended. As you certainly understand, it is not a matter of Holocaust, because I speak for the period prior to the early 1930s.
By being the least Jewish possible, you turned your potential friends and allies into enemies.
And by being the most Western possible, you served the most anti-Jewish plans in World History; those prepared by your worst enemies.
To further reference the historical past and heritage, I will formulate two questions that highlight the terrible mistakes of the 19th–20th c. Zionist movement, its wrong practices, false visions, and calamitous practices, fully presenting them as entirely detrimental to all the Jews. I do not mean that you should not ‘return’ or that you should move to another land – which was part of deliberations as you know quite well. Quite contrarily, I want to underscore the fact that, as it happens on many other occasions, what is important is not what you do, but how you do it.
How did you not realize (as early as 1882) that, for your Aliyah plan to be easily materialized, you needed the Ottoman Empire to remain intact within its borders so that, as a sizeable realm, it had no difficulty accommodating large newcoming populations?
Alternatively, and in the light of the emergence of Modern Turkey under Kemal Ataturk (1919-1923), how did you not realize that your Aliyah plan would be implemented with fewer obstacles only in the case of formation of a major secular confederate state named Aram Nahrain that would stretch throughout the wider region, involving the territories of today’s Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, the northern parts of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates?
Such a sizeable, anti-colonial state would ipso facto be a multiethnic, multilingual and multicultural realm in which Syriac Aramaic would be the national language, Quranic Arabic would be the religious language of the Muslims, and the numerous indigenous ethno-religious groups would peacefully live, cooperate and prosper. Only this type of state would offer reciprocal knowledge, equitable chances, and emancipatory conditions of life to all the citizens. Although many Israeli academics and statesmen were worthwhile scholars and renowned intellectuals, there was none among them to think truly out-of-the-box and identify viable solutions for the problems that you faced.
Even now, the forces are there for you to reach out to and work with; but you must first remove the repugnant colonial mask which de-Judaized and westernized you, perceive the History of Judaism in its true, Oriental, dimensions, and finally prefer Nehardea to Rome, Iran to England, Russia to France, and China to America. As soon as you think, speak and act as a Westerner, you are overwhelmingly rejected, loathed and reviled – perhaps undeservedly, but so it is! You have to open your eyes and see!
Either you will die with your Western executioners who think they can survive by using you as expendable stuff or you will survive with your Oriental brethren who think that you want to survive at their expense!
For קֹהֶלֶת (Qohelet, Εκκλησιαστής, Ecclesiastes; 7:23-24) to be proven right, you need to prove them both wrong!
Cuncta tentavi in sapientia. Dixi: Sapiens efficiar: et ipsa longius recessit a me multo magis quam erat, et alta profunditas; Quis inveniet eam?
All this I tested by wisdom and I said, “I am determined to be wise”— but this was beyond me. Whatever exists is far off and most profound— who can discover it?
Best regards,
Shamsaddin
——————————————
Further online search
General, introductory reading for non-specialist readership (references to Wikipedia links do not mean acceptance of the contents):
Может ли президент Казахстана Касым-Жомарт Токаев принести мир Палестине и Израилю?
The successive stages of the preparation of a Palestinian-Israeli peaceful co-habitation plan
Последовательные этапы подготовки палестино-израильского плана мирного сосуществования
Содержание
Введение
I. Палестина-Израиль: 10 пунктов общей оценки фактов прошлого и настоящего
II. Палестина-Израиль: 10 пунктов общего восприятия скрытых опасностей
III. Палестина-Израиль: 10 пунктов базового соглашения по сектору Газа
IV. Палестина-Израиль: 10 пунктов базового соглашения по Западному Берегу
V. Десять сильных сторон, которые дают Казахстану возможность добиться единственно эффективного мирного разрешения палестино-израильского конфликта
VI. Десять столпов подхода Казахстана к разрешению палестино-израильского конфликта
VII. Десять этапов плана Казахстана по прекращению палестино-израильского конфликта – резюме и диаграмма
Основные ссылки / ориентиры, по которым в конечном итоге можно будет проконсультироваться:
Contents
Introduction
I. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of common evaluation of past and present facts
II. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of shared perception of the lurking dangers
III. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of a basic agreement on Gaza Strip
IV. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of a basic agreement on West Bank
V. Ten strengths that empower Kazakhstan to bring about the only effective peaceful resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict
VI. Ten pillars of Kazakhstan’s approach to the resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict
VII. Ten stages of Kazakhstan’s plan to terminate the Palestine-Israel conflict – recapitulation and diagram
Basic links/points of reference to eventually consult:
Introduction
The historical depth of the Palestine-Israel conflict is abysmal; it is lost in millennia and in human acts and stories that can be misinterpreted, concealed or forgotten. However, the practical impact of this conflict is already abhorrent, and chances are that it becomes fatal for all.
Observing the astonishment of people across the Earth and monitoring the reaction of governments to the recent developments, one can easily conclude that the force of vision and the drive of life have abandoned the humans. There is a phenomenal dearth of creative imagination and an enormous lack of drastic decision to put an end to an endlessly deteriorating trouble.
Although nothing guarantees the victory of one side over the other, the passive observers and the naïve narrators of the new, exasperating stage that the conflict took seem to be impotent witnesses and therefore unwilling accomplices in a human calamity that can turn far worse for all.
Brainlessly, pathetically, and deplorably, different governments, organizations, groups of countries, mass media, and -worst of all- independent scholars, specialists, and intellectuals find the occasion propitious to reiterate their preferences, choices, desires and ideas, which are -all- the invariable reasons of the trouble, and of its deterioration. People fail to understand that, before they speak about the problem, they have created it, due to their own inaccurate thoughts, misperceptions, biases, prejudices, errors, oversights, omissions and calamitous acts.
Before taking position and prior to siding with one or the other part of the conflict (which is the case of most people and governments), all the participants of the trouble and all the external commentators and intricate analysts fail to realize that they are part of the problem, they contributed to it and to its misperception, and they failed to take the necessary distance to see things from far in order to thus better assess the reality and identify innovative approaches and inventive solutions, which could reduce the incommensurable collateral damages that constitute the Palestine-Israel conflict’s worst aspect.
Is it possible for Kazakhstan, a historical nation that always managed to maintain the balance of power between the Dzungar Mongolians, the Chinese, the Russians and the Uzbeks, and for President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, a career diplomat and a consummate statesman, to help resolve the Palestinian-Israeli problem now that it takes a most menacing appearance?
Many people do not know that in the past President Tokayev served as Under Secretary-General, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and Personal Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Conference on Disarmament (2011-2018). Apparently, this is an indication that he may be successful in areas where others failed or were simply discredited.
Is it possible to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The answer to this question hinges on the balance one can establish between perception, knowledge and understanding of the problem from one side and realistic evaluation of the potential formula to resolve the problem once for all from the other side. Irrespective of the burden of the past, regardless of the vested interests to pull strings, and in spite of calamitous choices or unrealistic dreams that the main actors of the conflict may still harbor in their befuddled heads, there is always a way to make sense, a ground to meet reciprocal needs, a point to agree on, and an inherent ability to comprehend the vicinity of the disaster.
In order to find a reciprocally beneficial exit from the Palestine-Israel quagmire, one should first help the main factors of the problem (i.e. the two sides of the conflict) shape a common evaluation of the past and present facts, a shared perception of the lurking dangers, and a basic agreement on steps to make mutually.
I. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of common evaluation of past and present facts
Referring to ‘past and present facts’, I mean the period of the last 30 years that passed after the signature of the Oslo Accords (13 September 1993); it is essential to note that the recent terrorist attack undertaken by Hamas did indeed take place less than a month after the 30th anniversary of the Oslo I Accord. Major facts about which Israelis and Palestinians should form a common evaluation are the following:
1- the non-implementation of the Oslo Accords, the weakening of the authority of the Palestinian Authority, and the harsh treatment of ordinary Palestinians were entirely counter-productive and disastrous for both, Palestine and Israel;
2- the deliberate discrediting of the Palestinian Authority was a disastrous choice;
3- the support and/or promotion of Hamas was a calamitous decision;
4- the imprisonment of militants and politicians (like Marwan Barghouti), who would prevent Hamas from gaining support among Palestinians, was catastrophic;
MarwanBarghouti, a popular Palestinian leader, gestures as Israeli police bring him into the District Court for his judgment hearing in Tel Aviv May 20, 2004
5- the conviction of the Israeli governments and the Israeli people that the policies implemented and the attitudes expressed with respect to the Palestinians were correct proved to be entirely wrong;
6- every step toward a solution of the conflict must be made within the context of the International Law, with the support and the guarantee of the international body, in accordance with the Oslo Accords, and as continuation of the expectations created because of the said agreements;
7- every future negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians has to be carried out in appreciation of the overwhelming changes that took place worldwide over the past 30 years;
8- the nominal and the real support offered to Israel by its so-called ‘friends’ and ‘allies’ did not finally help the Jewish state to achieve safety, security, peace and non-aggression from the part of its declared enemies;
9- consequently, the new agreements must be signed by sincere and committed statesmen and representatives ready to accept an entirely different international context within which to successfully position the new, final and permanent agreement;
10- there cannot be any Israeli military victory over Hamas; the Israeli statesmen, who believe in or diffuse this delusion, must step aside.
First, material destruction does not provide moral victory and social peace.
Second, more innocent Palestinian victims die in Gaza, smaller the chances of a new agreement become.
Third, after a deep and long Israeli involvement in Gaza and following extraordinary bloodshed, terrible destruction of the material infrastructure, and unprecedented casualties for the Israeli army, the Israeli government will finally realize that, the top leadership of Hamas has escaped and -even worse- that there will then be even more Palestinians ready to fight (not for Palestine anymore but) for Hamas. At that very moment, the majority of the Israelis will start abandoning the country (Yerida), being absolutely sure of its inevitable unviability.
Is it necessary to reach that level in order to understand?
Most probably, not!
Instead, a national unity government in Israel now will help the country prepare for the necessary negotiations.
II. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of shared perception of the lurking dangers
It is now essential that both parts of the conflict shared the same perception of the existing, very serious, dangers that exist for both nations; they are as per below:
1- the Israeli government must assess very seriously the position in which it found itself, when the terrorist attacks of 7th October 2023 forced Israelis to understand the down-to-earth reality that surrounds them. In fact, Israel is not only entrapped in a situation that forces the local government to perpetrate a repugnant butchery in revenge of an unspeakable slaughter. The Jewish state is subtly pushed -in a most dexterous manner- to demonstrate incomparable cynicism, atrocious rage, and foremost inhumanity while appearing as the avenger of a monstrous crime. In other words, the sophisticated machination was geared in order to induce Israel to act in an impermissible manner, which deprives similarly acting states from any right to exist.
2- Israel’s hidden enemies, all those organizations and governments that guide the puppet states of Qatar, Iran and Turkey, expect the Israeli government to do exactly what most of the Israelis find as a logical and rightful response to the massacre perpetrated before 24 days. The lurking danger is that Israel, reacting in the way many Israelis and Jews at large desire, achieves nothing else than a high degree of self-deprecatory action, which would entirely discredit the Jewish state, thus irreparably damaging bilateral relations and international presence.
3- associated to the aforementioned situations is the risk of Israel taking distance from the international common sense and appearing as markedly distinct from the other nations in the evaluation of typical situations that occur worldwide; quite unfortunately, massacres and genocides do happen, either they become known and they are denounced or not. Consequently, the Hamas terrorist attack, albeit surely abhorrent, is not a unique case.
As it happens in similar circumstances, there is always discussion as to whether the attacks were triggered by earlier developments; it is only normal for humans to try to identify every time the beginning of the circle of violence. Were the Hamas attacks provoked by some reason? Were they unprovoked? These points were reflected in the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the Security Council on the Middle East (“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.”) This sentence prompted the rage of the Israeli representative, but … are there truly “unprovoked” attacks?
4- the risks of Israel carrying out a mass murder in retaliation (no 1), discrediting itself (no 2), and looking distinct from the rest of the world (no 3) are not the only; sparring with the UN Secretary-General (or demanding that he quits, etc.) only plays into the game of Israel’s worst enemies who meticulously work in order to generate the image of a Jewish state totally isolated and cut off from the rest of the world. ‘The castaway’ is certainly not the model that Jews all over the world really intend to present as that of their state.
5- one of the worst dangers that can be produced due to the present explosive situation is the extreme radicalization of the Palestinians and the subsequent inability of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with any Israeli representative. Israel does not have the power to throw all the Palestinians out of Palestine; it is therefore essential that all Israeli statesmen, parliamentarians, politicians, rabbis, academics, journalists and average people have no delusions in this regard. On the contrary, they must do their ingenious best to maintain the dialogue and to select among the Palestinians the most sound, balanced, reasonable and unbiased interlocutors.
6- trying to dissociate Hamas from the average Palestinians is a murky terrain and a foolish attempt; for instance, the speech that the Israeli Permanent Representative to the UN, ambassador Gilad Erdan, addressed to his counterparts started with the expression of the concept that Israel is not at war with all the Palestinian people, but “with the genocidal Jihadist Hamas terror organization”; however, only few minutes later, the rather confused speaker stated that the Palestinian people in Gaza were enthusiastically participating in, and fully rejoicing with, the spectacle that Hamas organized in the streets of Gaza with all the Israeli -maltreated- parading hostages (from 05:15 to 05:30: Israeli ambassador to the UN addresses General Assembly
7- the dangers ensuing from the already started military operation in Gaza are considerable. This is perhaps subconsciously admitted by senior Israeli officials, who seem -these days- unable to understand what they are saying. The following is a statement made by the Israeli Defense Forces in the social media:
“Hamas’ terrorist headquarters under the Shifa hospital is draining the necessities—fuel, oxygen, water and electricity—from the Gazans and staff and using them for terrorism” https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1718203005231665657
My personal comment –response was the following:
“You just published the full proof of why such war is futile. You cannot win or you will win with an extremely high record of casualties; and then you will realize that the bulk of Hamas escaped and remains intact outside Palestine”.
The peril that Israelis kill an extremely high number of Palestinians without bringing substantive results is great; the menace of Israelis having thousands of dead in the military operations that they started undertaking in Gaza is real. And the danger of IDF causing indescribable destruction to Gaza and dreadful casualties in Israel without really exterminating Hamas is evident.
8- the perspective that the ongoing military operations will radicalize hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa and Europe is clearly visible; furthermore, the chances of turning moderate and reasonable governments to extremist and hostile administrations are high; even worse, the possibility that temperate statesmen are overthrown and then chaos prevails in several countries located in the wider region is strong.
The eventuality of a regional ordeal and the likelihood of the formation of a great number of actively anti-Israeli states from Algeria to Pakistan and from Kazakhstan to Tanzania cannot be possibly the wish of an Israeli government; only fanatic guys and paranoid plotters would be happy with the perspective of a generalized war between Israel and 15-20 countries situated between the Atlantic and China.
9- the probability that the worst enemies of Israel have framed the appalling recent developments and have entrapped the Jewish state in order to generate a frontal war between Tel Aviv and the Muslim World cannot be disregarded. After properly examining this scenario, the diverse Israeli statesmen, military, intelligence agents, diplomats, and other administrators will have to conclude that, in spite of all the guarantees that they may have got from potential friends and various allies, nothing can possibly justify a contemptuous downturn to nuclear war. There cannot be Israeli statesmen whose actions will ultimately ‘prove’ that the so-called ‘Albert Pike letter to Mazzini’ may be something more than a conspiracy theory. Consequently, an eventual massive confrontation with the Islamic world cannot be an option for any Israeli government.
10- while all the warring parts normally wish to attain victory, it is necessary for all wise statesmen and administrators to always examine every possible option, even that of a defeat. By all accounts, the effort to avert a downfall -by means of timely negotiations and constructive time schedules- is always to be praised at the end.
III. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of a basic agreement on Gaza Strip
The following steps are conditio sine qua non for the establishment of a free, independent, peaceful, and dignified society in the Gaza Strip:
1- the Palestinians and the Israelis have to agree on the permanent solution of the enduring conflict, advancing on the ‘land for peace’ approach (namely the UN Security Council Resolution 242). Palestinians shall have their land (West Bank and Gaza, linked by a highway bridge for cars, buses, long-vehicles, and trains) and Israelis shall have peace in their land – unquestionably, unwaveringly, and permanently.
2- the Palestinian state shall entrust the security of the national borders to a force set up by the UN and Israel; the internal security in Palestine will be the task of a statutory body, which shall be organized and trained by the respective Israeli organization, whereas it will be manned entirely by Palestinians.
3- within two years after the agreement is signed, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank shall be relocated to new agglomerations located in Israel. No Israeli settlement will be allowed in the West Bank and Gaza.
4- the entire population of Gaza shall be temporarily relocated for 3-4 years.
Rafah to Taba trench construction project
5- the border with Egypt from Rafah to Taba shall be entirely closed. An enormous Kazakh-Chinese-Indian-Israeli consortium of construction companies will be established and teams of Kazakh and Israeli workers will construct an enormous trench 100 m deep and 100 m wide, from coast to coast (Mediterranean Sea to Gulf of Aqaba: ca. 210 km). In this systematic manner, no subterranean passages between Egypt and Israel will be left undetected, unidentified and unblocked after the enormous construction project. It will be up to the Israelis whether they will later use the trench as an alternative passageway to the Suez Canal, duly completing the works for this purpose.
Gaza demolition project
6- the Israeli army, the Kazakh-Chinese-Indian-Israeli consortium, and additional teams of Kazakh and Israeli workers shall have two years to entirely demolish and remove all the existing structures on the surface of the earth and in the underground, without however destroying cultivated lands and fields for agricultural purposes. Every type of subterranean passages and structures will thus be totally eliminated. Only the historical buildings, churches and mosques will be spared.
Gaza reconstruction project
7- subsequently, a major project of Gaza reconstruction shall be undertaken by the Kazakh-Chinese-Indian-Israeli consortium, and the same teams of Kazakh and Israeli workers. Residential districts, roads and squares, hospitals, schools, municipality and administration buildings, universities and several research centers, shopping centers, malls, sports installations, cinemas and mosques, the harbor, train and bus stations, etc. shall be entirely reconstructed from scratch according to the provisions of a worldwide unprecedented project of urbanization.
8- following the partly completion of the Gaza reconstruction project, parts of Gaza Palestinian populations, which were temporarily relocated, shall return to their old-new homes. With the completion of the project, the totality of the local population will be accommodated in their new homes. Upon arrival, all Palestinians shall have to independently sign a text published by the Palestinian Authority, according to which they will publicly accept the existence of the state of Israel and the related agreements made by the Palestinian Authority.
9- the resumption of socio-economic, political, academic, educational and cultural life in the Gaza Strip shall be spearheaded by Kazakhstan, China and India; for this purpose, Kazakh, Chinese and Indian businessmen will enter in joint ventures will their Palestinian counterparts. Kazakh, Chinese and Indian administrators will help Gaza Palestinians better manage their affairs; Kazakh, Chinese and Indian doctors will man the new hospitals. Kazakh, Chinese and Indian universities shall offer advanced bilingual education (Arabic/Kazakh, Arabic/Russian, Arabic/Chinese, and Arabic/Urdu-Hindi respectively) to Palestinian students, thus setting the proper foundations of a Primary and Secondary Education totally free of Western impact.
10- the New Gaza Strip shall be an integral territory of the Palestinian state, which will be proclaimed in due course of time; it shall share common border with Israel, but not with Egypt. The Palestinian Basic Law will be used until the later elaboration and proclamation of a New Palestinian Constitution. Contacts with the West Bank will not be resumed immediately, taken into consideration the changes that the main part of the state of Palestine will have to undergo.
IV. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of a basic agreement on West Bank
Following the terrorist attacks of 7th October 2023, it would truly be inadequate and impertinent to believe that, by rectifying the chaos of Gaza, one can resolve the dire conditions of life, which prevail among all the Palestinians; yet, these conditions are the true reason of all the troubles, attacks, killings, and clashes. It is evident to all that the unrestrained deterioration of the situation in Gaza affected calamitously West Bank Palestinians.
1- due to the inability of the Palestinian Authority to cope with developments triggered by alien factors, religious extremism and Jihadist radicalization spread among West Bank Palestinians. This was utterly disastrous for both, Israelis and Palestinians. Because of this unfortunate development, if the aforementioned 10-point plan of basic agreement on Gaza Strip is materialized without a major change occurring in West Bank, the returning Palestinians, who will inhabit the New Gaza Strip, will inevitably be negatively impacted by West Bank Palestinian radicals.
2- on the other hand, it goes without saying that these two parts of the Palestinian national territory cannot be kept separated from one another; this means that, for the same security reasons for which the aforementioned plan (see above section III) was devised and implemented, another plan shall be also scheduled and carried out for the entire population of the West Bank. This will take another 3-4 years to be entirely accomplished.
3- after the return of the Gaza Palestinians is completed and following their final and peaceful settlement in the New Gaza Strip, the entire population of West Bank too shall be temporarily relocated for 3-4 years.
4- after the Israeli settlements in the West Bank will be evacuated, all the buildings and the overall urban infrastructure will be fully maintained, renovated, and renamed in order to be handed over to the West Bank Palestinians, when they will return after their temporary relocation.
5- Israeli army and scientific personnel shall undertake a comprehensive geotechnical and geophysical investigation, effectively using remote sensing techniques in order to thoroughly examine parts of the underground throughout the territory of the West Bank. This operation will make it sure that, once the Palestinian populations return, they will not find any structures that may enable smuggling, illegal activities, and warfare.
West Bank demolition project
6- As it was done in the case of Gaza, the Israeli army, the Kazakh-Chinese-Indian-Israeli consortium of construction companies, and the same teams of Kazakh and Israeli workers shall have two years to entirely demolish and remove all the existing structures on the surface of the earth, as well as those that may happen to be found in the underground. Only historical buildings, churches, mosques, museums and archeological sites will be spared. It goes without saying that cultivated lands and fields for agricultural purposes will not be damaged in any sense.
West Bank reconstruction project
7- similarly with what was carried out in Gaza, a project of West Bank reconstruction shall be undertaken by the Kazakh-Chinese-India-Israeli consortium, whereas properly renovated, the urban infrastructure of the Israeli settlements will be made available to West Bank Palestinians after they return from their temporary relocation. In addition, a highway bridge for cars, buses, long-vehicles, and trains shall link West Bank to Gaza whereas special underground tunnels may also be constructed for this purpose.
8- following the partly completion of the West Bank reconstruction project, parts of West Bank Palestinian populations, which were temporarily relocated, shall return to their old-new homes. With the completion of the project, the totality of the local population will finally return and they be accommodated in their new homes. Upon arrival, all Palestinians shall have to independently sign a text published by the Palestinian Authority, according to which they will publicly accept the existence of the state of Israel and the related agreements made by the Palestinian Authority.
9- as it may have already occurred in Gaza, the resumption of socio-economic, political, academic, educational and cultural life in the West Bank shall be actively spearheaded by Kazakhstan, China and India.
10- the New West Bank shall be an integral territory of the Palestinian State, which will be solemnly proclaimed after the completion of this project; it shall share common borders with Israel but not with Jordan, because a narrow strip 100 m wide will be delineated alongside the old borderline between West Bank and Jordan. This strip will belong to Israel, thus turning the Palestinian state into an enclave inside Israel; Israeli soldiers will be regularly patrolling there, but communication and transportation from and to Jordan will be made easy through Allenby/King Hussein border crossing. A similar scheme will then be devised for Gaza Strip/Egypt border passage. A New Palestinian Constitution will be passed by the Palestinian National Assembly, which will be elected by universal suffrage. Contact between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be resumed immediately.
V. Ten strengths that empower Kazakhstan to bring about the only effective peaceful resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict
The following points reveal the widely unnoticed but real and remarkable strengths of Kazakhstan, which position the major Central Asiatic country at the epicenter of the international life and enable Astana to play the key role in the desperately needed pacification of the 75-year old conflict:
1- Kazakhstan is a major Muslim country, member-state of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation; in this capacity, Astana can help enormously deflect the passions and divert the tensions caused throughout the Muslim World as regards Israel. This is a very crucial step, because it will prevent the ongoing war from becoming an open religious confrontation between Jews and Muslims across the Earth.
2- Kazakhstan is by far the largest Turkic nation with an area totaling 2725000 km2 and with an ideally central position between Western Turks (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraqi Turkmeneli, etc.) and Eastern Turanians (Uighurs, Buryatians, Mongolians Yakutians, etc.). It can therefore bring a balanced understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to all the Turkic people (Turanians) throughout Eurasia, diverting fanaticism and extremism. This would be a remarkable contribution to peace.
3- As a secular and multicultural state, Kazakhstan is well positioned to see things differently, unconventionally, and out-of-the-box. On this ability hinges the chance that the entire Mankind has to resolve the problem. In fact, for 200 years, Islam and Christianity coexisted peacefully in Kazakhstan and more recently, after the fall of the USSR, adepts of different religions have lived in concord and fraternity with local atheists and irreligious people.
4- Muslim country with a ca. 20 percent Christian Orthodox minority, Kazakhstan has been a land where Judaism thrived for centuries; Bukharan and Juhuro (or Mountain) Jews live nowadays in Kazakhstan, peacefully practicing their faith and straightforwardly participating in all aspects of the socio-professional, economic and political life. Thanks to these undeniable facts, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev is advantageously positioned to offer President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hindsight and forethought, alternative viewpoints, and hitherto unseen perspectives.
5- Founding member of the Shanghai Five (1996) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (2001), Kazakhstan is for Israel and Palestine the ideal ‘Gate to the East’. The same can be said about Kazakhstan’s participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Eurasian Economic Union. One should also extend this reference to approaches like ‘Connect Central Asia’ and initiatives like the ‘India-Central Asia Dialogue’, which bring Kazakhstan, the rest of Central Asia, and India closer. In other words, Kazakhstan, in striking contrast to almost any other country, is able to entirely de-contextualize the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, take it totally out of the nefarious limits of the Western World, and contextualize the problem within an entirely different environment in which hitherto unimagined possibilities and unsought alternatives are abundant.
6- Ninth largest country in the world in terms of area, Kazakhstan can effectively contribute to the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict not only at the level of diplomatic contacts, political negotiations, inventive considerations, resourceful approaches, and creative visions, but also during the consecutive stages that the resolution process will demand for several years. It is clear to all insiders that the 75-year old problem has become a most perplex issue involving contradictory views, opposite interests, conflicting demands, unjustified concerns, uncontrollable worries and total mistrust. Removing these obstacles is not an easy job for any diplomacy, for any proficient administration, and for any ingenious negotiator. Counterbalancing all the negative elements that have been accumulated over the past 7-8 decades will be a highly challenging task.
Still, the above mentioned thorny issues concern only the negotiation stages. But, brokering an agreement, addressing national security concerns, and satisfying demands of statehood and national independence, after all the evildoing that has occurred, involve massive relocation of populations, temporary residence in other lands, extensive demolition plans, vast construction projects, and -at the end- return of all the relocated populations.
Atop of all, one has to stress the need for a proper nation building process, which never occurred in the case of the Palestinians; the lack of this critical undertaking constituted a major reason for the misfortunate experience that Palestinians and Israelis shared together for decades, while being unable to solve the incessantly deteriorating problem.
However, it is not by coincidence that many Israeli statesmen, diplomats, analysts and academics repeatedly demand from Egypt to accept the relocation of the Gaza Palestinians to the sparsely populated Sinai Peninsula. It goes without saying that Cairo simply cannot accept this eventuality. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt was absolute right; it is not a matter of producing the necessary infrastructure or accommodating more than two million people or affording the exorbitant expenses for this enormous project or securing the necessary provisions or maintaining control among radicalized population. It is not even an issue of transporting populations to an arid land like North Sinai where Egypt has already and repeatedly faced serious security concerns due to the activities of Egyptian Islamists and terrorists.
The main problem, which would immediately arise after an eventual relocation of the Gazan population, is that, once in North Sinai, the deeply radicalized Palestinians will consider it necessary to take revenge on Israel for the atrocious and enduring treatment that the Jewish state applied to them. Then, they will certainly have the chance to contact numerous radicalized Egyptians among whom with great difficulty the al-Sisi administration managed to impose order, peace and calmness until now.
When the desperate, relocated Palestinians will express their secret desire to the Egyptians who lived -pretty much like their parents and grandparents- in an unprecedented paroxysm and in foremost hysteria against Israel, they will surely get from them the necessary tools, equipment, and weapons in order to attack Israel. An assault from the Egyptian side of the borders would soon transform the limited Israel-Gaza war into a generalized confrontation between Egypt and Israel, thus forcing the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to instinctively and unreservedly support Cairo.
Quite contrary to this infernal scenario, Kazakhstan -while leading the negotiations between Palestine and Israel- can temporarily accommodate the Gaza Palestinian populations in new cities, which can be constructed relatively fast with the help of a Kazakh-Chinese-Indian consortium that will be established on purpose.
7- Economically sound and solid, Kazakhstan -by establishing a major consortium of construction companies- will offer to China and India the chance to participate in the materialization of the forthcoming peace agreement between Israel and Palestine; in this manner, the two Asiatic superpowers will be actively brought to the forefront of international diplomacy, as they will be constructively involved in the world’s most enduring conflict.
Supporting Kazakhstan in the construction of the necessary urban infrastructure for the temporary relocation of the Gaza Palestinian populations, China and India will appear as the leading contributors to a major effort geared to bring peace in Israel-Palestine and as the principal sponsors of the most demanding projects involved in the successive stages of the agreement’s materialization.
Following the terms of an agreement signed by Palestine, Israel, and Kazakhstan, Astana can demarcate a piece of land in the southern confines of Aktobe Region and in the western fringes of Kyzylorda Region where to construct the infrastructure in which the temporarily relocated Gaza Palestinians will be accommodated; the same venue will be later used for the West Bank Palestinians. By strongly subsidizing the construction project and by facilitating the air transportation of the said populations, China and India will mark a major step in their transformation from leading regional powers to worldwide superpowers actively involved in the major conflict resolution.
8- Ostensibly located at the historical crossroads, which are known as the Silk Road, Kazakhstan can change World History due to a groundbreaking initiative to bring peace to Palestine and Israel entirely outside the context of the Western World. Duly relying on Central Asia’s historical background and the heritage of the Silk Roads, Kazakhstan can convincingly bring the Palestinians and the Israelis to the table of negotiations, brandishing the lure of future wealth, multicultural creativity, peaceful coexistence, and multilateral cooperation.
By reviving the multicultural environment that typified the Silk Roads, by re-introducing tolerance among religious faiths and cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis, and by offering SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) Dialogue Partner status to both, Israel and Palestine, immediately after the signature of the pacification, land reorganization and rehabilitation agreement, Kazakhstan, China and India fully confirm the far reaching potentialities that the Belt and Road Initiative (One Belt One Road) infrastructure development strategy can have.
9- As the focal Oriental and Eurasiatic land, Kazakhstan has not only the potential to offer conflict resolution, peaceful cohabitation, and viable cooperation to Palestinians and Israelis; it also has the capability to become the country of first choice for many Jews who currently face an increasingly hostile environment in EU and the US. This will only increase the country’s credibility as the mediator par excellence between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as Jews and Muslims.
10- Thanks to Astana’s strong alliance with Russia, China and India, three major superpowers of today’s world, and following a peaceful resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict, Kazakhstan will apparently be in a position to launch a major debate within the Islamic world as regards the secular nature of the Islamic civilization and the nonpolitical role of the religion in the lives of people, thus helping Muslims from all the walks of life to emancipate from the darkness of the ignorant and radical imams who have deliberately confused religion with politics in order to extract material benefits, thus becoming the puppets of evil forces that spread enmity and killings.
First built in the 5th c. and rebuilt in the 12th c., the Church of Saint Porphyrius in Gaza, which belongs to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, was attacked on 19th October 2023 during an Israeli air strike; the building was partly damaged and there were ca. 20 casualties.
VI. Ten pillars of Kazakhstan’s approach to the resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict
Pillar 1- The Western World failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Since 1947 (more specifically: 29 November 1947) and the UN Palestine Partition Plan {also known as UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II)}, the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts were mostly a Western affair; USSR (or, after 1991, Russia), China, India, Indonesia, Africa, and Latin America played only a markedly marginal role in the problem that was created with the said partition plan. This fact is at the origin of all problems, crimes, killings, and massacres that occurred in Palestine/Israel.
Beyond the normal regional involvement (namely that of Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen), the developments that took place in Palestine were exclusively impacted by Western European and North American countries. This has the appearance of colonial interference and remotely exercised control; as such, it is overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of mankind.
Until 1956, Israel relied on France and England in order to fend off attacks from neighboring countries, which supported the Palestinians. After the disaster of 1956, Israel has been closely connected with the US. The ensued damage for the Jews and Israel was twofold; by creating the impression of a biased, partial, unilateral, and detrimental support uninterruptedly, unconditionally and unreservedly offered by the major Western countries to Israel, the Western countries deliberately generated a situation which galvanized the Palestinians, sensitized numerous Muslims within eschatological context, and garnered sympathy for Palestine across most of the world’s nations. If this concluded the case, one would eventually accept the development as positive, albeit vividly partial.
However, the unilateral support offered by the Western World did not bring peace, safety and security to Israel and to the Jews who find it necessary to settle there (the ‘Aliyah’); as we all know, this reality is greatly manifested these days. Suffice it to read brief texts published by Israeli scholars on this occasion; you can understand the extreme panic that they feel. Prof. Ayelet Gilboa’s ‘Hamas in Israel’ is a good example in this regard. But when the ‘Yerida’ (emigration from Israel) eclipses the Aliyah, the Marche Funèbre will sound, heralding the funeral arrangement for Israel. Then, all the people will realize that the Western support to Israel was fake, hypocritical and intentionally deceitful.
The irreversible truth is that the only thing Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and the Roman pseudo-popes intend to do to Jews and to Israelis is to eat them alive, incessantly highlighting their innocence in the matter. The sooner the Israelis and the Jews understand this fact, the better for them.
The Western World is not friendly to Israel; it is criminal, hypocritical and inimical. As it is well known, they produced innumerable genocides in America, Asia, Africa and Europe. The remake of the Holocaust will be at hand, if Israelis do not shut the door to US, UK and EU. There is only one condition for Israel to disintegrate: to continue believing the delusional concept of its alliance with the Western World. There is only one way for Israel and the World Jewry to effectively avoid the next Holocaust that secret orders, mystical societies, and major forces in Western Europe and North America prepare for them: they have to embrace the Orient where the Jews and the Ancient Hebrews have always lived, being integral part of the Ancient Oriental, Christian and Islamic worlds. Kazakhstan can make all this clear to Israeli leadership.
Pillar 2- At 75, Israel must emancipate and live like all the other nations, namely without protectors, biased supporters, and lethal allies.
The destructive device that the West has used to tarnish, corrupt and erode the Jewish state is precisely the unconditional support that the Western governments offer Israel. This makes the outright majority of the people worldwide hate that state; while systematically discrediting and effectively isolating Israel from the rest, the Western support appears to be always constant, generous and abundant. However, in spite of it all, Israel has always failed to truly eliminate the Palestinian problem; in true terms, the Jewish state has only exacerbated the thorny issue. One would have easily attributed it to an inherent self-destructive force, had one failed to identify the reason for this evildoing in the malignant forces of Western Europe and North America.
This absurd and sinister situation leads to only one conclusion: Israel does not have any Palestinian problem; quite contrarily, Israel has a Western problem. Everything will change astoundingly, if Israel gets rid of the nefarious impact of the West. When the Israeli government shows a sign that Israelis intend to live peacefully with their Palestinian neighbors without being the spoiled children of the West, the rest of the world will apparently demonstrate a different standpoint and attitude; then it will be possible for the major superpowers China, India and Russia to further advance the effort and initiate peace accords and normalization agreements with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Israel will thus be saved.
Pillar 3- All security threats must be removed in peace prior to the final settlement
Kazakhstan shall fully demonstrate a deep understanding of Israel’s need for security and safety. All the nations have had their weak moments, but Israel now lives in the aftermath of an unusually painful experience, namely the 7th October 2023 attacks. The demand for invulnerability, impregnability, and unassailability is very strong. Therefore, for Israel every notion of settlement of the Palestinian problem means total elimination of the dangers. When it comes to the Gaza Strip, this means that the totality of the territory must be evacuated, the ruins explored, the underground traversed, the existing tunnels inspected, the structures destroyed, and the weapons removed. Consequently, it is inevitable that the entire territory of Gaza will have to be initially evacuated and totally demolished, before being fully reconstructed from scratch. Israeli soldiers and security forces will have to also inspect, scrupulously and meticulously, the return and the reinstallation of the Gaza populations, which have evidently to dwell for some time in another location.
These operations will certainly take about two years; during this period, while the Israeli military forces will be comprehensively screening the entire territory and the respective underground and effectively destroying all structures that have to be destroyed, the Palestinian population of Gaza must be treated in dignity, solidarity, compassion, empathy, fraternity, and humanity. That is why Kazakhstan shall take the initiative, positioning itself within the international community at the level in which the major Central Asiatic state’s strengths (see above section V) fully empower Astana to act.
Pillar 4- Temporary relocation of Gaza Palestinians is imperative
Promptly offering mediation between Israel and Palestine, Astana does not only save the lives of thousands of Palestinians, but also helps spare those of hundreds or thousands of Israeli soldiers and civilians, who will surely die as long as the war continues. For this to be done, a First Peace Agreement between Israel, Palestine and Kazakhstan shall be signed detailing the parallel processes, the various modalities, the successive stages, the duration thereof, and the indissoluble determination of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reach a terminal agreement for ultimate peace and reconciliation.
Time shall be offered to Israel to clear the territory of Gaza Strip and to the Kazakh-Chinese-Indian consortium of construction companies to reconstruct the entire region from scratch; for this to be done, the same consortium shall first construct -in especially selected zones in Kazakhstan (see above section V 7)- all the necessary infrastructure for the entire Palestinian population of Gaza to be relocated there and temporarily accommodated.
In addition to the donations that an independent organization under the auspices of the UN shall be established to collect, it will be up to the Kazakh governmental authorities to also decide whether types of provisory employment should be offered to those among the relocated Palestinians who would wish to work; in this case, the diverse factories, plants, manufacturing units or workshops shall be constructed in the same zone as the urban infrastructure, and they shall be later (after the departure/return of the relocated Palestinians) used for other, Kazakh or foreign workers who will find employment there, contributing to the national GDP.
According to the terms of the First Peace Agreement between Israel, Palestine and Kazakhstan, an initial ceasefire shall be followed by the beginning of the relocation process which will cover several stages; finally, the entire population of Gaza shall be evacuated and temporarily relocated to Kazakhstan. It shall be decided whether the evacuation will be effectuated via Tel Aviv airport or El Arish International Airport (45 km from Rafah border crossing); in either case, special convoys will be set up to accompany the buses with the Gaza Palestinian evacuees, duly supervised by either Israeli or Egyptian military.
It will be entirely up to the hosting Kazakh authorities to determine the flight destination (eventually Kyzylorda International Airport or Aliya Moldagulova International Airport in Aktobe) and the transportation process to the final location where the Palestinian populations will be temporarily relocated and accommodated.
Pillar 5- Evacuation of all Israeli settlers from the West Bank
Following the terms of the First Peace Agreement between Israel, Palestine and Kazakhstan, and during the processes of a) Gaza infrastructure demolition, b) Gaza Palestinian population evacuation/relocation, and c) Gaza reconstruction, a national unity government in Israel shall initiate and carry out the next project, evacuating and relocating the Israeli settlers from the West Bank. This will be the first serious effort of Israel to persuade the international community about its good will toward the Palestinian Nation, its honesty as regards the surrounding neighbors, and its commitment to the final pacification process.
All Israeli settlers shall be gradually removed from the West Bank (see above section IV 4), but all the buildings and the overall urban infrastructure shall be effectively maintained, renovated, and renamed in order to be handed over to the West Bank Palestinians, when they will return after their temporary relocation. It will be truly essential -as a confidence building measure- for Israel to complete the evacuation of all Israeli settlers from the West Bank before the Palestinian populations of that land are temporarily relocated and accommodated in Kazakhstan, after the completion of the Gaza reconstruction project and the return of the earlier relocated Gazans.
Pillar 6- Reconstruction of Gaza
Following the process of Gaza demolition undertaken by the Israeli army and the evacuation/relocation of the entire Palestinian population, the Kazakh-Chinese-Israeli consortium, and additional teams of Kazakh and Israeli workers shall have two additional years before making the land of Gaza an enviable place for Gazan Palestinians to peacefully live and prosper (see above section III 7-10).
Pillar 7- Border control must stay with Israel
After the reconstruction of Gaza and the return of the temporarily relocated Gazan Palestinians, a totally new system of social-military-political life shall start. As I have already stated for the case of West Bank, the Gaza Strip will have no common border with Egypt (see above section IV 10). A narrow strip 100 m wide will be delineated alongside the old borderline between Gaza Strip and Egypt. This strip will belong to Israel, thus turning the Palestinian state into an enclave inside Israel; Israeli soldiers will be regularly patrolling there, but communication and transportation from and to Egypt will be made easy through Rafah border crossing.
Because of the aforementioned enormous trench that shall be constructed (see above section III 5: Rafah to Taba trench construction project) and thanks to the exhaustive demolition-reconstruction project in the Gaza Strip, conditions of absolute security will prevail across the borders, which will be entirely kept by Israeli soldiers, who will ensure border impenetrability for both, Palestinians and Israelis.
The State of Palestine will function as an entirely independent state with one seat in the UN General Assembly on the basis of mutual recognition with Israel. At the geographical level, Palestine will be an enclave within Israel; that’s why there will be minimal security forces (Palestinian and Israeli) in the ‘inner’ borders (between Palestine and Israel), whereas Israeli soldiers will guard the ‘outer’ (external) borders (with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon). Two airports (one in Gaza Strip and another in the West Bank) and one port (in Gaza City) will be fully operable in Palestine. Airport and port security in Palestine will be undertaken by Israeli security forces. In the beginning, there will be no flights from Palestine to countries that do not recognize Israel; later, this problem will be resolved.
Pillar 8- The processes applied to Gaza shall also be implemented in the West Bank
To complete the entire process and carry out a comprehensive investigation in view of a bright and peaceful future, Palestinians and Israelis shall agree to implement the same approach and apply the same procedure to the West Bank Palestinians. After all the Israeli settlements are evacuated from the West Bank and after the relocated Gazan populations return to their new old-new homeland, it will be the turn of the populations of West Bank to be relocated for 3-4 years, before returning to an entirely reconstructed homeland in which they will inherit the entire infrastructure left by the Israeli settlers.
Pillar 9- Mutual recognition of the two states – location of the two capitals
Following the completion of the aforementioned stages, the First Peace Agreement between Israel, Palestine and Kazakhstan (see above section VI Pillar 4) shall be replaced by the Final Peace Agreement, which will stipulate in detail the multiple exchanges and the bilateral cooperation that the two states will be ready to resume with one another. Except the signatories of the first treaty, the Final Peace Agreement will be co-signed by China, India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa. The capital of Israel shall be in Western Jerusalem, and the capital of Palestine shall be in Eastern Jerusalem.
Many confidence building measures and mutual understanding initiatives will be undertaken in order to enable the two nations to come closer to one another. Modern Arabic will become no1 foreign language in the schools of Israel, whereas Modern Hebrew will become no1 foreign language in the schools of Palestine. Kazakh, Chinese, Hindi and Russian will replace all the Western languages that were previously taught in the primary and secondary education schools in both lands.
Israel shall support Palestine’s demand of admission as a full member state in the UN General Assembly, and the two states shall pursue similar foreign policy, identical orientations, and concerted geostrategic decisions. Israel and Palestine will opt for the same major partners in economic synergy, joint ventures, trade, education, scientific cooperation, and tourism, notably Kazakhstan, China, India, Russia, Central Asia, SE Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Palestine will downgrade its participation in the Arab League, and Israel will gradually lessen its relations with NATO countries. Palestine will boost relations with secular Muslim countries, blocking contacts with Islamist regimes; acting reciprocally, Israel will ban from Israel all Protestants, and in particular the Zionist Christians, who proved to be the scourge of the Jewish state with their farcical and false interpretations of the Bible and their absurd eschatological schemes, which confused Israelis and Jews, pushing them to extreme and disastrous considerations.
Pillar 10- Simultaneous adhesion to the same military alliances, economic groups and international organizations
Following the implementation of the aforementioned Peace Plan and the successful fulfillment of the groundbreaking measures, the diplomacies of China, India and Russia will deploy a considerable effort to inflect the position of countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, demanding the dissolution of groups that threaten the pacification process and the ensuing peaceful cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis. This will open the way to further bilateral peace agreements, notably with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.
This crucial fact is viciously disregarded and systematically concealed by the colonial Western powers and their local stooges; by trying to arrange ridiculous and clownish peace agreements between Israel, UAE and Bahrain, the US and their allies only tried to fool the Israelis, offering them meaningless normalization accords with countries, which would never make a war against Israel or support various anti-Israel groups. The notorious Abraham Accords (signed on 15th September 2020) are phony. They are true in the sense that the dictatorial rulers of UAE and Bahrain accepted to sign those papers, but they are as meaningless and useless for Israel as an agreement with Tuvalu and Nauru.
This is the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish hypocrisy of the Western World at its best; it was quite stupid of the Israeli government to arrange and participate in festivities on the occasion of the Abraham Accords. What truly matters for Israel’s peace, safety and security is a normalization agreement with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. But this is something that the criminal and dictatorial Western regimes of France, UK, Australia, Canada, Holland and the US first are unable to deliver and second do not want to see it happen. This is so because only a normalization accord and a peace treaty with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran would guarantee Israel’s real survival. And quite contrarily to this eventuality, the inhuman monsters, which control Western Europe and North America, prepare the final solution for Israel and the Jews, while hypocritically smiling to and embracing the embattled Israeli prime ministers and presidents.
The simultaneous adhesion of Israel and Palestine to the same military alliances, economic groups, and international organizations, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, the BRICS and the New Development Bank will definitely become the matter of preparatory negotiations as soon as the Final Peace Agreement will be solemnly signed offering both beleaguered nations peace, freedom, prosperity and freedom far from the ominous schemes of the Western World. The perspective of any future enmity and hostility will be thus reduced to nil.
VII. Ten stages of Kazakhstan’s plan to terminate the Palestine-Israel conflict – recapitulation and diagram
Summarizing the above in a brief diagram, I outline the major stages:
Basic links/points of reference to eventually consult:
Античность и эсхатология масонских, иезуитских и сионистских орденов как вектор израильско-палестинского конфликта – I
One of World History’s most important texts: the Malediction of Akkad; 18th c. BCE copy of an earlier original, found in Babylon. The text details the calamitous results of human contact with the unclean nation Guti and the subsequent collapse of Akkad, i.e. the world’s first empire, which brought about the Flood.
In a first article titled ‘Palestinians vs. Israelis: 11 Hidden Historical Truths about a Futile War’, I expanded briefly on crucial historical points that the Palestinians and the entire world do not know concerning first the History of the kingdoms of Ancient Israel and Judah and second the identity of today’s so-called Jews whose outright majority (85-90%), namely the Ashkenazi Khazarians, by all means are not Jews ethnically, linguistically, culturally and religiously. I also pointed out that even the Sephardic Jews, who make ca. 10-15% of the so-called World Jewry, are not entitled to the Promised Land (i.e. Palestine) as per historical evidence; furthermore, I made it clear that the Sephardim do not constitute part of the Chosen People (i.e. the ten lost tribes of Ancient Israel) whose ‘return’ was indeed prophesied in the Old Testament. The article can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/107952726/Palestinians_vs_Israelis_11_Hidden_Historical_Truths_about_a_Futile_War
In a second article titled ‘Israelis vs. Palestinians: 6 Concealed Historical Truths about the Lost Wars’, I first explored the diverse, spiritual and moral conditions of national resistance and then presented critical historical and socio-political issues that impact the Palestinians and affect their struggle for national independence. I demonstrated that the Palestinian Islamists are the best accomplices of the Israeli Zionists in the sense that, by plunging their persecuted nation into ignorance, colonial falsehood, and lack of self-criticism, they turn the entirely deracinated nation of Palestinians into expendable material for the agendas of several Western governments and secret organizations. The article can be found here:
I. Why Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists cannot have or believe in a religion
II. Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists vs. Islam, Christianity and Judaism
III. The Oriental Antiquity of the Freemasons
IV. The Oriental Antiquity of the Jesuit Order
V. The Zionists before Judaism
VI. The Mesopotamian Kassite Origin of the Zionists
VII. The Kassites and the Abomination of Marduk-Yahweh
VIII. The Guti, the Kassites, the Flood, and Zionism
IX. Guti, Kassites, Gog & Magog, Unclean Nations, and Alexander the Great
X. Jews, Fake Jews, Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Dynasty, and Flavius Josephus
XI. Jews, Fake Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Romans
XII. Gog, Khazars, and Ashkenazi Zionism
Содержание
Введение
I. Почему иезуиты, масоны и сионисты не могут иметь религию или верить в нее
II. Иезуиты, масоны и сионисты против ислама, христианства и иудаизма
III. Восточная древность масонов
IV. Восточная древность ордена иезуитов
V. Сионисты до иудаизма
VI. Месопотамское касситское происхождение сионистов
VII. Касситы и мерзость Мардука-Яхве
VIII. Гути, касситы, Потоп и сионизм
IX. Гути, касситы, Гог и Магог, Нечистые народы и Александр Македонский
X. Евреи, фальшивые евреи, Александр Македонский, династия Селевкидов и Иосиф Флавий.
XI. Евреи, фальшивые евреи, фарисеи, саддукеи, ессеи и римляне
XII. Гог, хазары и ашкеназский сионизм
Introduction
In the present article, I will expand on issues pertaining to the divergent Western agendas about Jerusalem and the ‘Promised Land’; it is essential to keep in mind that these secret plans and projects, which have been implemented already over the past centuries, are not ‘political’, ‘ideological’ or ‘philosophical’ of nature, but spiritual, religious and more particularly eschatological-messianic-soteriological. However, they cannot be truly comprehended without a deep understanding of the antiquity of the secret orders, which fight against one another in order to implement their eschatological schedules that are at the very antipodes of one another.
For a more effective comprehension of the nature of the three secret orders and of the clash of their respective agendas, an earlier article published in 2017 would help:
Because of the aforementioned statement, several clarifications are needed. When I speak of ‘religious’ agendas, I do not -by all means- suggest that these schemes are Islamic, Christian (all denominations included) and Jewish (or Judaic). Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists can invariably be Jews, Christians and Muslims, pretty much like they may appear in public as Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs, agnostics, irreligious or atheists; these details depend exclusively on the assignment entrusted to the initiate by his venerable.
Are Societas Jesu, the diverse Freemasonic orders and lodges, and the different Zionist synagogues religious organizations that preach independent religions and systems of faith among their adepts and initiates?
I. Why Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists cannot have or believe in a religion
The response to this question is very intricate; it hinges on the differences between spirituality, religion, moral, cult, popular religion, and theology. In fact, all three secret societies abhor moral, cult, popular religion and folk traditions; in addition, they don’t need theology. As they function as secret societies, they initiate their members and they extract most of the spiritual and material energy and dynamism that are inherent in them while assigning them tasks to carry out; they also promote them according to their spiritual skills. Spiritual potency is their top secret that they keep sealed off; to avoid infiltration, they incessantly work closely with different spiritual hierarchies and they initiate their members, taking them from lies to lies and sharing with them the portion of spiritual truth that corresponds to their respective grades.
Of the existing, publicly known religions, all three secret societies have a very low opinion that they hide by expressing recognition and respect in public, although in the case of Zionism these feelings are rather pale. One should not confuse between Jewish religion and the Zionist synagogue; the latter has developed a truly profane reading of the Hebrew Bible.
That’s why those among the members of the three secret societies, who reject the assumption that each of the said organizations preaches a religion, are in right. If we take into consideration the succinct and very analytical definition of ‘religion’ that I presented in my article ‘Anatolia and Turkey: Spirituality, Moral, Culture, Legend, Popular Religion, Governance, Religion, Theology & Politics’ (p. 27/64 of the PDF; https://www.academia.edu/89267447/Anatolia_and_Turkey_Spirituality_Moral_Culture_Legend_Popular_Religion_Governance_Religion_Theology_and_Politics), then certainly Societas Jesu, the Freemasonic orders and lodges, and the Zionist synagogues do not preach a ‘religion’, and they are not religious organizations.
In fact, these organizations are not compatible with any religion; the reason is simple: every religion is for a people, whereas these segregations can only exist as a direct denial of the notion of ‘people’, because in every case of a people or nation, the non-members (of the secret societies) are the outcasts who are labeled as ‘profane’, ‘vulgar’ and ‘indecent’. These secretive orders believe that they constitute the ‘elite’; this is an evil, viciously anti-Godly notion that did not exist in the History of Mankind.
As ahistorical concept, the ‘elite’ is the ultimate corruption generator, as it consists in the most solemn introduction of Injustice among humans. Prior to the formation of these groups, there was absolutely no notion of ‘elite’ in any nation and in any language worldwide, because every emperor or king was a brave combatant who used to fight along with all the other soldiers to defend or expand their realm. All royal rulers were fraternal with their respective fighters and people in general.
In Ancient Egypt, the initiation of apprentice priests and mystics did not bring about any social disconnection and differentiation from the rest. As spiritual process, it took the form of impersonation of aspects of the divine from the initiate, who had to imitate the divine trait, radiate it in his life, and explore its endless forms. In striking contrast to modern practices, the fear of God instilled a feeling of expansion, not contraction in the souls of the novice.
The idea of ‘elite’ is direct rejection of the concept of Creation, because it suggests that God made a mistake and He should have created two Adams instead, one being the forefather of the elite (or superior race), and another belonging to the average people. By accepting the existence of elites, every faithful becomes instantaneously infidel, because such an approach is tantamount to blasphemy, irrespective of the religion of the person.
How can we then accurately and succinctly define these secretive orders?
II. Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionistsvs. Islam, Christianity and Judaism
Societas Jesu, the Freemasonic orders and lodges, and the Zionist synagogues are forces that contend to break the unity of soul, mind and body in every human in order to enslave all the people of every country where they extend their activities. The nature of their endeavors is primarily spiritual, and their target is to achieve spiritual potency, acquire knowledge, and garner material force in order to effectuate their agendas. They therefore function as pyramidal hierarchies, which is spiritually and morally intolerable, and -even worse- export their sick and evil pattern to the societies where they exist, inevitably turning them to hierarchical pyramids. In doing so, they incessantly distort the historical past of all nations in order to effectively adjust it to their anomaly.
If the three orders do not preach any but revile all the religions, this is due to their traumatic spirituality that they inevitably, incessantly and irreversibly attempt to vindicate, being unable to perceive reality sentimentally. The traumatic experience that their members undergo at the spiritual level is at the origin of their absolute inadaptability to religion. This is their ‘initiation’, which is entirely different from historically attested cases of sacerdotal initiation in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Viewing things differently, one could offer an invariable definition; the religion of the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists is imperfect and incomplete. This is so because their initiation(s) is(are) always a case of spiritual dispossession followed by mystical inhabitation, which is more commonly known as demonic enslavement. This process terminates their sentimental life, inevitably engulfing them in incessant biases which are all due to the demoniacal nature of their spiritual protectors who inhabit them.
However, quite unfortunately for them, all three secret orders are inextricably related to two religions; i.e. Ancient Hebrew religion (including the derivative form of Judaism) and Christianity (notably the Catholic and Protestant versions of this faith). That is why in the countries where these organizations prevailed, there is much discussion about, propaganda for, and pride in the false concept of ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’. This is part of the falsehood that they ‘teach’ and diffuse worldwide.
For some of their earlier forms of religious order that the Freemasons had created, one can ascertain that those organizations were also related to Orthodox Christianity, notably the nuclei of several Eastern Roman Constantinopolitan chariot racing factions: the Russati/Ρούσσοι and the Albati/Λευκοί). The same can be concluded about Islam with respect to the early Mutazilla or Mu’tazilites (المعتزلة), the Brethren of Purity (Ikhwan al-Safa; إخوان الصفا), and some branches of Isma’ilis (الإسماعيلية) or Isma’ilites.
Double-leaf frontispiece from the “Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity”; from Baghdad, 1287 (today in Süleymaniye Library)
The relation that the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists have had with these two religions hinges mainly on the associated sacred texts, namely the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the Talmud, and the New Testament. It goes without saying that all modern conflicts and polarizations about the numerous translations (to modern languages) which were produced, and in particular those of the Old Testament, hinge on the quarrel among these three orders about the correct and authentic interpretation of the ancient text. KJV (King James Version) is a particularly biased translation that involves thousands of distortions and misinterpretations; it cannot possibly be used as a fair point of reference by anyone except the Freemasons.
As a matter of fact, one of the best and most accurate definitions that one can create about each of the three secret societies is that they are “an often biased but publicly unknown, purposefully different reading of the sacred texts”. Actually, these are not theoretical but practical differences that emanate from the contrasts which exist in the respective eschatological, soteriological and messianic agendas; it is evident that those preconceived agendas dictate actually the reading and the ensuing translations.
This explains both, the eschatological-messianic-soteriological nature of their respective agendas (the sacred texts comprise similar notions indeed) and the systematic and enduring infiltration into the related religious organizations and ecclesiastical bodies that the three orders have methodically undertaken; in the process, they attempted to impose their ‘reading of the sacred texts’ onto the unsuspicious, naïve and innocent faithful.
Catacombs of Saints Marcellinus and Peter (3 km southeast of Rome and the ancient Via Labicana); from top: Orants, Jonah and the Whale; Moses striking the rock (left); Noah praying in the ark; Adoration of the Magi; ca. 200–250 CE
It therefore goes without saying that the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity were not comprehended by both, the sacerdotal class and the laymen, in the way they have been interpreted and believed after the infiltration of the aforementioned three secret organizations and their ancestral forms. There is certainly a distinction that we have to make. The Zionists did not attempt to infiltrate Christianity; only recently (over the past 200 years), they created pro-Zionist churches and groups of people who impersonated the Christians. On the contrary, Jesuits and Freemasons, in their earlier, ancestral forms, infiltrated Christianity since the very initial stages of the formation of this religion. In fact, the emergence of Roman Christianity, the many Christological disputes, the different ‘heresies’, and many internecine clashes in Western European Christianity were the result of the incessant strives between the previous forms that the two secret orders had taken; they were trying to pull the religion under formation to their side, to control it spiritually and intellectually, and to adjust it to their secret concepts and agendas.
The Oriental origin of the three secret societies antedates the establishment of the Early Christian groups; both, the Freemasons and the Jesuits, originate from different Gnostic sects, and from earlier sacerdotal colleges of Mesopotamia and Egypt whose roots can be traced back to the 3rd millennium BCE. By saying so, I don’t suggest that the Jesuits and the Freemasons believe in any of the Ancient Egyptian and Assyrian-Babylonian religions, although several concepts have certainly been maintained and therefore survived. As I already said, for their members it is technically impossible to worship any religion due to the harmful rituals of initiation that they have gradually adopted.
III. The Oriental Antiquity of the Freemasons
Basic cosmological, eschatological and messianic concepts of the Ancient Egyptian Iwnw Heliopolitan religion, seminal notions of Amarna Atenism (or Atonism), and the fundamental elements of the Sargonid Assyrian monotheism, involving notably the conceptualization of topics like the ‘Chosen People’, the ‘Promised Land’, the ‘Righteous Suffering’, the ‘Universal Empire’, the ‘Emperor of the Universe’, the ‘Return of the Chosen People’, the ‘End of Times’, etc. have been transferred within the Ancient Hebrew Bible, and thanks to them, the Freemasonic nebula was easily able during the Late Antiquity to dissimulate its spiritual-intellectual identity and posture as Biblical and Christian, though often heretic (Montanism, Arianism, etc.), although they wasted enormous spiritual and intellectual resources in Gnosticisms and pagan philosophies.
Wall painting from the Tomb of Nefertari, royal consort of Ramses II, at the Valley of the Queens, Luxor West: Nefertari (left) and the ram-headed god Khnum (divine inspector of the sources of the Nile), surrounded by Isis (right) and Nephthys (left) with their respective symbols atop of their heads; in Ancient Egypt, Isis symbolized the sacerdotal college of the Ancient Freemasons and Nephthys represented the ancestral priesthood of the Jesuits.
IV. The Oriental Antiquity of the Jesuit Order
Basic parts of the Ancient Egyptian Memphitic polytheistic dogma and cosmology (ab ovo creation by Ptah), notions of the Theban Trinity (Amun, Mut and Khonsu), the theory of Theogamy (promulgated as imperial dogma by Pharaoh Hatshepsut), fundamental Babylonian polytheistic concepts, notably the dying-and-reborn-‘god’ Dumuzid (Tammuz) and Nergalism, i.e. the Cuthean Vallis lacrimarum (Vale of tears), selected themes of Mithraic Iranian background, and the Manichaean school of thought were all anathema to the Ancient Hebrew religion and to Judaism, but they managed to make their way into the Christian cult and narratives, duly adapted and appended to the stories of the early Gospels. Due to this slow process that lasted several centuries, the Memphitic sacerdotal class -through the biases of Origenism, thanks to St John Cassian’s Institutes and Conferences, and due to the Benedictine Order, and later the Jesuits- seized power in Rome and turned it to the center of the most instinctively Anti-Christian force (or, if you prefer the terminology of John’s Revelation, ‘Babylon the Great’).
V. The Zionists before Judaism
The relationship of the Zionist order with Judaism was different; whereas the ancestral forms of the Freemasons and the Jesuits emanate from the sacerdotal environment of 4th and 3rd millennium BCE Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Zionist institution was totally unrelated to the early stages of the faith of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah and Jonah. Either in Mesopotamia, Canaan or Egypt, the Ancient Hebrews were Assyrian-Babylonian and Egyptian monotheists, who had to abandon their lands and emigrate in order to preserve their monotheistic faith and survive.
Above: Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh, containing the Flood myth; below: clay tablet from Babylon, praising Nebuchadnezzar as ‘king of justice’.
Pretty much like Abraham opposed Nimrud (mythologized as Gilgamesh) in Mesopotamia, Moses stood up to the Pharaoh of Egypt; subsequently, they both had to leave and settle elsewhere. Later, the spiritual, intellectual, cultural and linguistic Canaanization of the Ancient Hebrews, although strongly opposed by the prophets, was overwhelming. Finally, it led to the Assyrian conquest of Samaria (722 BCE), the transportation of the entire population of the Northern kingdom (Israel) to the NE provinces of Assyria, and the subsequent loss of the ten tribes, which have been later called ‘the ten lost tribes’; these developments were tantamount to salvation and they were prophesied as heralding their return (along with that of the Assyrians) at the End of Time. As it can be understood, these prophetic events have nothing to do with the Jews. The destruction of the smaller Southern kingdom (Judah) by Nebuchadnezzar (587 BCE) and the exile of the two tribes (: the Jews) to Babylonia brought about the end of the Ancient Hebrew religion of which minimal traces have been left down to our times.
Above: Abraham cast into fire by Nimrod, from Zubdat-al Tawarikh, a 1583 Ottoman manuscript; below: Nebuchadnezzar’s forces at the siege of Jerusalem, as depicted in a 10th-century Catalan manuscript
There was no Zionism in Ancient Israel; on the contrary, there was constant criticism of the Canaanization process by the prophets. All the liars and propagandists, who believe today that the Torah (Pentateuch) and the other books of the Tanakh {: the Modern Hebrew appellation of the Old Testament, consisting of three initials from Torah, Nevi’im (prophets), and the Ketuvim (‘writings’; i.e. all the other books, namely the ‘Sifrei Kodesh’/ ספרי קודש)} may have been preserved down to our times in the form in which they were initially written before the fall of Jerusalem (587 BCE), either foolishly forget or deliberately conceal the extent of the disaster and the dire conditions under which the exiled Jews had to move, cross a distance of about 1000 km, and reach the whereabouts of the Babylonian capital.
First, they were dispossessed of almost everything; second, they had minimal and primitive means of transportation; third, it is not certain (or even mentioned in any historical source) that they managed to transport with them at least one copy of the Old Testament; in addition, we still do not know the type of support on which it was written (tablets, papyri, etc.). The most plausible interpretation is that, since the Ark of the Covenant was not transported to Babylon (but lost), no significant monuments were taken by the departing Jews, who had to cross on foot a harsh and long terrain before reaching Mesopotamia.
Tablet containing part of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle which covers the years 605-594 BCE of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (605-562 BCE); the cuneiform text describes in brief the first conquest of Jerusalem and the surrender of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, in 597 BCE. It is a copy of the original tablet; approximate date: ca. 500 BCE; origin: Babylon, currently in the British Museum
VI. The Mesopotamian Kassite Origin of the Zionists
It is in 6th c. BCE Babylonia where the early manifestation of the Zionist organization can be attested as being in contact with the exiled Jews; as a matter of fact, the then Zionists were Babylonian polytheistic priests, who read the parts of the sacred texts that the Jews may have managed to bring with them (most probably in fragmentary form), heard their oral traditions, and assessed their broken spirituality and its high origin.
By selecting exiled Jewish laymen and by helping them write down their texts and oral traditions, the Babylonian Zionists first introduced several Assyrian-Babylonian spiritual, religious, intellectual and literary concepts in those texts, always adapting them to the Judaic/Jewish context, and second conditioned the value of the origin Biblical texts, as they appended them to secondary texts that were not due to divine inspiration but merely to explanatory intention. When the limits between divinely inspired text and human explanation were confused, the original religion (Ancient Hebrew religion) was altered and corrupted. Subsequently, a new religion (Judaism) emerged based on different books (and this case, the Old Testament, the Talmud, etc.). More importantly, extra texts and stories have been added, like the Table of Nations, which reflected already a clear Zionist (not Hebrew) purpose.
With the earlier Jewish rabbis executed and eliminated, a segment of the Babylonian polytheistic sacerdotal class converted to ‘Judaism’, as soon as it became obvious that they could dissimulate their origin and identity, while posturing as monotheists and having available the texts that would empower them to lay claim to Jerusalem. Their persistence in the importance of a selected soil had already been attested historically in Ancient Mesopotamia. One must see these developments within the wider spiritual, religious, intellectual and cultural context of the Neo-Sumerian, Ancient Assyrian-Babylonian, and Middle Assyrian-Babylonian times.
Several Ancient Assyrian monotheistic notions, concepts and worldviews, which had earlier caused incessant wars and long conflicts between the monotheist Assyrians and the polytheist Babylonians, were transferred in the extensively re-written ‘holy scriptures’ of the Jews by this Babylonian-‘Jewish’ polytheistic sacerdotal class. This was necessary because these evil spiritual-religious authorities would use them in a gravely altered, duly adapted and counterfeit form for the benefit of their worldview and eschatological attempt (due to the absence of the Ancient Assyrians and the ten tribes of Israel). This is how ancient Mesopotamian spiritual sciences, practices, techniques and exercises made their way into this totally anti-Hebrew, ‘Jewish’ religion, involving divination, magic, astronomy-astrology, the olfactory science and the sonar science (including mystical sonar formulas that are nowadays called ‘Kabbalah’).
The origin of these Babylonian-‘Jewish’ priests, mystics and wise elders should not be considered as necessarily Semitic, in striking contrast to the ancestry of the majority of the Babylonians. Mesopotamia had already had a very long past when the king Nebuchadnezzar brought the exiled population of Judah to Mesopotamia. Several non-Semitic nations had settled and at times ruled Babylon; notably, the Kassites (Kashu in Assyrian-Babylonian; Galzu in Kassite) descended from Zagros Mountains and took control of ‘Gate of God’ (Bab-Ili), after the Hittite conquest of Central Mesopotamia led by Mursili I (1596).
In fact, according to the 1st millennium BCE Babylonian king lists, the Kassite dynasty reigned (with capital at Dur-Kurigalzu; today’s Aqar Quf) for no less than 576 years; their effective rule started in 1595 BCE and ended ca. 1155 BCE, with the Elamite invasion and sack of Babylon by Shutruk Nakhunte. The fact that the Babylonian king lists included a period of reign much longer means that they included a period of tribal rule (before 1595 BCE) limited in South Zagros that the list authors considered as opposed to the Amorite (usually known as the First) dynasty of Babylon. This demonstrates a fully separate, tribal-national identity and self-consciousness; it means that the Kassites lived as an independent sect among the Babylonians, during and after the fall of the Kassite dynasty. About:
Unfinished kudurru (border stele) from the end of the Kassite period, attributed to the reign of Melishipak (1186–1172 BCE); it was unearthed in Susa, where it had been taken as war booty by the invading Elamite army in the 12th c. BCE (Louvre, Paris)
Detail
Written by a Kassite Babylonian scribe in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE, the Chronicle P (named after its first editor, the English Assyriologist T. G. Pinches) offers a very biased interpretation of the incessant conflicts between the Kassite Babylonian rulers and the Assyrian kings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_P
Kudurru dated to the reign of Marduk-apla-iddina I (1171-1159 BCE)
Reverse of clay cuneiform tablet, EA (el Amarna) 9, letter from Kassite Babylonian king Burna-Buriaš II of Karduniash (the Kassite name of Babylon) to Nibḫurrereya (the Assyrian-Babylonian version of the Pharaonic name of Tutankhamun) today in the British Museum; el Amarna is the modern Egyptian name of the location of Akhetaton, the new Pharaonic capital founded by the monotheist Akhenaten in the 14th c. BCE. Vast documentation (named ‘Tel Amarna Letters’) was found in the Pharaonic archives there, including more than 380 letters exchanged between the then world’s major emperors and kings and the Egyptian pharaohs Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV (renamed Akhenaten after the inauguration of the new religion), and his successors. All the letters were written in cuneiform Assyrian-Babylonian, which was the World History’s first international language. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters
Seal of the Kassite Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II (1359–1333 BCE)
Molded baked-brick bas-relief of the temple of Ishtar, which was rebuilt by the Kassite Babylonian king Karaindaš in Uruk; ca. 1410 BCE
The zikkurat of Dur Kurigalzu, original Kassite capital in Babylonia (in today’s Aqar Quf)
Cylinder seal of the Kassite Babylonian king Kurigalzu II (1332–1308 BCE)
VII. The Kassites and the Abomination of Marduk-Yahweh
The monotheist Assyrians considered the Kassites as an execrable abomination and they viewed their rule as an abhorrent desecration of Babylon, the holiest city of Mesopotamia; after the collapse of Kassite Babylonia, the Assyrians incessantly interfered in, and repeatedly invaded, Babylon in order to purify the land, re-sanctify the local elements, and eliminate the Kassite priests. As the Kassite and post-Kassite rise of ‘Marduk’ was a blasphemy and an outrage, the Assyrians made of Assur the universal and only God, whose emanations were all the other divinities; for the monotheist Assyrians, the Marduk could only be the Babylonian copy of Assur. It was therefore normal for them to attempt to eliminate the Kassite polytheistic priesthood whose blasphemous interpretation of the Ancient Assyrian-Babylonian spiritual heritage demanded terminal solution and physical annihilation.
As the subsequent alliance between Babylon and Elam strengthened the anti-Assyrian, anti-monotheist front, the Sargonids (722-609 BCE), empowered by Prophet Jonah’s preaching in Nineveh, managed to vanquish Elam and exterminate all the Elamites who did not early escape far to the East. But they could not do the same in the most ancient and most venerable, yet corrupted city of Babylon; they could only eliminate the evil Kassite priests. This was what they did continuously for no less than 500 years.
An extensive comparative religious study would reveal that the fundamental traits of Kassite and post-Kassite Marduk (and notably the anthropomorphic traits) have been passed onto Yahweh of the J (Jahwist) source of the Pentateuch. But the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses was «ilu» (the Assyrian-Babylonian word for «God»), which was rendered as Elohim in Ancient Hebrew, and that is why the E (Elohist) source of the Torah prevails in the earlier stages of the text.
Above: Marduk depicted on a 9th c. BCE cylinder seal of the post-Kassite Babylonian king Marduk-zakir-shumi I; the god of the Kassite Babylonian polytheists appears mounted on his permanent companion, the fierce snake Mush-khushu (Mušḫuššu). Below: 8th c. BCE Neo-Assyrian seal showing a worshipper between Nabu and Marduk, standing on their servant dragons
The zikkurat Etemenanki (lit. ‘Temple of the foundation of Heaven and Earth’) and, further south, the temple Esagila (: ‘temple with the lofty top’); by placing the statue of Marduk in the temple, the Kassites desecrated Babylon.
It is easy now to reconstruct what truly took place among the exiled Jews in Babylonia; the old Kassite-Babylonian polytheistic priesthood decided to hijack the Biblical heritage by
– sacrilegiously introducing their abomination under another divine name of Egyptian origin (Iah), lunar ascendancy, and Theban trinitarian association (many traits of Khonsu are apparent in both, Iah and Yahweh),
– systematically instituting their favorite stories as ‘Biblical’ narratives (notably their vicious hatred against Ut Napishtim / Noah, their overt predilection for the Giants / Nephilim, their worthless account of Cain’s descendants, which is totally useless for anyone to know, and their deliberate forgery which became known under the name of Table of Nations), and
– expressly demonstrating a very vivid interest for, and obdurate persistence in, certain locations, local presence, and control of land.
For the Kassite-Babylonian polytheistic priesthood’s eschatological projections, the importance of the location was paramount, and for this purpose, they introduced the Zion fanaticism among the exiled Jews; however, this process did not impact them all, and we know very well that, after the Achaemenid Iranian conquest of Babylon (539 BCE), few Jews returned to their ancestral land. The same concerned also the Jews who had fled to, and settled in, Egypt at the times of Psamtik II (595-589 BCE) and Wahibre/Apries (589-570 BCE), because they continued living in Aswan and Elephantine Island (in the South) as well as in the Delta region, without any apparent interest in the ‘Promised Land’.
I have here to markedly underscore that this is very reasonable, because as I already stated, the ‘Return to the Promised Land’, as a constituent element of the Assyrian Cosmology-Eschatology and therefore of the Biblical prophecy, concerns only the Assyrians and the ten lost tribes of Israel – not the Jews.
More importantly, we have full proof that, in later periods, the non-Zionist Jews attempted even to attract other Jews from Jerusalem and Judaea to Egypt; there were no sacred prophecy, no religious need, and no national imperative for the Jews to further stay in Judaea/Palestine. This becomes evident thanks to the story of the land and the temple of Onias (Honiyyo) IV, the Zadokite high priest, who had a Jewish temple built in his name (ca. 170-150 BCE), near Iwnw (Heliopolis), Egypt’s most sacred site and most venerable temple–center of the Ennead, i.e. the Ancient Egyptian monotheism. He found it sensible to invite Jews from Judaea to settle there. It is not therefore strange that the Talmud and the Zionist Roman Jew Flavius Josephus contain many insults against Onias IV.
An important document of the Jewish community at the Elephantine Island, in Aswan, written in Imperial Aramaic; it is dated in the 17th year of reign of Darius II (407 BCE). Yedoniah and other priests dispatched this letter to Bagavahya (Bagoas), the Achaemenid Iranian governor of Judah, in order to demand his permission to rebuild the Jewish temple at the island, because it was destroyed by the Egyptians.
The southern end of the Elephantine Island where the Jewish temple was located
Marriage contract between Ananiah and Tamut (449 BCE); another document from the Elephantine Aramaic papyri (today in the Brooklyn Museum)
Zionism spread gradually among all Jewish communities as early as the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE); the Maccabees (family of Mattathias ben Johanan) and the Pharisees (Prusim; priests) were controlled by the Zionist group that tried to infiltrate all the Jews in Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, Egypt and elsewhere. It is quite interesting that, following the Zionist-Jahwist infiltration, the Jews of Elephantine built a temple to Yahweh, also attaching to his cult that of his consort, the goddess Anat. About:
VIII. The Guti, the Kassites, the Flood, and Zionism
Pretty much like the Kassites were a different ethnicity from the Semitic Babylonians, the Zionists who entered into mixed marriages with the exiled Jews formed a totally separate ethnic group. The few Kassite nouns and words that have been saved in cuneiform Babylonian texts do not allow us to form a conclusive opinion as regards the linguistic family and the ethnic group to which they belonged; selected Kassite nouns seem to be of Indo-European origin, but other words appear to have affinities with Turanian languages. The early settlements of the Kassites in the region of Zagros Mountains make it probable for them to have maintained contacts with other, closely related tribes and clans in Central Asia from where they seem to have originated.
In their type of relationship with the land of their ancestors in Central Asia, the Kassites seem to have had predecessors and successors, namely tribal populations, which -despite their partly settlement in Mesopotamia- maintained contact with their relatives in their land of origin. Forerunners of the Kassites were certainly the Guti (known as Gutium in Sumerian), who played in 3rd millennium BCE Mesopotamia exactly the same role that the Kassites carried out during the 2nd millennium BCE: the blasphemous, ominous and sacrilegious non-humans who corrupt and destroy the principles, concepts and structures of civilization.
Inscription of Lugal-Anne-Mundu, king of Adab (a major Sumerian city near the modern town of Bismaya in Wasit, Iraq), who reigned for ca. 90 years in the 25th c. BCE; the text is a later copy from the reign of Ammi-Saduqa of Babylonia (17th c. BCE). Stating that he conquered the “four quarters of the world”, the Sumerian king enumerates the kingdoms and the peoples he subdued, mentioning the Guti among them. Their location was between Subartu (the Mesopotamian North) and Marhashe and Elam (in the Southeast), so clearly somewhere in the Middle-South Zagros Mountains.
Sar-e Pol-e Zohab, Western Iran near the Iraqi border: rock relief of Anubanini, king of the tribal realm of Lullubi in the 23rd c. BCE (at the time of Naram Sin of Akkad); Lullubi was part of the wider world of the Sumerian-Akkadian civilization. The inscription (partly damaged during the Iran-Iraq war), written in Akkadian (: the earliest form of Assyrian-Babylonian), details the victory of the tribal ruler over a series of enemies in the Zagros Mountains. Anubanini evokes his faith to Inanna (: Sumerian equivalent of the Assyrian-Babylonian Ishtar) and to many other Sumerian-Akkadian aspects of divinity. The rock relief shows Anubanini trampling an enemy, most probably a Guti. A later (18th – 17th c. BCE) epic, known today as Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin, which was named ‘tupshenna pitema’ (ṭupšenna pitēma; ‘Open the tablet box’) at the time, mentions the wars undertaken by Anubanini against the barbarian and unclean Guti,
Anubanini rock relief (photo taken by Ernst Herzfeld in 1913
Votive mace head of the Guti king La-erabum (ca. 2150 BCE) from Sippar, South Iraq; the inscription reads “La-eraab, great King of Guti” (la-e-ra-ab da-num lugal gutiim).
The parallels are incredible; in the same manner the sinful and impious Kassites contaminated Babylon in the early 16th c. BCE, the wicked Guti desecrated Akkad (‘Agade’ in Assyrian-Babylonian), the world’s first universal and imperial capital of Sargon (Sharrukin) of Akkad at the end of the 23rd c. BCE. The Guti infiltration caused the ‘malediction of Akkad’ by Ishtar, the fall of the universal Akkadian Empire, and the Flood. This ‘curse’ is not only a spiritual fact, but also a critical historical text that details the collapse of the earliest Semitic rule at the end of the reign of Naram Sin (2254-2218 BCE), son of Rimush and grandson of Sargon of Akkad.
In the Malediction of Akkad (Old Babylonian edition, verses 140-155), it is stated that «the good sense left Agade», «Agade’s intelligence was removed», and «Enlil, the roaring storm that subjugates the entire land, the rising deluge that cannot be confronted, was considering what should be destroyed», whereas the Guti are described as «an unbridled people, with human intelligence but canine instincts and monkeys’ features». About:
For the time being and on the basis of hitherto found, studied and published texts, we cannot affirm that there is an ethnic connection between the Guti and the Kassites; their respective languages are scarcely known and only some nouns and words survived from both of them, written in cuneiform Akkadian (: Assyrian-Babylonian) texts. But on account of their vice, profanity, and barbarism, we can deduce that their behavioral resemblance may be possibly due to a tribal affinity that can be traced back to their land of origin somewhere in Central Asia or even Mongolia, Central and Eastern Siberia.
Similarly with the Kassites, the Guti had targeted the Mesopotamian civilization, descending from Middle Zagros (where they had first settled), raiding cities, and profaning whatever they touched; their control of Mesopotamia lasted almost a century (2141 – ca. 2050 BCE). As it happened following the collapse of Kassite Babylonia, after the fall of their rule, the Guti left bad memories that the Neo-Sumerians, notably Ur-Nammu (2112-2094 BCE) and the rulers of the Third Dynasty of Ur, as well as the Assyrians-Babylonians never forgot. About:
The association of the Guti with the Flood, which was first prophesied in Sumerian and Akkadian texts, then came to pass as an overwhelming event, and later was amply narrated in Assyrian-Babylonian historical, cosmological, and mythological texts, is of cardinal importance; in fact, the abominable deeds of the Guti were the true reason for the Flood. The limits of the present article do not allow me to expand further, but I have to point out that the narrative differences between the Sumerian and the Assyrian-Babylonian sacred texts about the Flood (notably Atrahasis, the Eridu Genesis, Gilgamesh, the Instructions of Shuruppak, etc.) and the Biblical story are in reality due to the perversion of the Kassite Babylonian-‘Jewish’ polytheistic sacerdotal class that we can describe as ‘Zionist priesthood’.
Above: cylinder seal of Ur-Nammu, founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Neo-Sumerian period), bearing an inscription part of which reads: “Ur-Nammu, the Great man, King of Ur”; below: stele of Ur-Nammu found in Ur in 1927 (currently in Penn Museum): only the lower part of the Sumerian king’s body is seen, as he is depicted standing in front of Nanna (Sumerian equivalent of Sin, who was symbolized by the Moon) and the Holy Tree.
Fully adjusted to their interests, the Biblical account is composed in a way to obscure the truth that the Guti did indeed survive during the Flood due to the full support offered to them by their masters, namely the Giants. This explains the force of the words that the Assyrians and the Babylonians used in order to describe the Guti so negatively, so badly and so pejoratively. The only reason for which the Assyrian and Babylonian monotheists, namely the high priests, the spiritual mystics and the wise scholars of Nineveh, Babylon and so many other high places, reviled the Guti, the Kassites and the Elamites so strongly is related to the sacrilege, the uncleanness, and the inhumanity that they discerned in those evil races. It is obvious that, in this context, ‘unclean’ refers to blood and semen; the use of the term involves the foremost transgression, therefore implying sexual intercourse with non-humans.
IX. Guti, Kassites, Gog & Magog, Unclean Nations, and Alexander the Great
Located in Central Asia, the forefathers of the Guti and the Kassites seem to have had an affinity with the clan of Gog which was mentioned few times in the Bible (Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 5:4; Ezekiel 38:1-23; 39:1-29). The Old Testament has indeed only brief references to this clan; the bulk of them are to be found in the Book of Ezekiel, in the description of a clearly eschatological event. However, the ancient wickedness perpetrated by Gog, which may/might have been included in the original Biblical text, was duly erased from the text.
The Book of Ezekiel, which was composed and circulated in an early form in the 6th c. BCE, is the only Old Testament text that offers an insight into the end times’ clash between Israel (namely the ten lost tribes/ not the Jews) and the alliance set up by (the offspring of) Gog. This eschatological narrative may have played a role in the Kassite Babylonian polytheistic priests’ decision to convert to Judaism, impersonate the Jews, and thus effectively ‘transform’ themselves (and their scattered and unclean nation) into ‘Jews’, i.e. a ‘Chosen People’ supposedly predestined to ‘return’ to their ‘Promised Land’; this evildoing would and actually did function as the perfect smokescreen throughout ages. In this manner, the viciously anti-Semitic, Zionist priesthood of the unclean tribes or nations would posture as a Semitic, pious, and clean people that was chosen by God.
It is however in the literary-epic-eschatological masterpiece that is conventionally known under the name ‘Alexander Romance’, and more particularly in the Syriac version (which is denoted rather as the ‘Syriac Alexander Legend’), as well as in a great multitude of valuable Islamic sources, that we first come across with the true identification of Gog (and ‘Magog’; in Arabic Yajuj and Majuj; يأجوج ومأجوج) and the characterization of this ‘ethnic group’ as an abhorrently ‘unclean nation’. With this enormous amount of textual narratives we reach the third historical stage of the impious, inhuman and sacrilegious populations (in Greek: ρυπαρά γένη); Gog is the apparent spiritual-intellectual-behavioral continuity of the Guti and the Kassites whose origin was, as I already said, in Central Asia. Due to the aforementioned abundant sources, we have a remarkable insight into what prevented the unclean nations from advancing their evildoing prior to the End of Times. I have however to add at this point that all the existing references to Gog are not historical, but either mythological or eschatological. About:
The profane pattern, the cultural rejection, and the civilizational abjuration of the Guti and the Kassites had become a constant parameter of the Assyrian-Babylonian History; irrespective of the monotheist opposition that these impious and inhuman populations generated, the faithful followers of monotheism and the numerous pious emperors encountered always great difficulty to prevent the infiltration in their state, the amalgamation with other nations, and the dissimulation undertaken by the evil and impious nations. This situation lasted from the end of the 3rd millennium BCE to the end of the 4th c. BCE, during the Neo-Sumerian times (2112-2004 BCE), the Old Assyrian times (2025-1701 BCE), the Old Babylonian times (2003-1595 BCE), the Middle Assyrian times (1700-1364 BCE), the Neo-Assyrian times (1363-722), the Sargonid Empire (722-609 BCE) and the Achaemenid Iranian Empire (550-330 BCE).
Representation of the monster of Gog and Magog from a miniature of the Walters manuscript W659190B: copy of the famous geographer and cosmographer Zakariya al-Qazwini’s masterpiece ‘Wonders of the Creation and Oddities of the Existence’ (Aja’ib al-makhluqat wa-ghara’ib al-mawjudat; عجائب المخلوقات وغرائب الموجودات) that was composed in the middle of the 13th c. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aja%27ib_al-Makhluqathttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakariya_al-Qazwini
Alexander builds the wall against Gog and Magog; miniature of a manuscript of Nizami Ganjavi’s Khamsa (Quintet), ca. 1580-1590
The erection of the wall against Gog and Magog
Led by their Master, namely Satan, the unclean nations Gog and Magog attack and finally take hold of the Holy City: Miniature from the Russian book «Апокалипсис трехтолковый» (Apokalipsis trekhtolkoviy/The Apocalypse of Three Senses; chapter 63: ‘About Goz and Magoz’) that was printed in the Moscow Printing House of the Old Believers 1909; the miniature was taken from a manuscript of the first half of the 17th c. This Russian miniature reminds us that, according to several Christian Orthodox traditions, the unclean nations were expected to occupy Jerusalem for the span of one generation prior to the End of Times. The recurrent theme of the naked or quasi-naked appearance of the unclean nations in representations produced in different cultural, religious and artistic environments is not due to a certain artistic invention but to a historical hint; it reveals that the origin of their uncleanness was a lawless intercourse. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers
Emperor Theophilos of the Eastern Roman Empire (Θεόφιλος; reigned 829-842) as portrayed in the miniature of a manuscript of John Skylitzes’ Chronicle (Σύνοψις Ἱστοριῶν), which was written 200 years later. The basileus is meaningfully depicted as protected by two Varangian soldiers, who were rumored to be representatives of Gog and Magog. The rumors reveal however how falsehood is diffused by secret societies; evildoers project onto others what they inherently are, thus exempting themselves from the evil that inhabits them.
Details from the Catalan Atlas (1375), which is currently in the Bibliothèque Nationale, in Paris; this part of the map shows the land named ‘Gog i Magog’; there, we see the local king riding his horse while the people of the land follow in a procession. Quite interestingly, the map also includes a representation of Alexander’s Gate, Alexander himself, and the Antichrist (upside down), whereas the mechanical trumpeters herald the forthcoming ages. The eschatological dimension of the topic is ostensible.
Gog and Magog eating people; miniature from a 14th c. manuscript, fol. 60v, 63v, 65, leaves containing recension of Thomas de Kent, Roman de toute chevalerie (1308-1312), Bibliothèque nationale de France (24364); the recurrent theme of nakedness of the unclean nations is attested here as well.
The Alexander Romance is deliberately a most disrespected, most disregarded, and most evaded historical text that offers expansive description of how the Macedonian king Alexander the Great invaded Achaemenid Iran and substituted himself to the Achaemenid Shah in order to carry out the work that Cyrus I, Cambyses, Darius I and Xerxes I had failed to implement. The marvelous work involved the erection of a wall to separate the impious nations from Iran and the rest of the world. Around this narrative nucleus revolve many other mythical topics that reflect historical events in symbolic manner. It goes without saying that Alexander’s wall against Gog and Magog was a formidable spiritual obstacle that the impious nations would be unable to overcome until the End of Time.
The mystical wall of Alexander the Great has nothing to do with what centuries later proved to be the World History’s greatest monument after the Great Wall of China, namely the Great Wall of Gorgan; the majestic Sassanid imperial defense system, which is more than 200 km long, was built in the 5th and 6th c. CE, but during the Islamic times, it was often confused with Alexander’s wall against Gog and Magog because the location of the impious nations was thought to be in parts of Central Asia beyond Gorgan and more specifically around the northern coastlands of the Caspian Sea. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_Gorgan
The confusion of the Sassanid imperial wall with the mystical wall erected by the Macedonian King and Iranian Emperor Alexander the Great was overwhelming in the Islamic literature and art; however, this fact does not change in anything the functionality of the spiritual wall, which was erected in order to obstruct the Zionist scheme and to prevent the Kassite Babylonian polytheistic priests from achieving the targets of the secret plan that started with their conversion to Judaism, the formation of the class of the Prusim/Pharisees priests, and the elaboration of the paradoxical (as per the Ancient Hebrew religion’s criteria) books of Judaism (Talmud, Mishnah, etc.).
X. Jews, Fake Jews, Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Dynasty, and Flavius Josephus
At this point, I have to make it clear that one must never confuse the sacrilegious priesthood with the impious nation; the Kassite Babylonian polytheists, who impersonated the Jewish priests and carried out an extensive amalgamation -and therefore corruption- project due to intermarriages between the exiled Jews and the Guti and Kassite residents in 6th c. BCE Babylonia, were the evil ruling class that consciously implemented an eschatological plan to desecrate the Mankind and in the process destroy the Earth; the hijacked and corrupted nation was a mere tool in the priesthood’s hands.
As they intended to turn selected individuals from other nations into impious humans and corrupt beings, they ordered the mass conversion of the Kassite Babylonians to Judaism and they undertook the establishment of a network of small communities made up by amalgamated Babylonian Jews (i.e. fake Jews). After the formation of regular contact with their nucleus that had remained in the ancestral land (in Central Asia), the Kassite Babylonian Zionist priesthood started customarily dispatching numerous representatives (disguised as merchants) to faraway locations (Anatolia, Black Sea coastlands, Carthage, Western Mediterranean, etc.). The leading role played by the Aramaeans in the network of commercial roads within and beyond the Achaemenid Iran facilitated this process, because Aramaic, which has linguistic affinities with Babylonian and Ancient Hebrew, had already become a lingua franca from Western Anatolia to India to Central Asia.
Within the vast Achaemenid Empire and, thanks to the emergence of the trade routes between China, India, East Africa, and the Mediterranean Sea, it became very easy and considerably safe for the amalgamated Babylonian ‘Jews’ to move across great distances. As many Jews had already relocated to different countries (notably to Egypt, but also in Media, as the Book of Tobit credibly informs us), the amalgamated Babylonian Jews were not easily accepted as genuine by the true Jews, and these developments generated divisions, strives, conflicts and killings.
Diverse sources document these quarrels that lasted for hundreds of years and can be attested within Jewish or Christian religious environments. A typical example is offered by the Book of Revelation, in which (chapter 3) the Early Christian Church of Philadelphia (modern city of Alaşehir, near Magnesia/Manisa, Western Turkey) is mentioned (3:9; New International Version/NIV) as it follows: “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you”.
The Cave of the Apocalypse where John the Apostle, according to the Fathers of the Christian Church, wrote the Book of the Revelation
The composition of the Talmud and the other ‘sacred’ books of the so-called Talmudic-Rabbinic Judaism had basically one target, namely to ‘de-Hebraicize’ and ‘de-Semitize’ (and therefore Zionize) the religion of the genuine Jews, i.e. to totally eliminate the Semitic, Ancient Hebrew, monotheist nature of their religion and to greatly minimize the value and the validity of the Mosaic Law among them. Subsequently, the original Biblical spirituality, faith, and religion were indeed replaced by an endless talk about them; this was indeed a drastic and most calamitous change of religion, because the religious event itself lost its spiritual importance in the minds and the hearts of the believers, as it was supplanted by the rational, explanatory talk about it.
Representation of the “magnificent Persian-style villa” in Nehardea (Central Mesopotamia, then part of the Sassanid Empire of Iran) where the leading Talmudist and exilarch Rav Huna (216-297 CE) of the Pumbedita Talmudic Academy used to receive “the elders of the community”, teach Halakha, Aggadah, etc., and write further parts of the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli). Only in the first half of the 4th c., during the days of Abba ben Joseph bar Hama (known as Rava), the Talmudic Academy was transferred to Mahoze, as it was the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic name of Tesifun/Ctesiphon (today’s Al Mada’in), the second Sassanid imperial capital. From the Diaspora Museum (formerly known as Beit Hatfutsot; בית התפוצות) in Tel Aviv. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehardeahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbedita
In this manner, due to their ethnic amalgamation with the Kassite Babylonian Zionists and following their religious alteration, the Jews turned out to be real ‘Goyim’ (Gentiles). For this reason, from that period (late Achaemenid and early Seleucid times), the Zionist Jews and their priesthood started an enormous effort in order to establish, propagate, and convince the other nations about the supposedly great, dramatic differentiation between them (self-styled as the ‘Chosen People’) and all the rest (goyim). It goes without saying that the supposed differentiation involved tons of arrogance, self-praise, and absurdity about those fake Jews’ supposed ‘superiority’.
The effort was entirely nonsensical and spiritually irrelevant; when the true Mosaic Law and the monotheist faith in Elohim prevailed among the Ancient Hebrews, they rightfully boasted about their acts, deeds and cult that made them different from the other nations. When post-exilic Jews lost their ethnic and religious identity, integrity, piety and purity, their supposed difference from the other nations was an outrageous lie and an evident expression of vicious hatred of the others. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goy
That is why Flavius Josephus had to expand on the hypothetical (?) meeting between Alexander the Great and the (post-exilic Kassite Babylonian Zionist Jewish) high priest in Jerusalem; writing after a long period of clashes, uprising, rivalry and enmity between the Seleucids and the Maccabees, the Roman-Jewish military leader, renegade and historian was a consummate Zionist. By presenting Alexander the Great as expressing respect to the Zionist Pharisee, who was in charge of the edifice founded by Zerubbabel (זְרֻבָּבֶל) at the end of the 6th c. BCE, Josephus attempted to discredit the illustrious Seleucid imperial tradition and the staunch Seleucid Anti-Zionism, which in reality was a form of esteem and approbation of the Assyrian and Hebrew Biblical monotheism. About:
Zerubbabel rebuilds the temple; from 15th c. manuscript miniature of the Secreta secretorum (ff. 1-43)
It is interesting that the person of Zerubbabel gave birth to a 7th c. CE Rabbinical Apocalyptic literature of extreme anti-Christian and anti-Constantinopolitan rage. In the Book of Zerubbabel (ספר זרובבל/Sefer Zerubavel; also known as Apocalypse of Zerubbabel), Virgin Mary is explicitly insulted, the Christian Church slandered, and Emperor Heraclius is presented (by means of the anagram ‘Armilus’) as the true precursor of the Talmudic Antichrist. In this regard, Heraclius’ prophecy about the return of the Eastern Romans to Syria at the End of Time, as it is preserved in Tabari’s History, becomes highly meaningful. As you can easily understand in the light of the above mentioned, Armilus is associated with Gog by the author of the Sefer Zerubavel! About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Zerubbabelhttps://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/sefer-zerubbabel/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armilus
All the same, the author of the Jewish Antiquities (Ἰουδαϊκὴ ἀρχαιολογία) needed apparently to portray (in the 11th book) the outstanding Anti-Zionist emperor as respectful of the anti-Hebrew and anti-Biblical cleric. This need may have been due to the early diffusion of mythological-eschatological narratives and oral traditions about the grand opus of Alexander the Great (namely the Alexander Romance). Many modern scholars and researchers date the earliest existing manuscripts back to the 3rd c. CE, but this date appears to be very late. The earliest traditions must go back to the early Seleucid times; these eschatological traditions must have made of Seleucid Antioch a most loathed capital for the Zionist Pharisees and the Kassite Babylonian Jewish converts. Contrary to what most historians believe, the rivalry was not religious, ethnic, cultural or imperial of nature; it was eschatological.
In addition, Josephus tried to depict Alexander the Great as the authenticator (or validator) of the Jewish Talmudic tradition; by stating that the respect was not personal but due to Jaddua’s tradition, heritage and religion, Josephus’ Alexander, as an ahistorical construct, gives substantive credit to 4th c. BCE Judaism, by offering to the distorted religion’s clerics an antiquity and an authenticity that were not theirs.
XI. Jews, Fake Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Romans
The Romans proved to be fools by thinking that the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the kingdom of Judah would solve the problem; actually, the ‘problem’ was not the existence of the Jews in the Roman Empire, but the iniquitous presence of the Kassite Babylonian converts among the Jews. Without taking into account the increasing number of intermarriages between Jews and fake Jews (Guti-Kassite-Gog) and without uprooting the Talmudic Zionist priesthood of Pharisees, no one could put an end to all the troubles caused by that secret society. Unfortunately, only Jesus was shrewd enough and able to denounce the Pharisees in public; in parallel, he rejected any attitude similar that of the Sicarii (Zealots).
These facts fully demonstrate what happened at the time; the acts of the Sicarii triggered the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem. Then, Jesus’ stance reveals that the Talmudic Zionist Pharisees had always the tendency to aptly utilize terrorists for their benefit; this mentality is inherent to them. One can be sure that by all means there was no parallel between Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest (587 BCE) and Titus’ invasion (70 CE) of Judah and Jerusalem. Important manuscripts, valuable books, and numerous cult items must have been taken out of the besieged city and transported to safe locations either within the Roman Empire or in Parthian Mesopotamia where the bulk of the fake Jews and the Kassite Babylonian Talmudic rabbis lived in peace and prospered.
Above: the so-called ‘Tower of Babel stele’, excavated by the German Assyriologist Robert Koldewey in 1911, shows Nebuchadnezzar standing in front of a miniature of the great zikkurat Etemenanki of Babylon. Below: fired mudbrick bearing cuneiform inscription with the name and titles of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon
Titus (Titus Caesar Vespasianus; reigned 79-81 CE); Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem was commemorated in Rome, and the booty was depicted in reliefs on the Arch of Titus.
As a matter of fact, the Roman military action played into the Pharisees’ game. The generalization of the anti-Jewish oppression throughout the Roman Empire put an end to the cosmopolitan Jews and the Sadducee priesthood that was the only real rival of the Pharisees, the repository of the Ancient Hebrew spiritual, religious and cultural tradition, and the major institution representing the clean, non-Zionist, Jews. A major spiritual and intellectual figure of the Sadducees was Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 50 CE; known as Yedidiyah ha-Alexandri in Hebrew); his teachings, doctrine and worldview stood at the very antipodes of those of the Zionist Pharisees, going rather in the same direction as the concepts, tenets, and deeds of several Gnostic mystics, and of all those who could be then described as spiritual ancestors of Modern Freemasonry.
Another catastrophic consequence of the Roman military action was the extinction of the Essenes, a sect of repentant Jews, who apparently understood much of what had been done to their hapless ancestors when they were exiled in Babylonia. For this very reason, rituals of purification were incessantly performed among them; the Essenes (אִסִּיִים; Isiyim) concluded that it was crucial and vital for all Jews to perform purification rituals and to thus break with the unclean amalgamation, counterfeit spirituality, and blasphemous tradition that had appeared among their ancestors at the time of the Babylonian exile. As one could easily expect, the Zionist rage and hatred of the Essenes was always unrestrainable; it so remains today. Example:
Consequently, to eliminate the real problem, a Roman Emperor would have to invade Mesopotamia where the Babylonian Talmud was being composed. This military target was achieved by Trajan (113-116 CE), but apparently this great ruler (who also fought against the ‘Jews’) did not have a clue about the long-term threat originating from that seemingly small and powerless college of Zionist priests.
In fact, the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) by the Romans, which is absolutely unrelated to the eschatological prophecy uttered by Jesus and recorded in the Gospels, helped both, the Zionist Pharisee priests to completely prevail among the Jews and the Kassite Babylonian converts to further infiltrate into the remaining clean communities of the Jewish Diaspora.
This means that, until the emergence of Roman Christianity and the rise of Islam, the bulk of the Zionist fake Jewish priests were active mainly in Asia, revolving around the Silk Road, and interacting with various elites in Iran, Mesopotamia, and Central Asia; however, they were never able to substantially advance their scheme. In other words, like the predecessors of the Freemasons and the Jesuits, the forerunners of the Zionists were located in the Orient – or, if you prefer, in the East.
XII. Gog, Khazars, and Ashkenazi Zionism
During the successive Turanian migrations and invasions of Europe, which occurred throughout the Late Antiquity (539 BCE – 622 CE), we notice the beginning of what can be described as the major Zionist leap to the West; after the dissolution of the First Turkic Khaganate, the unclean tribes (already known as Gog and Magog among the then Christians) intermingled with the Khazars, entering into mixed marriages and becoming integral part of the nomad nation. This development enabled them to improve their position in Mesopotamia, namely the central province of the Islamic Caliphate (where they had lived for thousands of years), to impact the developments in the Islamic World, to infiltrate the Eastern Roman Empire, and to present themselves as potential allies of various rulers. About:
The narrative about the Khazar conversion to Islam (around 800 CE) reflects only the resolute intention of the old Guti-Kassite Babylonian Zionist priesthood to usher their unclean populations and communities to the next stage of eschatological scheme and to start moving to the west, settle in Europe, and further intermingle with the remaining clean Jews. It is therefore not strange that the ethnonym ‘Ashkenazim’ was given to the descendants of the Khazars; in Hebrew, it means ‘Scythian’. The Gog had already been associated to ‘Scythians’ in many sources, and the same occurred in the case of the Khazars.
Following this brief presentation, one understands clearly that when we, today, make the distinction between Ashkenazim Khazarians and Sephardic Jews, we rather approach the topic in an apparently conventional manner. In reality, the forefathers of the Ashkenazim, namely the Guti-Kassite Babylonian priests, had already implemented a vast amalgamation plan, arranging intermarriages of the exiled Jews in Babylonia with their unclean tribes that had settled there one millennium earlier; the plan was carried out incessantly ever since.
Western Turkic Khaganate (603-742 CE) and Eastern Turkic Khaganate (603-645 CE) as they emanated from the First Turkic Khaganate (552–603 CE)
The plan for contamination and desecration of the Jews and the extraordinary attachment to the ‘Promised Land’, Jerusalem and Zion are eschatologically crucial because, contrarily to all other nations, the Guti were not the descendants of Ut Napishtim / Noah. By impersonating the Jews (and therefore the ‘Chosen People’), the Zionists intend to occupy Palestine (that they called ‘Israel’, not ‘Judah’) and the wider Middle East (which is now called ‘Greater Israel’) in order to oppose the prophesied return of the Assyrians and the ten lost tribes of Israel. As per the directives of their eschatological plans, they have nowhere else to go.
The clash between the three secret societies (Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists) is not a confrontation of interests, but a conflict among three eschatological strategies (or schemes); it takes the form of covert war between the unclean nations (namely Gog and Magog, controlled by the Zionists), and the descendants of the Assyrians and the ten lost tribes of Israel, who are fooled and subdued by the Freemasons and the Jesuits. The modalities of the conflict involve also reciprocal infiltration among these organizations, splits of the three secret societies, and superposition of agendas.
However, the essence of the confrontation is not only about the outcome of the end times; it is also the reflection of ages-old disputes that shaped World History. In fact, everything that happens today and more particularly the plans that are being now worked out, all are parameterized to events that took place in Mesopotamia and Egypt before 5000 years; for this reason, the slightest details of the past can matter greatly. For this reason, the overwhelming focus on, and the fallacious propaganda about, the so-called Greco-Roman world and the Judeo-Christian civilization, function merely as the smokescreen, preventing average people to understand the true origin of the conflict. In this regard, the diverse surprises comprised in the Book of Daniel may only confirm first, the importance of Alexander’s mystical deed, which was deliberately discredited as a ‘myth’ or even banned from our world, and second, the evocation of the Seleucid omen. That is why the ‘burden of Damascus’ will surely remain unfathomable for today’s fake Jews, as long as Syria is not in the right hands.
In a forthcoming article, I will reveal how important the Seleucid heritage will prove to be in the forthcoming, inevitable termination of the present world order and of the postdiluvian life that the true humans were forced to implacably experience due to their earlier inexcusable sins.
In a previous article titled ‘Palestinians vs. Israelis: 11 Hidden Historical Truths about a Futile War’, I expanded briefly on crucial historical points that the Palestinians and the entire world do not know concerning first the History of the kingdoms of Ancient Israel and Judah and second the identity of today’s so-called Jews whose outright majority (85-90%), namely the Ashkenazi Khazarians, by all means are not Jews ethnically, linguistically, culturally and religiously. I also pointed out that even the Sephardic Jews, who make ca. 10-15% of the so-called World Jewry, are not entitled to the Promised Land (i.e. Palestine) as per historical evidence; furthermore, I made it clear that the Sephardim do not constitute part of the Chosen People (i.e. the ten lost tribes of Ancient Israel) whose ‘return’ was prophesied in the Old Testament. The article can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/107952726/Palestinians_vs_Israelis_11_Hidden_Historical_Truths_about_a_Futile_War
The Philistines, ancestors of Palestinians, captured and abducted the Ark of the Covenant, taking it to Philistia; fresco from the Aramaean (ethnically non-Jewish) Synagogue of Dura Europos (near Abu Kamal, by the bank of Euphrates, Eastern Syria; currently in the National Museum of Damascus) with representation of the scene (middle of 3rd c. CE). Will a Palestinian find the lost Ark and take it to Gaza?
I. The Spiritual and Moral Conditions of National Resistance
In the present article, I intend to offer a different perspective, revealing other hidden truths, which disastrously impacted the warring parties, engulfing them in a war that is not truly theirs but that of their respective masters. I have however to point out beforehand that similar situations and conditions can be attested in many other lands and among different nations. It is essential for all to understand that without identity clarity and in the absence of integrity coherence, not one nation can possibly achieve real sovereignty, national independence, and genuine self-determination. If this is hard for some to assess, I can help them by making the following two academic questions:
– Yes! The Palestinians have right to Palestine; but what is it good for them to have full control of the territory of their land, “from the River to the Sea” (من النهر إلى البحر; min al-nahr ila al-bahr) as they say (the statement was officially endorsed by PLO in 1964), if this, hypothetical, ‘independent’ Palestine is going to be as subordinate, subservient, obedient and docile a state as Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Albania and many other countries, which function in reality as disreputable protectorates of the colonial powers, i.e. France, England and the US?
– Who is the idiot who believes that these countries are ‘Muslim’ or ‘Christian’?
They are all evil realms of besotted followers, materialistic consumers, bastard rulers, academic liars, conniving journalists, and criminal politicians; they will all perish in the Hell that they deserve, because they shamelessly and immorally utilize selected excerpts of sacred texts for their Satanic interests.
Examining the lamentable and abhorrent History of Modern Occupied Palestine, many people -irrespective of their ancestry, culture, religion, and language- make a tremendous mistake without even noticing it. They focus on the innumerable and appalling atrocities carried out by the fake-Jewish, Zionist gangsters against peaceful and innocent Palestinians who were attacked and murdered in their villages in the 1940s, 1950s and ever since. Although these observers and commentators focus on real facts and highlight the historical truth by so doing, they also commit a terrible error that totally affects their overall judgment and final conclusion. Their evaluation is unilaterally material and materialistic; they would have been correct, had we been deprived of soul, spirituality, faith, Hereafter and God. These mistaken writers and scholars commit indeed the miscalculation that the worst enemies of Mankind want them to make.
There is no science without spirituality; there is no scholarly analysis without moral; there is no knowledge without life; there is no study without soul; and there is no news without faith. We are not bodies; the adversaries of Mankind want to turn us to impotent beings disconnected from our souls and plunged in sin, lawlessness, odium and iniquity. Failing to comprehend the daily developments and facts within the only correct context, namely our double, spiritual and material, subsistence, we instantaneously become Darwinists, evolutionists, materialists, and renegades of our faith, whatever it may be.
How can we comprehend historical developments and facts by also taking into account the spiritual and the moral conditions of our everyday life? The response to this question has been known for thousands of years thanks to religious texts; we can never forget, when examining our situation, the moral and the spiritual dimensions of every single act committed by a human. It is a terrible oversight not to consider that the present life is a brief passage of our souls from the material world; the rest, i.e. the Hereafter, matters much more. In fact, this life is merely an exam that we have to pass successfully; for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
In fact, the hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians, who were indiscriminately ruined, dispossessed and murdered for the lawless, illegal, fallacious and criminal state of Israel to be set up and persist in order to spread iniquity, immorality, sinfulness, falsehood, unchastity, debauchery and inhumanity, gained eternal life in the Hereafter. What is higher distinction for a man than to exemplify the Biblical Job and the Quranic Ayyub as a lifelong innocent sufferer?
I have to add at this point that the aforementioned concept is neither Islamic nor Hebrew-Jewish nor Christian, but entirely Assyrian-Babylonian; it has first been a cardinal element of the Ancient Mesopotamian spirituality, moral, culture and civilization for centuries and millennia. Composed by Shubshi Mashra Shakkan (Šubši-mašrâ-Šakkan) in the 14th c. BCE, the primary text of Assyrian-Babylonian Wisdom ‘Ludlul bel Nemeqi’ (‘I praise the lord of wisdom’) is the first presentation of the subject. There is no originality in the Bible and the Quran; as divine revelations, they follow other earlier manifestations of the Divine among humans. In any case, about the absolute dependence of the so-called ‘Biblical world’ on the paramount civilizations of Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, I already wrote in my previous article.
By stating the above, I do not mean that Palestinians should accept their fate passively and submit themselves to the dictates of the alien, sinful and criminal usurpers of the fair name of Ancient Israel and of the historical Jewish faith in order to perform the most monstrous and the most inhuman deeds in the History of Mankind. No! The Palestinians should never accept the villainous falsehood of the Ashkenazi Khazarians and the Zionist agenda.
However, there is an enormous difference between the resolute rejection of the lawless Ashkenazi Khazarian rule over Palestine and the self-inculpation of the Palestinians, who believe that they can do to the Israelis what the Israelis did to them. This is a trap for every faithful person; by hating enemies and by acting like them, humans lose their purpose in life, their faith and their soul. This can hardly be an option.
The spiritual and moral conditions of national resistance are however a vast topic that imposes extensive discussion; this is not however the topic of present article. All the same, I can herewith offer an example to best illustrate my approach. Perceiving the fabrication of the Zionist state as an entirely colonial affair and evaluating the evil behavior of the Zionists as clearly colonial of nature, we have to conclude that the famous Palestinian academic and philologist Edward Wadie Said (1935-2003) played a far more successful part in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine (and many other colonial and postcolonial lands) than Yasser Arafat (1929-2004).
Thanks to Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’ (1978, Pantheon Books, 368 p.), millions or dozens of millions of people across the Earth realized that it is not enough that the former colonial ruler goes for you to be properly and completely decolonized (and since the colonial powers were Western) de-Westernized. Yasser Arafat created the structures of a resistance movement in Palestine; the Palestinian National Authority, following the Oslo Accords (1993-1995), is certainly to be credited to Yasser Arafat. But how much did living standards among Palestinians improve ever since? Did Palestinians achieve self-determination in the process?
Were the Oslo Accords respected by the state of Israel or effectively contravened? An objective observer would easily conclude that the agreements were misinterpreted and disrespected by the Zionist state which benefitted from the said treaty more than the Palestinians did.
Meanwhile the Palestinians did not even study and do not know at all the nature, the past, and the true identity of their enemies. Even worse, due to their commitment to endless but purposeless fight, killings, bombings, and conflict, the Palestinians did not even set up a proper national education among themselves and did not make of their past, heritage and identity a consciously and actively known reality of their cultural integrity and everyday life.
Making of devious political ideologies, like Pan-Arabism and Islamism (political islam), the foundation of their struggle for liberation was an extremely bad and detrimental mistake, which engulfed Palestinians in ineffective and unnecessary sacrifices that lead nowhere. Religion cannot be involved in governance; even more so when the type of governance is the vicious and inhuman modern system that we call ‘politics’, which did not exist in the past. When contaminated with politics, false religion opens the gates of Hell for the idiots who think they can use sacred texts and references to the divine, spiritual universe for their material benefit.
There cannot be politicization of religious affairs and there cannot be religization of political affairs.
What comes as nefarious surprise atop of all this is the fact that, when you are idiotic enough to rely on others for your liberation, then you inevitably become the victim of foreign schemers, who are not merely diplomats, agents and military officers; all the same, the truly worst in this case is that, when your supposed liberation becomes the concern of your interlocutor, you soon turn out to be a puppet, and your nation becomes merely the expendable material that is necessary not to your friends, allies or protectors (read: masters), but to other forces that control the governments and the universities of those ‘allies’, while staying in the shadows of the backstage.
That’s why Edward Said’s path was far more successful than that of Yasser Arafat. When it comes to the Palestinian independence, this option will certainly never happen, because behind the front office of the anti-Israeli company (namely PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.), there is a totally unknown back office (i.e. governments, states and secret organizations) that has developed for Palestine plans worse that the fake state of Israel itself.
II. 6 Points of Historical Clarification about the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict
I will now reveal a series of misperceptions, omissions, and falsehood diffused worldwide about the so-called ‘Palestinian Problem’. As a matter of fact, most people (Palestinians and Israelis included) have no clue of what is going on there; instead, totally false narratives are systematically spread in order to obscure and conceal the reality.
Point 1: Palestinians are not Arabs, but victims of Arabization and Pan-Arabism.
As it happens in every other Arabic speaking country, Palestinians were made to believe that they are Arab, but they are not at all. This misconception and fallacy was fabricated by 19th c. colonial Orientalists and imposed locally in every detached province of the Ottoman Empire that was colonized by the English and the French; the Americans followed in their footsteps. The false and evil concept targeted the true identity of all the peoples of the vast area, who were speaking very diverse languages and dialects from Morocco to Yemen to Oman. To implement their calamitous political decision, the colonial powers launched many Arabization campaigns in order to cut every chance of those -very different from one another- nations to launch a proper nation building process. It goes without saying that all this evildoing was carried out long before the formation of the political ideology of Pan-Arabism.
In striking contrast to the colonial evildoing and the Arab falsehood, the Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans and Mauritanians were -all- Berber of origin. The Egyptians were Copts, if we don’t count the Berbers in the Northwestern confines, the Nubians of the South, and the Beja (Blemmyes) of the Southeast provinces of Egypt. The Arabic-speaking Sudanese were Cushitic of ancestry, i.e. the descendants of both, the ancient kingdoms of Kerma, Napata (Cush) and Meroe and the Christian realms of Makuria and Alodia. Furthermore, the Arabic-speaking populations of the Ottoman provinces in Asia (in today’s Syria, SE Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, SW Iran, UAE, and Qatar) were all Aramaeans. Last but not least, the Yemenites and the Omanis were all of Ancient Yemenite and Omani origin, and they were totally unrelated to the Arabs of Hejaz; Arabs existed only there and in the desert of the Arabian Peninsula. All the Sabaean, Qatabani, Himyarite and Hadhrami inscriptions that have been excavated in Yemen, deciphered, read and published testify to the historical truth that not even one drop of Arab blood can be found in Yemenite veins.
The gradual linguistic Arabization of the Palestinians was due to the process of Islamization; but like all the other Syriac Aramaic-speaking populations of the wider region, the Palestinians preserved their culture, tradition and ethnic identity. When it comes to ethnic amalgamation, the few Arabs who settled in Palestine could not form a noteworthy component and modify the ethnic identity, because the population of Hejaz at the time of prophet Muhammad did not amount to that of one big city in Syria, Mesopotamia or Egypt.
Furthermore, many people have become the victims of the Orientalist deception and the fallacy of ‘Arab conquests’; as a matter of fact, there were no Arab conquests at all. The early Islamic invasions were undertaken initially (633-636) by Arabs and Yemenites proselytes; later (636-642), the Islamic armies also incorporated many Aramaean converts originating from Damascus, parts of South Syria, and South Mesopotamia. After 642, the fighters of Islam had also Coptic neophytes.
Point 2: The Aramaean and Philistine Past of the Palestinians
Before the arrival of Islam, the Palestinians had been linguistically Aramaized, like many other nations of the wider region; in fact, Babylonians, Phoenicians and Jews were also linguistically Aramaized during the Late Antiquity, i.e. the Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian, Roman, Sassanid and Eastern Roman times (539 BCE-622 CE). During that period, the Palestinians amalgamated with Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Edomites (Idumeans), Egyptians, Macedonians, Greeks and Romans. Palestinian Aramaic is a relatively well documented language thanks to the Jerusalem Talmud, one Dead Sea scroll, and the Scroll of Fasting (מגילת תענית; Megillat Taanit). It is noteworthy that many Palestinians, like Aramaeans, accepted progressively the Jewish religion and, later, different variants of Early Christianity. Palestinian Syriac (also known as Christian Palestinian Aramaic) is the latest stage of that language, and it is also very well documented.
The first page of Megillat Taanit
Prior to their Aramaization, the Palestinians, then known as ‘Philistines’, did not have a writing system of their own, but several Philistine inscriptions have been unearthed recently (noticeably by Israeli archaeologists, not Palestinians). Written in the Phoenician alphabet and language, they offer scholars the chance to explore Philistine names, cognomens and toponyms, and to debate possible linguistic affiliations. The Ekron royal dedicatory Inscription is perhaps the longest text hitherto excavated (Ekron/ עֶקְרוֹן/ Ακκαρων was one the five Philistine cities). For its major part, the History of the Ancient Philistines is reconstituted on the basis of foreign historiography (involving Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphic, Biblical Hebrew, and Ancient Greek sources) and archaeological record for the period 1200-500 BCE.
A major moment of the Ancient Philistine History has to do with their achievement to capture and abduct the Ark of the Covenant (First Book of Kings, 5:1-6:21); the narrative does not include any mention of Samuel, but describes the adversities and the calamities caused to the Philistines due to the mere presence of the miraculous Ark in their lands.
Point 3: The Sea Peoples and the Peleset-Pelasgian-Cretan Ancestry of the Palestinians
The earliest stage of Palestinian-Philistine History is related to the Peleset, who are extensively documented in Egyptian hieroglyphic texts; there is an agreement among almost all specialists that ‘Peleset’ is the Egyptian name of that nation. As the Peleset-Philistines were the most belligerent element of the Sea Peoples, we know that before 3200 years, the ancestors of the Palestinians, who were then dwelling in the island of Crete and the South Balkans, participated along with many other rebel ethnic groups in the invasions of the ‘Sea Peoples’; this term was first used in the Ancient Egyptian historical texts.
The attacks and the expanding disorder and chaos brought down the Achaeans (Mycenaeans) in the South Balkans, the Hittites in Anatolia, the Amurru in today’s Syria, Ugarit, Byblos and several other Canaanite kingdoms, before being stopped by Ramses III, who defeated the warriors and dispersed them. Following their defeat, the Peleset settled in the southern coast of Canaan, which became later known as Philistia/Palestine.
Representation of the Battle of Djahy on the walls of the Medinet Habu mortuary temple of Ramses III
In the other end of the spectrum, the Peleset can be identified with the Pelasgians, the indigenous populations of South Balkans that the Achaeans found when they invaded the southernmost confines of the Balkans and set up their tiny kingdoms; the Pelasgians, who were the Achaeans’ worst enemies, are occasionally described in later historiography and Ancient Greek texts of the first millennium BCE. However, no information about them is found in the Achaean/Mycenaean texts (Linear B) of the 2nd millennium BCE, which makes of the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts (and notably the Annals of Ramses III) the earliest historical source about the Palestinians.
Point 4: Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Zionists: Criminal Accomplices in the Formation of a Deracinated Nation that functions as Expendable Material
I deliberately expanded much about the Palestinian History. This is a critical point as it consists in a consequence of the diffusion of Pan-Arabism and Islamism among the Palestinians: almost nothing of the above briefly mentioned stages of their historical past is known to the average Palestinians. Education manuals in the Palestinian National Authority and in the state of Israel contain almost no notion of Ancient History of Palestine and no reference to their origin from Crete and the South Balkans. Everything is done in a way so that the Palestinians are deprived of their past, know therefore nothing about it, and consequently feel as -and believe that they are- deracinated, without a rich archaeological and historical heritage.
Void of historical past and deprived of national heritage, Palestinians fall therefore victims of numerous pseudo-Muslim sheikhs who define the war as the basic task of their followers; this is utterly anti-Islamic and evil. The worst part of the lie is the theory that brutal acts, attacks, killings and atrocities are the best means of resistance and the shortest path to freedom, liberation and independence. This absurd delusion brought the Palestinian nation to its knees; even more disastrously, it exposed them to unnecessary sacrifice and pointless martyrdom, because the fake state of Israel was only consolidated in this manner.
Ignorance, fake education, national destitution, and compact idiocy are never conditions able to be beneficial to an oppressed and persecuted nation. Even worse, the travails of a subjugated and massacred nation are not a religious affair per se; it is a national affair instead. And when inanity and irrationality prevent an entire nation from assessing the tricks and identifying the lies of their enemy, we can conclude that the liberation struggle is sabotaged by the false leaders, who contribute to the historical deracination, educational degeneration, and intellectual disintegration of their own nation.
I can offer distressing examples in this regard; it is an undeniable fact that Israeli scholars and researchers know the historical past of Palestine -in its geographical entirety- incomparably better than the few Palestinian historians and archaeologists. For the Palestinians, this fact constitutes a defeat far worse than the (unquestionably illegal) occupation of their country. Identity and integrity are above all; guns and killings are for losers.
To make a contrast, I can evoke the case of the Oromo and the Somali nations; they constitute the two major nations in the Horn of Africa region. Both nations have been long oppressed and persecuted by the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians. Occupied Oromia and the entire Oromo nation (more than 45 million Cushites of Eastern Africa) are in resistance against the colonial state of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia); Occupied Ogaden is an integral part of the Somali nation that has been repeatedly massacred in the most appalling manner by the (always friendly to the Zionist regime) governments of Addis Ababa (the historic, true name of the Oromian city is Finfinnee). But both nations, the Oromos and the Somalis, know, learn and study their past, historical heritage, cultural integrity, and national identity far better than their enemies do.
Palestinians failed even to detect why the Israeli occupation forces introduced the fallacious term ‘Israeli Arabs’ for the Palestinians who live within the borders of 1967 Israel. This is outrageous; by perniciously ‘Arabizing’ the Palestinians, the Israelis have carried out an effective De-Palestinization process, which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing and spiritual genocide. All the same, the lethargic and idiotic leaders of the Palestinians have not understood what this meant. Finally, thanks to their Palestinian Islamist accomplices, Israel’s Zionist authorities may one day rename the ‘Israeli Arabs’ as ‘Israeli Muslims’.
Point 5: Lack of Self-criticism brings Disaster, Death and Damnation
The aforementioned points lead us to a conclusive understanding of what the Palestinians truly missed ever since the Zionist project started being unfolded in their own land, already during the last two decades of the Ottoman Empire; they failed to resort to self-criticism, analyze their strengths, identify their weaknesses, study their enemy in-depth, examine the veracity of their friends, and find out the efficient and effective way to oppose the dreadful enemy.
It would be very wrong to accuse Palestinians for extremism and radicalization; this did not concern any Palestinian party, association or group prior to 1960. All the same, for many decades, the Palestinian reaction to the Zionist project was idle, if not friendly. Hassan Bey Shukri (1876-1940) was the first of a long list of Palestinians, who supported both the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist immigration project. He was appointed by the Ottoman administration as mayor of Haifa in 1914, but he committed an act of high treason against his own country, namely the Ottoman Empire.
Hassan Bey Shukri
The problem is not the act of a person like this, but the reasons behind the act. This is what the Palestinians failed to analyze. However, behind this type of treacherous behavior there is a very troublesome reason: the diffusion of the ideology of Pan-Arabism and the associated propaganda that English and French agents, diplomats and explorers carried out in their colonies and worldwide. Unfortunately, until now the Palestinians did not reach this conclusion, because they never imposed the task of self-criticism on them.
Then, after decades of idleness during which the Palestinians seemed to have come to terms with the Zionist agenda, they suddenly shifted to radicalization. Sadly, moving from one extreme to the opposite extreme, while remaining ignorant of one’s own past and heritage, can hardly help, particularly when opposing powerful enemies. What was happening in Palestine during the 1920s and 1930s heralded the cataclysmic developments of the 1940s; one could have expected this evolution, but the Palestinians did not. They thought that their fight against a merciless enemy with a long-term agenda far wider than just the territory of Palestine could possibly be successful when delivered on the spur of the moment. This is sheer paranoia; nations die and disappear in this manner.
On the contrary, self-criticism which is an imperative task for all Christian and Muslim Palestinians would help them realize that only deep rooted perspectives can oppose long term projects and agendas. Consequently, Palestinians should have rejected the disastrous help and the calamitous advice offered by the bogus-kings of the 1940s and the ludicrous presidents of the 1950s and the 1960s, who were merely the puppets of the English and the French. Being the main concerned entity, all the Palestinians should have realized that all these wars benefitted the Zionists, and not themselves and their hypothetical but fake allies. Finally, they were abandoned by almost all the governments of the Arabic-speaking countries.
There are still ignorant people, who insist that in June 1948 the invading Syrian, Trans-Jordanian, Iraqi, and Egyptian forces advanced considerably and they were close to victory; they say that it was a matter of ‘bad luck’ that they failed to bend the resistance of the Zionists and occupy the entire territory of Palestine. These fools forget that, among the invading forces’ military leaders, there was the notorious English lieutenant-general John Bagot Glubb (known as Glubb Pasha and Abu Humaik among the Jordanians and the Palestinians who were subservient and docile to their English masters). He was the commanding general of Transjordan’s Arab Legion from 1939 until 1956, and during the war, he would never allow Palestinian plans and wishes to be materialized.
These fools fail to understand the force that they intend to oppose; actually, if this hypothetical development (namely a Palestinian victory in July 1948) took place, one can be sure that the US army would immediately dispatch the necessary forces to invade Palestine and at the same time evacuate all the Palestinians from there. By speaking so blatantly, I don’t mean that the Zionist forces are invincible and that the Zionist project will be entirely implemented; I am convinced it will not. But the true obstacle to the evil forces can never be the result of ignorance, thoughtlessness and short-term sentimental reaction.
Point 6: the Interminable Failures of the Palestinians
With this point, I will complete the present brief article. Expanding on the failures experienced by the Palestinians and more importantly by their leadership, one can produce an encyclopedia, but I will only offer few examples to demonstrate how different things would have been, had the successive Palestinian leaderships based their efforts and struggles primarily on knowledge, self-criticism, exploration of their past, investigation of the historical heritage of neighboring nations, accurate study of their enemy (or enemies), and independent action without concertation with fake states, political stooges, and colonial masters.
i- First of all, Palestinians failed to early assess the mistreatment of the indigenous Sephardic Jews by the newly arrived Ashkenazi Khazarians in early 20th c. Ottoman Palestine; as it is well-known, the Ottoman Empire invited the Sephardic Jews in 1492, after the end of the Granada war and the dissolution of the local caliphate. More specifically, Bayezid II sent Kemal Reis to save the Jews of Granada and he granted them permission to settle wherever they liked. Many made Palestine their home, and lived peacefully there for 400 years. However, as soon as the first fake-Jewish Ashkenazi Khazarians started arriving and establishing their Anti-Jewish kibbutzim, the Sephardic Jews rejected and denounced them as fake. There were many fights in the process. Quite unfortunately, both the Ottoman authorities and the Palestinian elders proved to be mentally defective and unable to assess correctly the threat and react accordingly. But a joint Jewish-Christian-Muslim Palestinian rebellion against the stupid and useless sultan in 1905 could really jeopardize the entire Zionist project.
Ashkenazim settlers organizing the first kibbutzim, Palestine – 1913
ii- Long before the collapse of the ill-fated Ottoman rule, Palestinians failed to identify their true allies, namely the Christian Aramaeans of Syria, Lebanon, and Mesopotamia, and set up an alliance with them. The Christian Aramaeans of the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran had been targeted by the Catholic and Protestant missionaries for more than 300-350 years; because of the Western infiltration both, the Monophysites/Miaphysites (or Jacobites) and the Nestorians, were divided, cheated with English and French promises of independence, and slaughtered. A Muslim-Christian Aramaean-Palestinian alliance would strengthen them all against both, the worthless Ottomans and the insidious Westerners.
iii- After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestinians failed to realize that the Arabic-speaking Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of Hejaz, who collaborated with the English and the French, would never become ‘equal partners’ with their colonial masters and that, by becoming stooges of the Western powers, they were predestined to doom in this world and to face eternal damnation in the Hereafter. Consequently, Palestinians should have comprehended that the neo-colonial nature of all the Arabic-speaking states and the absence of nation building process in them prevented them from becoming trustworthy and valuable allies against the Zionists. Even after the 1948 Nakba (‘disaster’; النكبة), Palestinians should have realized that the reactions of the neighboring states against Israel failed, because those states were all fake.
iv- A long-term national project of education for Palestinians should have involved the dispatch of at least 1000 young Palestinians to Turkey, USSR, Germany and Italy in the 1930s. With the help of national stipends, they would study Ancient History, Languages and Religions of the Orient, History of the Western Colonialism, History of Christianity and Christological Disputes, and History of Western Europe. These students would then be able to unveil the evil face of the Western World to their compatriots in Palestine, extensively updating them about the true nature of the Jesuits, the Freemasons and the Zionists. However, Palestinians failed to understand the importance of Humanities and to envision a long-term effort. All radicals are stupid and ignorant engineers, who think they know History and have true faith!
v- Following the aforementioned oversights, omissions and failures, it was only normal for Diaspora Palestinians to imagine that they could move to Western Europe and North America, study and settle there. This proved to be an even worse debacle for the Palestinians because they failed to identify France, England and America as the reason of all of their problems; they did not perceive the viciousness of the lies said to them, and they believed them as true. This is how Palestinians and many other ignorant Muslims were radicalized only to serve the Freemasonic interests of England and the English secret services, which created many Islamist organizations and machinated the establishment of Islamist parties and states in order to launch a proxy war against the Zionists and their structure, the fake state of Israel.
vi- Depending totally on the deceitful English and French promises, advice and propaganda, the Palestinians were enslaved by thought; and even worse, being disastrously infiltrated by the secret services of the colonial powers (for which scores of Palestinians have been working), they never acted independently for their own interests – without taking into consideration the filthy words of every Faisal, Nasser, Gadhafi, and others. Otherwise, they could have planned and undertaken a long perspective project, namely to obtain power in Jordan and Saudi Arabia by means of a secretively carried out coup. But to undertake such an exploit, one must first ensure national impermeability and then drastically block every effort of infiltration.
The dire conclusion is that, innocent or guilty, faithful or disbelievers, moral or immoral, the average Israelis and Palestinians are being killed for the Anti-Jewish, Anti-Christian and Anti-Islamic interests of the Zionists, the Freemasons, and the Jesuits. These interests I will expose in a forthcoming article.
As I have been submerged by emails and questions sent by many friends, who asked me details about the ongoing war in Palestine/Israel, I decided to reply to all at once, by clarifying the major historical issues and religious factors that determine this conflict, which is predestined to bring the world to its knees one day or another.
Khazar coin from the Spillings Hoard recently found in Gotland, Sweden’s largest island (ca. 800 CE); the Arabic inscription reads “Moses is the messenger of God” in contrast to the typical Islamic coinage “Muhammad is the messenger of God”. Khazars and their offspring, namely the Ashkenazim, were not Hebrews and have therefore no right to the Promised Land. Even more importantly, their acceptance of Judaism seems to have been entirely false and deceitful.
I. No Religion subsists without Moral, and no Nation exists due to Fake History
The Palestinian problem is not an ethnic conflict and has no trait of religious war. This is so because neither the Palestinians have an ethnic identity nor the Israelis have a religion; for the former, few words of self-identification backed by compact ignorance do not constitute the expression of proper nation building; for the latter, theatrical performances supposedly of religious character do not consist in a religion.
No one is going to win this war, and when peace will be made, the World History’s most nefarious moments will start unfolding. A regrettable peace is by all means an unsolicited development. Fooled by pernicious propaganda, deceived by leaders and allies, attached to fake promises, and overwhelmed by delusions, people kill and are killed purposelessly due to the historical falsehood with which they have been indoctrinated, i.e. intoxicated.
When confusion prevails, no one has a clue of what truly happened in the past; this means that what he thinks that it happened in the past is rather a delusion necessary only to his indoctrination and to those who manipulate him for their own plans that they keep secret; there is no truth in such beliefs and convictions.
No human has the right to judge a disbeliever, who abhors even to speak about the Hereafter; men are not a substitute for God. Killing others without knowing either one’s own identity or the enemy’s is not a task entrusted by God but a madness assigned by the Evil. Only a fake believer thinks that he came to this world in order to kill others; but by so doing, he loses the Hereafter that he says that he believes in.
What is then the difference between two enemies of whom the first does not believe in God and in the Spiritual Universe, and the second says that he believes in, but acts as if he does not?
II. 11 Points of Historical Clarification about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
In the present succinct presentation, I will only enumerate and briefly refute the lies spread and believed worldwide about the so-called ‘Palestinian Problem’. In fact, the quasi-totality of Mankind has no clue of what is going on there; instead, totally false narratives are systematically diffused in order to obscure and conceal the reality.
Point 1: the Israelis are not ethnically Hebrew
The Ancient Hebrews were Semites; Abraham was a Babylonian from Southern Mesopotamia who left his country, followed the trade road to Southern Canaan, crossed Euphrates River near Harran (SE Turkey) and proceeded southwestwards. His offspring made their way to Egypt only to later leave that country and settle in Southern Canaan. Ancient Hebrew is a Northwestern Semitic language very close to Canaanite languages and to Phoenician. Modern Israelis are a composite society; they are made of a) Sephardic Jews, who are the descendants of the Ancient Jews of Late Antiquity, and of b) Ashkenazim Khazarians, who have Turco-Mongolian affinities. Not a drop of Hebrew blood can be found in the veins of the Ashkenazim.
Point 2: the Israelis are not religiously Hebrew
Ashkenazim Khazarians and Sephardic Jewish Israelis pretend to be Jewish of religion; this is very critical, because their claim to the land of Palestine, which is the southern part of Canaan, is based on exclusively religious considerations, beliefs and excerpts. However, from the moment of the establishment of the state of Israel (1948) down to our days, under the scheme of ‘politics’, ‘democracy’, ‘civil rights’, ‘human rights’ and many other evil Modern European concepts, a great number of laws made it possible for the inhabitants of the so-called ‘Jewish’ state to live in a deeply ‘anti-Jewish’ manner and to have ‘right’ to what for the Ancient Biblical standards is a lethal sin, an abominable act, and a blasphemous abomination. As per the norms of the Ancient Hebrew religion that the Israelis evoke to justify their claim to their land, hundreds of thousands or even millions of Israelis must be immediately executed for extreme disbelief, appalling fornication, and foremost atrocities.
Point 3: ‘Judaism’ is not identical to the Ancient Hebrew religion
The Ancient Hebrew religion is the faith of Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Jonah; it existed as long as the Hebrews prospered and lived in Southern Canaan; it is essential to take into consideration that the three pillars of the Ancient Hebrew religion were the Kings, the Prophets, and the Priests. However, after the Assyrian conquest of Samaria (722 BCE) and the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem (587 BCE), there were no more kings and soon afterwards no more prophets. The exiled Jews in Babylonia and those who returned to Judaea after the Achaemenid conquest of Babylon (539 CE) had to rely only on the priesthood. This was a major change of religious character.
No Biblical texts have been saved from the times of the two Hebrew kingdoms (Israel with the ten tribes and Samaria as capital and Judah with the two tribes and Jerusalem as capital). From the Achaemenid, Seleucid, Ptolemaic and Roman times, we have substantive documentation about the Jewish religion (or Judaism) of those days. However, we easily realize that, except the Old Testament, they had many other religious books, notably the Aggadah, involving the Midrash and the Talmud, and the Halakha (i.e. various religious laws, including notably the Mishnah). Even more importantly, Ancient Hebrew was by then a dead language and all the Jews were speaking Aramaic dialects. That’s why they vitally needed the Targumim, i.e. the Aramaic translations of the Ancient Hebrew Biblical texts (like the Targum Onkelos and the Targum Jonathan).
Last but not least, many Aramaeans, particularly those relocated in Samaria and Galilee after the Assyrian conquest of Israel, accepted the Ancient Hebrew religion albeit with several variants. This is reflected in the New Testament references to the cult differences between the Samaritans (: the Aramaeans who were transported from Southern Mesopotamia and settled in the empty lands of Israel by Sargon II in period 722-718 BCE) and the Jerusalemite Jews.
Point 4: Jews represented an apostate minority of the Hebrews
Immediately after the death of Solomon (930 BCE), his kingdom split into two parts: the northern kingdom of Israel with the ten tribes and capital at Samaria (today’s Nablus) under Jeroboam and the tiny southern kingdom of Judah with the two tribes and capital at Jerusalem under Rehoboam. The prophets of Israel reprimanded both kingdoms for their faithlessness; contrarily to what one could assume, the priesthood in both kingdoms was corrupt, worthless and subordinate to the kings. That’s why they were also rejected by the prophets.
The two kingdoms entered into endless alliances with Aramaean, Phoenician, Neo-Hittite and Philistine kingdoms against the rising power of Assyria, often fighting against one another. In 722 BCE, Sargon of Assyria (722-705 BCE) conquered Samaria and transferred the entire population of the northern state (Israel) to the northeastern confines of Assyria (in today’s Eastern Turkey and NW Iran). After the collapse of Assyria (614-609 BCE), the transferred Israelites were not found any more there; they are customarily called ‘the ten lost tribes of Israel’. About these facts, there are Assyrian-Babylonian texts and also Hebrew Biblical narratives.
——————- Recapitulation ———————-
It is therefore critical that people do not confuse the terms:
Hebrews are the Ancient Israelites (10 tribes) and the Ancient Jews (2 tribes).
After 722 BCE, we cannot use the terms ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israelite’ anymore, because the outright majority of them were lost. For historical periods, we have to use only the term ‘Jew’ (or Judean).
Modern Israelis have nothing to do with the Ancient Israelites; only few among the citizens of Modern Israel are Jews (the Sephardic), but the Jews are the descendants of the Kingdom of Judah, not Israel.
Modern Israelis have nothing to do with the Ancient Hebrews; only few among the citizens of Modern Israel are descendants of the Kingdom of Judah, which included a minor part (no more than 2 out of the 12 tribes) of the nation of David and Solomon.
It is essential to understand that not only in the Old Testament but also in the New Testament and in the Quran, the two terms ‘Jews’ and ‘Israelites’ are not overlapping one another, but contain conflicting connotations. Those taking ‘Israelites’ for ‘Jews’, when reading the New Testament and the Quran, are either ignorant or liars.
The name ‘Israel’ for the modern state set up in Palestine by the Zionists in 1948 is entirely false and totally ridiculous. None of the inhabitants has right to that name. This is an outrageous and scandalous historical distortion.
—————————————————————–
Assyria, Aram-Dimashq, Israel and Judah; ca. 930 BCE
Point 5: the last historical state of the Jews was named Judah / Judaea, not ‘Israel’
Following the Achaemenid Iranian conquest of Babylon (539 BCE), the exiled Jews were allowed to return to the land of Judah; it is noteworthy that few did so. Many remained in Mesopotamia and their descendants stayed there down to Islamic and Modern times. It is also important to keep in mind that there were also Jewish communities in Egypt, notably in Aswan and the Elephantine Island, a major market and port of call in the trade roads between Egypt, Ancient Sudan (the historical Ethiopia), the Red Sea, and the Sahara. Later, with the foundation of Alexandria next to the Ancient Egyptian harbor of Rhacotis, numerous Jews settled there; two of the five districts of the Mediterranean city-harbor were entirely Jewish.
The existing material record helps us understand that, in the last pre-Christian centuries, the majority of the ethnic Jews lived outside Judaea. When the Hasmonean dynasty established a kingdom (ממלכת החשמונאים; Mamleket haḤashmona’īm) from 140 BCE to 37 CE, mostly a vassal state to the Seleucids and the Romans, its name was ‘Judah’ (or Judaea). This occurred irrespective of the fact that Hasmonean Judah controlled Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Idumea (Edom) in addition to Judaea itself. There was no reason to name the state ‘Israel’, because not one Israelite was left in Canaan after 722 BCE. This shows that it was totally absurd or irately intentional to name the Zionist state ‘Israel’ in 1948. In fact, they don’t represent the Ancient Israel in any sense.
Point 6: there is no right to the Promised Land for the Jews
Whereas the right to the Promised Land was bestowed on the Ancient Hebrews (the twelve tribes) whose majority went lost (the ten tribes of Israel), it is necessary to reveal now another well hidden historical truth. Based on the existing historical documentation, we realize that, in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile, the Jews were a nation like all the others; they were greatly impacted by the Babylonians, the Aramaeans, the Iranians, the Egyptians, the Anatolians, and the Macedonians. Like the Phoenicians and the Aramaeans, they were involved in trade and they had a Diaspora living in many different countries. The Maccabee rebellion, which triggered the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty, was mainly directed against the cosmopolitan Jews who were ready to collaborate with the Macedonians and accept vast cultural, spiritual, intellectual and religious compromises. But there was no reference to any ‘right’ to the ‘Promised Land’ anymore; that is why the Hasmonean rulers reigned over lands that were not part of the territory, which Yahweh (or Elohim) had indeed accorded to their ancestors (as a tiny part of all the Hebrews) one millennium earlier. If the Maccabees did not lay claim to the Promised Land at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, it is absolutely ludicrous now that the ethnically non-Jewish Ashkenazi Khazarians demand Palestine for them. Modern fake Israelis must therefore go.
Point 7: the entire Old Testament is a posterior fabrication full of distortions
Without their sacred scriptures, Ashkenazi Khazarians and Sephardic Jewish Israelis have no right to Palestine; but really, how authentic is the Old Testament? Western scholars raised similar questions about the Quran, which is supposed to have been uttered by prophet Muhammad in the early 7th c. CE, written subsequently by many copyists, and later established as a corpus. The earliest complete manuscripts date back to the late 8th c. and to 9th c. Only few manuscripts date indeed back to the 7th c. If this is considered as an academic problem in terms of manuscript authenticity and preservation, then both the Masoretic text (Hebrew Bible) and the Septuagint (Greek translation) make us raise serious questions about their originality, credibility and validity.
The Ketef Hinnom scrolls, which contain a variant of an excerpt from the Book of Numbers, are the only finding that date to the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th c. BCE. The Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd c. BCE – 2nd c. CE) contain the Pentateuch (Torah) and excerpts from the rest. Several other fragmentary findings contain small sections from different books of the Bible, but the complete Hebrew Bible’s earliest manuscripts (namely the Aleppo Codex, the Damascus Pentateuch, and the Leningrad Codex) date back to the 10th c.; this means almost 1500 years after the period during which most specialists believe today that these text were first written in the form they are presently found. Enormous gap of time!
When it comes to the Greek translation (the Septuagint), we know that the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Vaticanus date back to the 4th- 5th c.; this means no less than 600-700 years after the translation was undertaken following the demand of Ptolemy II. Again, a really great gap of time! Taking into consideration the overwhelming religious changes that had taken place in the meantime, one can easily conclude that what we call the ‘Old Testament’ is the production of the exiled Jews in Babylon and that all earlier narratives and copies have been extensively rewritten, adjusted, altered and distorted.
Point 8: among today’s so-called ‘Jews’ only 10-15% are truly Jews: the Sephardi
There are four historical communities of Jewish Diaspora: Sephardic (originally from Spain, they spread throughout the Ottoman Empire after 1492), Mizrahi (from Egypt/Mizraim), Yemenite and Ethiopian (Falasha/Beta Israel). One can call them collectively as Sephardi in contrast to the Ashkenazi Khazarians. However, all of them constitute a tiny minority (10-15%) among all those who are denoted as Jews today, either in Israel or worldwide. As the execrable Zionist movement was an entirely Ashkenazi invention, the Sephardic Jews (who are the only true Jews in the world) are second class citizens in Israel; the fact that there are two chief rabbis, one Sephardi and one Ashkenazi, in the Chief Rabbinate of Israel means nothing. No major decision was ever made by a Sephardi in the bogus-state of Israel; Sephardi Jews are necessary only to be duly utilized and serve as an alibi for the establishment of the illegal state with the fake name. However, this key issue was never raised worldwide.
Point 9: today’s so-called ‘Jews’ are not ethnically Jewish: the Ashkenazim
As I already pointed out, the Ashkenazim are thought to be Jewish, but they are not; due to their propaganda and because of their control of the worldwide mainstream media, they are believed to make ca. 85% of the so-called ‘world Jewry’, whereas they are not Jewish. They posture as ‘Jewish’, but they are of Turanian-Mongolian origin. This fact has not been duly comprehended by people worldwide. That is why people from different backgrounds fail to truly understand that the so-called Israelis have absolutely no right to Palestine. Khazars are very well known through numerous sources: Eastern Roman, Arabic, Farsi and Turkic texts mention them and describe their interaction with many other nations. In addition, the Khazar Correspondence is quite indicative in this regard; the Khazars never claimed to be the descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, and they never laid claim to Palestine. It happened only recently, when the Zionist Ashkenazi descendants of the Khazars launched their baseless eschatological project.
If we examine what the Khazars did over the past 1200 years, we will soon realize that it is tantamount to today’s North Koreans accepting -massively but fallaciously- Judaism as religion and ‘as a consequence’ claiming to have right to the Promised Land. This would be a joke; who would accept that just because of their conversion to Judaism the North Koreans have right to Palestine?
The example of the Aramaean populations of Adiabene (Hadyab), a Parthian vassal kingdom, is well-known; the inhabitants of Northeastern Mesopotamia and Transtigritane accepted Judaism as religion in the 1st c. CE. Queen Helena of Adiabene built a royal palace in Jerusalem, which has been recently excavated, but they did not lay any claim to the ‘Promised Land’.
There is no right to ‘return’ to the Promised Land for the Ashkenazi Khazarians, because their ancestors were never there. In other words, the evoked eschatological dimension of the Zionist project is nil; it is just a shameless gibberish with which the entire mankind has been overwhelmingly fooled and deceived particularly by the villainous Evangelicals, Anglicans, and other pseudo-Christian heretics who take pro-Zionist positions.
Khazars-Ashkenazim, Turanians and Eastern Slavs in trade negotiations, as the scene was envisioned and painted by the Russian painter Sergey Vasilyevich Ivanov (Сергей Васильевич Иванов; 1864-1910)
Point 10: Reform Judaism is not Judaism
The impact exerted by Western European intellectual, academic and philosophical systems on the Ashkenazi Khazarians and the Sephardic Jews was calamitous. In contrast to Zionism, which -at the ideological-political level- is a form of nationalism impossible to be consistent with historical Judaism, Reform Judaism is a devious ideological system that accepted a definitely non-Biblical theistic standpoint, the evil concept of a personal God, and a liberal, heretic, interpretation of the Biblical and the Talmudic texts. Calamitously impacted by German idealism, Reform Judaism shrunk ‘revelation’ to mere ‘inspiration’, thus exposing the Ashkenazim Khazarians and the Sephardic Jews to Renaissance, Classicist, Hellenist and Modernist ideas and notions. This was an outrage, as it distorted Jewish spirituality, compromised the traditional morality, modified the faith, and conditioned the religion.
Exposing adepts to the Western concept of Modernity, Reform Judaism forcefully promoted rationalism, scientific criticism of sacred texts, materialism, evolutionism and agnosticism among the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim alike. Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism failed to oppose Reform Judaism, while Reform Zionism impacted Zionists by presenting Judaism as a universal religion. Nonsensical and disastrous, Reform Judaism promoted Americanization, while rejecting a return to Zion for religious-theological purposes. Compatible with the Jesuit eschatological agenda, Reform Judaism and Reform Zionism attracted followers among the US Democratic Party and dispatched Ashkenazi Khazarians to Israel only to wait for the Antichrist to come.
Oppressed and persecuted by the czars, the Ashkenazi proceeded westwards.
Point 11: Modern Hebrew (Ivrit) is a fake, constructed, non-Semitic language
As I explained in earlier parts of the present article, Ancient Hebrew was already a dead language at the time of the Macedonian Seleucid Empire of Syria; the mother tongue of Jesus was Aramaic, and this fact is easily demonstrated across the texts of the Gospels. Diaspora Jews spoke Aramaic, learned Ancient Hebrew as a religious language, and were familiar with the various local languages that were native in the various lands where they were dispersed. Mixed idioms were formed from place to place notably Judeo-Arabic (involving 5-6 dialects) and Ladino, which is Judaeo-Spanish. This concerns the Sephardic Jews, as well as the Mizrahi and the Yemenite Jews.
On the other hand, the Khazar language evolved into what we now call Yiddish, which is a linguistic amalgamation of German, Aramaic and Hebrew, Slavic, Turkic and Romance languages. Yiddish was the native language of the Ashkenazim since the 13th c., when the earliest documents are dated. For the Zionist project and the fake return that they wanted to produce, implementing their eschatological agenda, the existence of numerous dialects caused a serious problem; they needed one only language that would become the official language of the state that they envisioned to create. An even worse trouble was due to the fact that the grammatical structure of the Semitic languages is very different from that of the Turkic-Turanian and the Indo-Germanic linguistic groups, thus making the study of Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic very difficult for the Ashkenazim. On the contrary, the Jews, who spoke Judeo-Arabic (and therefore knew Arabic), could easily learn Ancient Hebrew, because the respective structures of grammar and syntax are almost identical.
For this reason, the earliest stage of the Zionist project does not start with the notorious World Zionist Congress (1897), but with the long process of the so-called ‘Revival of the Hebrew Language’, which has nothing to do with a proper ‘revival’. On the contrary, it concerns the fabrication of a hybrid language based on a) basic vocabulary extracted from Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and b) Indo-Germanic grammar and syntax. Although the precursor of the movement lived in the 18th c. (Moshe Chaim Luzzatto; 1707-1746), the leading figures covered the span from the middle 19th c. to the middle 20th c. (Abraham Mapu, Mendele Mocher Sfarim, Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, David Frischmann, Shaul Tchernichovsky, Micha Josef Berdyczewski, Uri Nissan Gnessin, Devorah Baron, Zevi Scharfstein, and above all Eliezer Ben-Yehuda). This absolutely fake and constructed language (like Modern Greek) is an ahistorical machination that became the official language of the fake state of Israel. Without it, there could never be a ‘state of Israel’.
Serabit al Khadim, the Exodus, the Red Sea Crossing, and why Mount Sinai’s True Location was confused in Late Antiquity
Хатшепсут, Тутмос III, Эхнатон, Рамсес III и двойная стратегия Моисея против народов моря
Серабит-эль-Хадим, Исход, Разделение Красного моря, и почему истинное местоположение горы Синай было запутано в поздней античности
Serabit al Khadim, Temple of Hathor
Contents
Introduction
I. Mount Sinai (or Horeb): from the Pentateuch to Itinerarium Egeriae
II. The Exodus: Reconstruction of the Path and Textual Changes (?) from the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text
III. From Hatshepsut and Thutmose III to Akhenaten’s Monotheism, and from Merneptah (the Pharaoh of the Exodus) to Ramesses III
IV. Serabit al Khadim and the Temple of Hathor: a Major Egyptian Site
V. Straits of Tiran: Red Sea Crossing, World Politics, and Moses’ Formidable Double Stratagem
VI. Iranians, Macedonians, Aramaeans, Romans: Reasons for the Confusion about the True Location of Mount Sinai
VII. From Ptolemy’s Geography to Al Biruni’s Chronology
Содержание
Введение
I. Гора Синай (или Хорив): от Пятикнижия к Паломничеству Этерии
II. Исход: реконструкция пути и текстовые изменения (?) от Септуагинты к масоретскому тексту
III. От Хатшепсут и Тутмоса III до монотеизма Эхнатона и от Мернептаха (фараона Исхода) до Рамсеса III.
IV. Серабит-эль-Хадим и храм Хатхор: главное место Египта
V. Тиранский пролив: Разделение Красного моря, мировая политика и грозная двойная стратегия Моисея
VI. Иранцы, македонцы, арамейцы, римляне: Причины путаницы относительно истинного местоположения горы Синай
VII. От географии Птолемея к хронологии Аль Бируни
Biaw: part of Lower Egypt’s 14th ‘nome’ (administrative division)
Introduction
Mount Sinai and the Sinai Peninsula are not located where you think they are. Consequently and more importantly, the Ancient Hebrews and the Egyptians monotheists, who left with them, did not cross the Red Sea near the modern cities of Suez or Ismailia (Timsah Lake).
Certainly, I am not the first to state this fact. There have been several other explorers and researchers who first discussed the topic, examined closely all the related aspects, and even undertook expeditions to find out eventual remains of the true Mount Sinai, which is not located in the peninsula, which by mistake bears its name.
If I intend to herewith present a brief commentary on the topic, this is entirely due to my desire to underscore two points that ought to have been noticed long ago. I have to admit that the sojourn of the Ancient Hebrews in Egypt (Kemet/Mizraim) and their Exodus generated tons of publications and endless polarizations, particularly because the topics are a matter of common heritage and at times divergent traditions for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Different textual sources, distinct interpretations, and overreliance on later and apparently distorted traditions contributed to the slow formation of stereotypes that have been repeated for long.
The end result involved unfortunately the typical Western academic conventionalism and conformism, the demonization of pioneering explorers, and the vilification of any scholar who would question the supposedly sacrosanct conclusions of the modern academic disciplines. Even more confusingly, Western European painters and artists worsened the problem by producing terribly misleading representations of the Biblical stories onto which they merely projected their own illusions, delusions and unsubstantiated understanding of the historical past.
I. Mount Sinai (or Horeb): from the Pentateuch to Itinerarium Egeriae
Four (out of the five) books of the Torah detail the event that Reform Judaism (so: fake Judaism) calls ‘the founding myth’ of the Ancient Hebrews: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. However, in spite of the numerous details, there is no topographical-geographical accuracy in these narratives that may have been written in an early form in the 11th-10th c. BCE, but the earliest composition of the presently preserved text is impossible to be dated before the late 6th and early 5th c. BCE. This fact, in and by itself, dramatically conditions the chances of the Biblical text to offer a shred of authoritative evidence, particularly if we take into consideration the great changes that had occurred in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan, which are the main regions involved in the text. About:
Modern Jewish and Christian commentators, failing to comprehend the span of time between the events described and the dates of the earliest composition and the ultimate compilation of the Biblical text, focused excessively on the 42 stations of the Exodus that are mentioned in Numbers 33, trying to eventually locate the stations of the Ancient Hebrews; this ended up in enormous confusion, because these locations are either broadly defined or described in relative terms.
One of these stations is Midbar Sin, i.e. the Wilderness of Sin; this expression is attested in Exodus 16:1 and 17:1, and in Numbers 33:11–12. I have to add that Sin is a toponym in this case. This is the earliest form of reference to the wider region where Mount Sinai is located. There is also reference to the Sinai Wilderness, which is found in Exodus 19:1–2 and in Number 10:12 and 33:15–16. But the identification of the sacred mountain with what is called Jabal Musa (Moses’ Mountains) in modern times is fully unsubstantiated and absolutely arbitrary.
Actually, German theologians of the school of Julius Wellhausen, after extensive examination of the four different historical sources of the Old Testament, noticed that the name ‘Sinai’ occurs only in two of them (i.e. the Jahwist and the Priestly sources); contrarily, in the other two sources (namely the Elohist and the Deuteronomist), the same always mountain is named ‘Horeb’. The etymology and the meaning of the name ‘Sinai’ are still a matter of debate, but the most commonly accepted opinion involves an association with Sin, the Assyrian-Babylonian aspect of the divine world that was symbolized with the Moon. In Neo-Assyrian times (1244-609 BCE), within the context of Sargonid monotheism, Sin became a symbol for the Assyrians, who explicitly considered themselves as the ‘Chosen People’ of the Only God, Assur. About:
Ancient Egyptian narratives, which antedate and may have served as point of reference for the Biblical text (notably the description of calamities such as “the river is blood”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus
The two appellations (Hebrew: Har Sinay; Aramaic: Tura deSinay) are at the origin of the Quranic expressions Tur Saina, Tur Sinin, at-Tur and al-Jabal (just: ‘mountain’). However, the identification of the location is not a matter of the Quran, but of purely subjective and unsubstantiated opinions of Muslims who made the same mistake as the Christians of the times of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I, who ordered the construction (548-565) of what is today the oldest continuously occupied Christian monastery (دير القدّيسة كاترين; Μονὴ τῆς Ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης). Although the existence of monastic life in this region, as documented in the Itinerarium Egeriae (written ca. 385 CE), proves that the location was identified as the Mount Sinai at the time, nothing exists to demonstrate significant antecedence and historical continuity for this identification. No less than 1500 years separate the Exodus and the Christian nun Egeria, who traveled in the Orient and wrote down her itinerary. About:
It is on such wrong maps of Egypt that the wrong reconstruction of the path of the departing Egyptian monotheists and Ancient Hebrews has been based. This map is entirely wrong, because it does not show a) the Egyptian oases, b) the Red Sea harbors of Ancient Egypt, c) North Sudan down to at least the fourth cataract of the Nile {which was an area in which the Ancient Egyptians at times were the sole rulers and at times interacted with the local Cushitic (Ancient Sudanese) kingdoms}, d) at least the western half of the so-called Sinai Peninsula (which was integral part of Egypt), e) the southern half of Canaan (which was either annexed to Egypt or ruled by vassal kings or princes), and f) large swathes of today’s Libyan territory where the Ancient Egyptians interacted with the local Berber princes, who often had significant positions and career in Kemet (Ancient Egypt).
Typically wrong (if not foolish) reconstruction of the path taken after the Exodus
Typically wrong (if not foolish) reconstruction of the path taken after the Exodus
Typically wrong (if not foolish) reconstruction of the path taken after the Exodus
Typical Freemasonic Protestant Anglo-Zionist absurdity and paranoia: they ‘think’ that the ‘departure’ (Exodus) started in the Valley of the Nile! Read the original legend of the forged map to laugh at will: «Jericho. Israel leave Elim (Exo.16:1) Tabernacle erected (Exo.40:17) Israel arrive at Sinai (Exo.19:1) Israel leave Sinai (Num.10:11) 1yr 2mth 15dy. 1yr 3mth 15dy. 2yr 1mth 1dy. 2yr 2mth 20dy. Punon. Moses ascends mount Sinai 7 times. Israel leave Egypt (Num.33:3) Israel spent 9 months constructing the Tabernacle. Spies enter the land – Kadesh (Num.13:20) 1yr 1mth 1dy. 1yr 1mth 14dy. 1yr 1mth 15dy. 2yr 1mth 14dy. 2yr 4mth. Passover (Exo.12:6) Passover (Num.9:1-3) Ritual Calendar established (Exo.12:2)»
A far more reasonable and more plausible itinerary based on common sense and closer study of all the related historical sources – not only the Biblical text.
II. The Exodus: Reconstruction of the Path and Textual Changes (?) from the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text
The reconstitution of the trajectory that the Ancient Hebrews and the Egyptian monotheists pursued after leaving Egypt produced an incredible number of books and articles, which are mostly delusional in their major assumptions, although they may contain countless pieces of historical truth. Modern scholarship refuted most of the efforts of reconstruction in the light of enormous mistakes that happen to be found in the Biblical text. Even the name that the Biblical author uses to denote the land where the Ancient Hebrews were settled in Egypt is otherwise unknown and meaningless in Hebrew (Goshen); several Egyptologists tried to offer potential interpretations, based on Ancient Egyptian toponyms and vocabulary.
The duration of the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt is also questionable. Consequently, even the date of the Exodus is debatable. In the past, scholars and religious propagandists preferred to date the event in the middle of the 15th c., which is highly improbable. After the documentation made available due to Orientalist research during the 19th and the early 20th c., a ‘lower’ date (middle to end of the 13th c.) seemed to be more plausible. In fact, anyone who attempts to write about the topic today without having first studied extensively original Ancient Egyptian sources relating to the rise and fall of the Egyptian monotheism (Atenism) at the time of the 18th dynasty is doomed to draw the wrong conclusions. About:
The various efforts of reconstruction of the path followed by all those who followed Moses in Yezi’at Mizrayim (יציאת מצרים/departure from Egypt) can be basically categorized into five main groups of modern scholars, namely those who support one of the following alternatives:
i- the Mediterranean Sea road;
ii- the northeastern confines of the Delta, north of the Bitter Lakes region;
iii- the eastern confines of the Delta, through the Bitter Lakes region;
iv- the northern end of the Gulf of Suez; and
v- the crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba.
Within each group there may be variants or sub-groups; for instance, in the fifth category, Ron Wyatt places the crossing in the area of Nuweiba, whereas Robert Cornuke proposed the idea of a land bridge at the Strait of Tiran.
The categorization encompasses another scholarly debate, namely the interpretation of the Ancient Hebrew term ‘Yam Suph’ (יַם-סוּף), which literally means ‘sea of the reeds’; these are the Ancient Hebrew words used in the Bible for the sea that Moses and his followers crossed during the Exodus. Now, the very serious problem is that the Septuagint version offers a rather bizarre translation of the term, rendering it in Alexandrian Koine as ‘Red Sea’ (Ερυθρά Θάλασσα). This inexplicable situation impacted the judgment of many researchers greatly, because some scholars took the Masoretic text as guide in their effort to reconstitute the Exodus route, whereas others accepted the Septuagint translation. In fact, the most original sources (Septuagint, Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch) stick to the term ‘Red Sea’. About:
At this point, I must clarify that during the Antiquity, the term ‘Red Sea’ did not have the connotation that it has in modern times; this geographical term denoted the following bodies of water (as used with their meaning in modern languages):
a) the Red Sea,
b) the Persian Gulf, and
c) the Indian Ocean from the Eastern African coast lands to Indochina and Indonesia.
Within the limits of the present article, I cannot expand on the topic, but I have to underscore that the historical name was tantamount to a general description of what we would call today ‘the southern seas’.
All the same, only religious dogmatism, academic doctrinairism, ideological authoritarianism, and intellectual opinionatedness can lead so many scholars, explorers and religious schemers to such extreme disregard of few Biblical verses, which undeniably clarify the whole matter to some extent, totally canceling some of the above mentioned five options.
III. From Hatshepsut and Thutmose III to Akhenaten’s Monotheism, and from Merneptah (the Pharaoh of the Exodus) to Ramesses III
The verses 17 and 18 of the 13th chapter of Exodus help us recreate the Exodus route as pursued according to God’s will and following a miraculous intervention; the text reads:
“And when Pharaoh had sent out the people, the Lord led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, which is near; thinking lest perhaps they would repent, if they should see wars arise against them, and would return into Egypt. But he led them about by the way of the desert, which is by the Red Sea: and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.” (English translation of the Vulgata)
(Vulgata: igitur cum emisisset Pharao populum non eos duxit Dominus per viam terrae Philisthim quae vicina est reputans ne forte paeniteret eum si vidisset adversum se bella consurgere et reverteretur in Aegyptum. Sed circumduxit per viam deserti, quæ est juxta mare Rubrum: et armati ascenderunt filii Israël de terra Ægypti.)
(English translation of the Masoretic text: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said: ‘Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.’ But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.)
(English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.) About:
This text automatically cancels any modern reconstruction effort that involves the Mediterranean route (‘the land of the Philistines’); more characteristically, the text underscores the topographical fact that the said option would be, truly speaking, a real shortcut. Even more importantly, in the text, God explains the reason for which by miraculous intervention the Ancient Hebrews were diverted from the said route. Departing from Egypt, they would have been exposed to various wars, which may eventually have convinced them to return to Egypt. This is quite telling! However, to duly grasp the meaning of the verse, one must have a markedly Egyptological reading of the Exodus narrative.
Every pertinent historico-religious research about the rise of monotheism in Egypt and among the early Hebrews starts with the very slow ascent of the solar cult and spirituality (Atenism) during the 18th dynasty and, more specifically, during the reigns of (Amenhotep IV’s) Akhenaten’s four predecessors, namely Amenhotep III (1388-1351 BCE), Thutmose IV (1397-1388 BCE), Amenhotep II (1427-1397 BCE), and Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE). All the scholars and explorers, who focus particularly on the dramatic events of the reigns of Akhenaten (1351-1334 BCE) and of his three successors, i.e. Smenkhkare (1335-1334 BCE), Neferneferuaten (1334-1332 BCE) and Tutankhaten-Tutankhamen (1332-1323 BCE) until the final restoration of the Amun polytheism (in the third year of Tutankhaten’s reign), forget that the deep rejection of the Amun blasphemy, which characterized almost all the monarchs of the 18th dynasty may in fact have started with the frontal opposition between Hatshepsut (1479-1458 BCE) and her nephew and stepson Thutmose III.
Wife of Thutmose II (1493-1479 BCE), Hatshepsut not only prevented her nephew from ruling, but added insult to injury, as in her vicious attempt to justify her rule, she presented herself as product of Theogamy, sacrilegiously pretending that the scandalous abomination of Amun had sexual intercourse with her mother. So absurd and paranoid her monstrous attempt was that in reality she stripped herself of her royal ancestry (she was the daughter of Thutmose I; 1503-1493). Thutmose III had however to live for 20 years in a secluded part of the temple of Amun of Karnak, protected by the monotheist sacerdotal college, which nominally accepted Amun Trinity only to gain time in their effort to overthrow or physically exterminate the blasphemous queen. That is why when his aunt was eliminated, Thutmose III, who proved to be Ancient Egypt’s greatest conqueror and one of the very few pharaohs to have ever marched up to the bank of Euphrates, ordered the deletion of Hatshepsut’s impious name from every inscription and relief.
The above brief description means that, before 1349 BCE (second year of Akhenaten’s reign when -during the Sed festival- Atenism was officially proclaimed), a real religious war was already going on in Egypt for no less than 130 years (after the death of Thutmose II). The outstanding Atenist monotheist upheaval and Egypt’s transformation consisted in an unprecedented renewal that eclipses by far the Christianization of the Roman Empire and the Islamization of Arabia in terms of spiritual magnificence, solemnity, majesty, piety, simplicity, divine epiphany, and royal forcefulness.
The three shocking decades (from Akhenaten’s rise to the throne to Tutankhamen’s funerals) that Egypt lived in the middle of the 14th c. BCE have no equivalent in World History, because they involve the rise and the fall of one of the purest forms of monotheistic religion ever accepted as state dogma. The white terror, which was launched against all monotheists during the reigns of the rancorous priest Ay (1323-1319 BCE) and of the cruel soldier Horemheb (1319-1292 BCE), continued during the reigns of the first four pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, namely Ramesses I (1292-1290 BCE), Seti I (1290-1279 BCE), Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE) and Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE). This is exactly the atmosphere of oppression and persecution that the Biblical text intended to highlight and reflect. Ramesses II must have most probably been the pharaoh whom Moses encountered.
This means that, at the moment of the encounter (around the very last years of the old pharaoh), the religious polarization and clash between the monotheists and the polytheists in Egypt had already lasted for about 260 years (1479-1219 BCE), whereas the severe persecution of the Egyptian (and other) monotheists was the ordinary condition of daily life for no less than a century (1329-1219 BCE). Merneptah is the true pharaoh of the Exodus; however, he had even more serious troubles to face than the rebellious monotheists, who apparently could not anymore live in Egypt. During his reign, Egypt had to oppose the alliance between the Berbers (‘Libyans’) and the Sea Peoples, because the first, rather smaller, attacks of those barbarians had started.
This event is good enough to explain why the aforementioned Biblical excerpt clearly states that God did not want to allow the departing Ancient Hebrews to go “by the way of the land of the Philistines”: the Philistines of the Biblical text are none other than the Peleset of the Ancient Egyptian texts, who were one of the rebellious Sea Peoples and participated in the attacks against Egypt that Ramesses III (1186-1155 BCE) was able at last to vanquish and disperse. The Peleset-Philistines are identified as the Pelasgians who lived in South Balkans and were the ferocious enemies of the Achaeans and the Hittites. So, when the first waves of the disorderly and barbarian Peleset-Philistines-Pelasgians were arriving in the southern coastland of Canaan (where they settled, therefore becoming the ancestors of today’s Palestinians), the Biblical God did not obviously want his chosen people to intermingle with them.
Better comprehended after the study of a geographical map, this explicit statement does not only cancel the first of the above mentioned five options, but it totally wipes out the first four options because, in spite of existing variants, the supporters of these suggestions reconstruct eventual routes that -all- pass relatively close from the South Canaan coast lands where the Peleset-Philistines-Pelasgians had started settling. However, there is an even stronger argument in favor of the fifth option. About:
—- THE RISE AND FALL OF MONOTHEISM IN ANCIENT EGYPT ——–
Hatshepsut: the evil polytheist who invented the concept of ‘Theogamy’ in order to justify the usurpation of throne and her immoral and illegal rule
Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir al Bahari, Luxor West
Making offerings to Amun: Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahari
Offerings made to Amun
Amun and Ahmose sitting opposite each other in heaven, which is symbolized by two female divinities supporting them; Amun holds the Ankh to Ahmose’s nose and mouth so that she can breathe in the divine essence and conceive the god’s child.
Deir el Bahari textual evidence for the Theogamy:
– the inscription claims that Amun ‘prophesized the birth of Hatshepsut at a council of the gods;
– Amun disguised as Thutmose I and visited Queen Ahmose; the inscription reads (paragraph 196):
“Utterance of Amun-Re, lord of Thebes, presider over Karnak: He made his form like the majesty of this husband, the King Aa Kheper Ka Ra (Thutmose I’s throne name). He found her as she slept in the beauty of her palace. She waked at the fragrance of the god, which she smelled in the presence of his Majesty. He went to her immediately, coivit cum ea (lit. ‘had sex with her’), he imposed his desire upon her, he caused that she should see him in his form of a god. When he came before her, she rejoiced at the sight of his beauty, his love passed into her limbs, which the fragrance of the god flooded; all his odors were from Punt”;
– the queen is then informed by Amun that she has conceived a daughter by him; the inscription reads (paragraph 198):
“Utterance of Amun, Lord of the Two Lands, before her: “Khnemet-Amun-Hatshepsut (her full birth name: ‘United with Amun, the Foremost of Ladies’) shall be the name of this my daughter, whom I have placed in thy body, this saying which comes out of thy mouth. She shall exercise the excellent kingship in this whole land. My soul is hers, my bounty is hers, my crown is hers, that she may rule the Two Lands, that she may lead all the living … “;
– Amun instructs the god Khnum, who was thought to be the creator of flesh, to make the baby and its Ka on his potter’s wheel. The reliefs show Khnum being helped by his consort divinity, the frog-headed Hekt;
– the royal baby and its Ka are depicted in the likeness of a boy, complete with male genitalia;
– the instruction text reads (paragraph 200):
“Utterance of Amun, presider over Karnak: “Go, to make her, together with her Ka, from these limbs which are in me; go, to fashion her better than all gods; shape for me, this my daughter, whom I have begotten. I have given to her all life and satisfaction, all stability, all joy of heart from me, all offerings, and all bread, like Re, forever”;
– Queen Ahmose was led off by Khnum and Hekt to give birth; she was attended by Bes and Taweret (the hippopotamus-like divinity that protected childbirth);
– the newborn child was given the symbols of life, power and protection, before being presented to her ‘father’ Amun;
Thutmose III depicted on the 7th pylon of the Amun temple at Karnak, smiting enemies
Thutmose III holding a hedj Club and a sekhem scepter, while standing before two obelisks
Thutmose III wearing the atef crown
The ‘tekhen waty’ (unique obelisk) of Thutmose III was transported to Rome, following a decision made by Emperor Constantine I and materialized by Constantius II in 357 CE. Initially, it stood in Circus Maximus; it then collapsed and it was covered by the mud (in the 5th c.). Finally, it was restored in the 1580s and erected in front of the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran with the addition of a cross atop of it. The acquisition of the obelisks erected by Thutmose III was of particularly notable interest for the religious authorities of Roman and Constantinopolitan Christianity; Theodosius ordered the shipment (390 CE) of another obelisk, which was initially built by Thutmose III, to Constantinople; it was installed in the Hippodrome.
Amenhotep II shown at the Temple of Amada, 180 km south of Aswan, near the Lake Nasser
Thutmose IV wearing the blue crown; grandfather of Akhenaten, he actively supported the rise of the monotheistic solar ideology, therefore receiving many unjust comments and insults by the fanatic priests of Amun – something that his grandson explicitly stated, denounced and regretted.
The famous Dream Stele of Thutmose IV; the pharaoh built the monument after having slept between the paws of the Great Sphinx; the text shows an extraordinary increase in terms of solar cult and spirituality.
Amenhotep III, predecessor and father of Akhenaten
Akhenaten and Nefertiti with their children under the blessings of Aten whose benediction takes the form of solar rays ending in hands that hold Ankh, the symbol of spiritual life and potency
Akhenaten depicted as a sphinx on a relief unearthed in his capital Akhetaton, i.e. the modern Tell el Amarna (or Amarna)
Akhenaten wearing the Egyptian Blue Crown of War
The legendary statue of Akhenaten that triggered endless scholarly discussions about the (radically different from the Classical Ancient Egyptian Art) Amarna Naturalism and the eventuality of particular health problems of the great monotheist pharaoh
Typical boundary stele from Akhetaton / Amarna, the monotheistic capital of Akhenaten in Middle Egypt (not far from Al Minia)
Akhetaton / Amarna, the Temple of Aten
Akhetaton / Amarna, the northern palace
Akhetaton/Amarna, diagram and reconstruction of the royal quarters
Akhetaton/Amarna: general view
The typical practice of the days of Akhenaten: the Amun name was erased from wherever it was written. Stela of Djeserka (full name: Djeserkareseneb / Djeser-ka-re-seneb), a temple doorkeeper at Karnak, Thebes
Akhenaten and Nefertiti make offerings to Aten; from a limestone stela in the Museum of Cairo
The successors of Akhenaten proved to be unable to outmaneuver the Amun polytheist conspiracy against the monotheist state that was based in Akhetaten; relief with an unidentified royal couple that may very well be either Smenkhkare & Meritaten (Akhenaten’s first successor and his wife) or Tutankhamun & Ankhesenamun
Backing of the golden throne of Tutankhamun; the pharaoh and his wife Ankhesenamun are depicted as blessed by the rays of Aten, before the Amun polytheist restoration; at the time, they were respectively named Tutankhaten and Ankhes-enpa-Aten
Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun
Tutankhamun depicted on a chariot, participating in a military campaign
Tutankhamun holding the Pharaonic insignia
From a wall painting of the burial chamber of KV62 (the tomb of Tutankhamun): Tutankhamun and his Ka (standing behind him) embrace Osiris (in the left part of the picture); the deceased pharaoh greets Nut (in the central part); on the right side, the treacherous polytheist priest of Amun Ay performs the ceremony of the Opening of the Mouth for the dead of the eventually assassinated Tutankhamun, who is depicted as Osiris. Ay had first forced Tutankhamun to restore the polytheistic religion of the Theban Trinity and then, after the young pharaoh’s death or assassination, he was proclaimed as pharaoh. About the Theban tombs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theban_tombs / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Necropolis / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Necropolis
Ay’s royal names on a faience plate
Ay’s main ally against the monotheist state proclaimed by Akhenaten was Horemheb, an ignorant and fanatic soldier of socially low status; with the support of the polytheist clergy of Amun, he succeeded Ay and he ruled Egypt, launching a White Terror against the monotheists and dividing the country irrevocably. With the divisive and tyrannical rule of Horemheb, we observe in Egypt conditions similar to those described in the Bible, involving oppression, persecution, hatred and ignominy. Here, on the 10th pylon of the temple of Amun in Karnak, he is depicted as making offerings to Amun.
Wepwawet wolf-god of war & death, giving scepters to Seti I; relief from Seti I’s temple at Abedju (Abydos); second pharaoh of the 19th dynasty, Seti I was a particularly cruel pharaoh, who proved to be very heinous against the monotheists.
Ramesses II seems to have been a monotheist ruler who reigned over Kemet in an alliance with part of the then powerful polytheist priesthood.Enormous statue of Ramesses II from the first peristyle court of the Amun temple at Luxor; Ramesses II was the most important ruler of the 19th dynasty and one of the longest reigning monarchs in World History. He undertook an excessive project of constructions that absorbed all of the country’s resources and exhausted the population; this was his method of keeping the people busy, unfree and unable to react to the polytheist regime. He is the first of the two pharaohs related to the Exodus narrative.
Diorite statue of Ramesses II from Thebes, today in the Museo Egizio of Turin
Merenptah offering to Ptah; during his reign, the monotheist Egyptians and the Hebrews left Egypt, crossing the Red Sea
Second ruler of the 20th dynasty, Ramesses III was a staunch monotheist, who did not challenge the religious prevalence of the polytheists; but his reign was filled with exploits that damaged irreversibly the plans of the polytheists to take control over Egypt. In this relief from the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak, Ramesses III makes an offering.
Ramses III offering incense, wall painting from his tomb (KV11) in the Kings Valley, Luxor West
Ramesses III makes an oath to Isis; from the tomb of the Prince Amunher khepeshef
The three victories of Ramesses III against the Sea Peoples was Egypt’s greatest gift to Mankind and foremost contribution to World History. Following these developments, the historical role of Egypt had already been completed. From the pylon of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West): Ramesses III presents his victory over the Sea Peoples to Amun.
Design of the reliefs and the texts of the Northern Wall (outer side) of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu: Ramses III in the Battle of Djahy (one of the battles against the Sea Peoples)
From the Medinet Habu reliefs: severed hands of the defeated Sea Peoples. This was indeed a splendid gift to the civilized world and a most demanded punishment of the incestuous barbarians who intended to plunge the Mankind into lawlessness, non-violence, fornication, sodomy, and polytheism.
———————————————————————————————
IV. Serabit al Khadim and the Temple of Hathor: a Major Egyptian Site
Abu Zanimah is situated at ca. 170 km south of Suez on the western coastland of what we mistakenly call today the ‘Sinai Peninsula’. Reaching this place, one has crossed more than half the distance between Suez and Sharm el Sheikh (290 km), which is the most famous resort in the wider region. Approximately 40 km east of Abu Zanimah is located the major archaeological site in the region, i.e. Serabit al Khadim (سرابيط الخادم/lit. ‘the standing rocks of the servant’).
This appellation concerns the presence of a large number of rock blocks, each of which was called ‘sarbut’, meaning ‘the standing rock’ (‘serabit’ being the plural). The name of the servant, who was associated with them, reflects the statues scattered inside the temple, which represented (or were viewed as) ‘servants’ for the residents of the old. This is how the name came into existence. There are many other important sites and monuments in the wider region, involving fortifications, caves, turquoise mines, smaller temples, and numerous inscriptions.
Serabit al Khadim: the Standing Rocks of the Servant
The existence of the great temple of Hathor at Serabit al Khadim demonstrates that this place was a major center of Ancient Egyptian monotheistic cult. The temple was initially excavated by Sir Flinders Petrie in the very first years of the 20th c. and subsequently explored by different groups of archaeologists and epigraphists. The temple dates back to the Middle Kingdom (early 2nd millennium BCE); Hathor was often symbolized as a cow to reflect the aspect of divine fertility, but basically her name means ‘the House of Horus’. For this reason, her cult was regularly associated with that of Isis, who was believed to be ‘Mother’ to Horus (the Ancient Egyptian concept of Messiah), according to the Iwnw Heliopolitan doctrine of Ennead, i.e. one of the staunchest monotheist faiths in Ancient Egypt. As a matter of fact, the two divine hypostases (Isis and Hathor) were often identified with one another. About:
It makes therefore sense to identify the majestic temple (built at the extraordinary elevation of 850 m above sea level, which is a unique case in Ancient Egypt) and its astounding surroundings as a major center of Egyptian monotheism. Actually, for more than 1500 years before the rise of Atenism, the two main Ancient Egyptian dogmas, namely the Heliopolitan Ennead and the Khemenu Hermupolitan Ogdoad, were definitely monotheistic in the conceptualization and description of the spiritual and the material universes. In opposition to them stood the Ptah Memphitic dogma, Egypt’s central polytheistic faith, and after the beginning of the 16th c. BCE, the Amun Trinity, which was a theological system composed in order to constitute the imperial religion propagated from Thebes of Egypt (Niwt).
The strong presence of Egyptian monotheists in Serabit al Khadim is also confirmed by the construction of a temple of Aten, which may have been still operational after the Amun polytheist restoration in the Valley of the Nile.
There is another crucial confirmation of the monotheistic character of the Ancient Egyptian settlement at Serabit al Khadim, in spite of the undeniable presence of a small temple dedicated to Ptah that was also excavated there; in any case, contrasting priesthoods coexisted almost always in Ancient Egypt, of course in incessant strife against one another. This issue has to do with something that many specialists observed, studied, published, but never explained. The majestic location is also known for the numerous samples of the so-called Proto-Sinaitic script that are found there. This early alphabetic system is documented due to ca. 40 inscriptions or fragments noticed in the surroundings of the Hathor Temple.
Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions
Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions n. 345, 374 and 353
Birth of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet at Wadi el Hol and Serabit al Khadim
Proto-Sinaitic script on the Sphinx found in Serabit al Khadim
This is an early Canaanite script that seems to be at the very origin of the Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek alphabets from one side, and of the Ancient Yemenite (mistakenly called ‘South Arabian’) script from the other side. The samples are dated in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE (mainly in the period 1800-1600 BCE); they corresponded to a Northwest Semitic language from which seem to originate those of the Ancient Canaanites, the Phoenicians, and the Ancient Hebrews. As texts, the inscriptions of Serabit al Khadim are mainly votive, and they were found among hieroglyphic and hieratic inscriptions. About:
Although not abundant, the material record enables us to comprehend what truly was happening in the Hathor Temple. Due to the apparent presence of numerous foreign workers of Northwest Semitic origin, some priestly scribes of the temple decided to introduce a new, relatively easy, writing system among the foreigners. This would closely associate these people with the Hathor priesthood, facilitate the priestly control of them, and finally turn these populations into tools of regional influence; this is so because some of these workers could be dispatched among the tiny Canaanite kingdoms of the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE as agents. In fact, during the 18th dynasty (1600-1300 BCE), we observe exactly this type of relationship between Egypt and the various Canaanite tributary princes whose correspondence with the pharaoh has been made known with the discovery of the Amarna Letters.
Saying that we attest in the Serabit al Khadim Hathor Temple around 1700 BCE the preparatory work for what we find in the Egyptian colonies in South Canaan 250 years later may be an understatement. During the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt (1783-1540 BCE) and, more particularly, throughout the time of the notorious 15th dynasty (the Hekau Khasut/Hyksos Kings: 1650-1550 BCE), the wider region around may have been an extraterritorial entity totally out of the hands of the evil and blasphemous kings of Avaris, who were named after the Ancient Egyptian name for Satan (Apep/Apophis). About:
At this point, I want to totally reject the unsubstantiated theory of Lina Eckenstein (1857-1931), a pseudo-scientific figure who worked for some time as assistant of the famous English Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie; just impressed by the superb site and backed by her skills as failed astrologer and disqualified soothsayer, she claimed that Serabit al Khadim was the location where Moses obtained the Two Tablets with the Ten Commandments. There is nothing in support of this absurd idea. About: Serabit el Khadim, Hathor, Moses, Mount Sinai and the Exodus
The undeniable fact is however that Biaw (as the Ancient Egyptians named the land that we now mistakenly call ‘Sinai Peninsula’) was administratively considered as an extension of the 14th nome (‘province’) of the Lower Egypt, which was known as the ‘easternmost land’ (‘heneti iabti’; ḫntỉ-ỉꜣbtỉ). This is therefore in evident agreement with the Biblical reference to the land Goshen (where the Ancient Hebrews had settled), which has been identified by many specialists as the northeastern extremities of the Delta. About: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nome_(Egypt)
So, we can conclude that it is absolutely misplaced to locate the Crossing of the Red Sea in any of the first four among the five aforementioned alternatives, because in each of those cases, the departing Ancient Hebrews would cross a body of water after which the land would still be part of Egypt. There is in fact only one land toward which the Ancient Hebrews would go without having the fear to find there Egyptian soldiers, officers and Pharaonic administrators: outside Egypt. This means that the Exodus must have most probably taken place from Serabit al Khadim to the southernmost confines of what we call today ‘Sinai Peninsula’ around Sharm el Sheikh, namely any location between the promontories Ras Muhammad and Ras Nasrani.
Then, to offer a plausible answer to all those, who stick to the point that the Biblical Masoretic text mentions ‘yam suph’, which means ‘the Sea of Reeds’ (and not the ‘Red Sea’), one can very reasonably dissociate the Exodus event from the Eastern Delta regions and associate it with the Tiran straits, by merely stating that there may have been reeds in the Tiran straits at the time. Nature has changed significantly over the past 3250 years.
V. Straits of Tiran: Red Sea Crossing, World Politics, and Moses’ Formidable Double Stratagem
We can therefore conclude that the only plausible itinerary that the Ancient Hebrews and the Egyptian monotheists made after crossing the Straits of Tiran involved the following:
a- wandering through the NW extremities of the Hejaz (in today’s Saudi Arabia);
b- passing by Jabal al-Lawz (جبل اللوز) and Jabal al Maqla (جبل مقلة; lit. ‘burnt mountain’) that several explorers and authors, like Ron Wyatt, Lennart Möller and Bob Cornuke, identified as the Biblical and Quranic Mount Sinai; at this point, I have to add that quite pointlessly several academics, like James K. Hoffmeier, attempted to refute the conclusions drawn by those explorers, without however bringing serious arguments to the forefront of the discussion;
c- crossing certain parts of the Land Midian (מִדְיָן; مدين; Μαδιάμ), which was named after a son of Abraham; I have to herewith add that the Land Midian was quite well known to Moses himself, because according to the Biblical and Quranic sources, the leader of the monotheists, long before the Exodus, had to escape there alone, lest the pharaoh did not kill him (which automatically lets us understand that Moses had a certain experience in crossing those frontiers); and
d- advancing through parts of today’s South Jordan and South Israel, i.e. the Negev desert (הַנֶּגֶב; ٱلنقب; ἔρημος); it must be noted that the modern use of the term covers a slightly different region than the Biblical term. About:
Spending 40 years to cross these arid lands and circumferences, the monotheists, who followed Moses, in reality, carried out a unique double stratagem; in fact, they left Egypt in the last years of Merenptah’s reign (1213-1203 BCE), and most probably after the early clash between Egypt and the Sea Peoples, namely the Battle of Perire (1208 BCE) during which the Egyptian army managed to disperse the alliance made between the Berbers (Libyans) and the Sea Peoples. The deep religious division that characterized Egypt and the persecution that had taken place totally destabilized the country, which resulted in fanatic polytheists as monarchs and in conspiring viziers, priests, administrators and generals.
This situation became evident after Merenptah’s death, when Seti II (1203-1197 BCE), Amenmesse (as usurper; 1201-1198 BCE), (Seti II’s consort) Tausret (1197-1189; she ruled in reality only after Siptah’s death, but her rule ended in civil war), and Siptah (1197-1191 BCE) ruled in chaotic conditions gravely endangering Egypt’s existence. This means that neither the staunch monotheists’ survival in Egypt was guaranteed nor the very existence of the state promised. The menacing horizon could eventually turn the land of civilization into an inferno of barbarism, if the Sea Peoples won at the battlefield and invaded Egypt. If this occurred, the staunch monotheists under Moses should not be there, but preserve themselves intact in another location. Even more so, because Tausret seems to have been identical with Thuoris (Θούωρις), “who” -as specified by Manetho {Aigyptiaca; Fr. 55 (from Syncellus) According to Africanus}- “in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years”.
When Setnakhte (1189-1186 BCE), founder of the 20th dynasty and father of Ramesses III, took power in Egypt, very little time was left to Egypt; concealed behind intensely codified Pharaonic names, the few remaining Egyptian monotheists had first to decontaminate the Egyptian army and administrative body from all the subversive agents of the polytheists, namely the Memphitic priests of Ptah and the Theban clergy of Amun, and second to demarcate clearly the polytheist clergy’s role as exclusively sacerdotal of nature with absolutely no impact on the governance of the country.
Ramesses (1186-1155 BCE) had to deliver three battles {as recorded in the inscriptions found on the walls of his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Luxor West) in the years 5, 8 (known as the Battle of Djahy; 1178 BCE) and 12 (known as the Battle of the Delta; 1175 BCE} of his reign to save his country and the History of Mankind. Egypt had to exercise its foremost spiritual powers and rely on the most ancient techniques of ethereal potency in order to compactly panic and horrendously confuse the barbarian attackers. So, spiritually dismantled, forcefully subdued, electrically stricken, and magnetically decomposed the defeated Sea Peoples were that they could never recover and actually their scattered parts and tribes never recovered. About:
And this shows the other half of Moses’ double stratagem; if the Pelasgians-Peleset-Philistines and the other Sea Peoples were successful in their attacks against Egypt, they would control the country, strengthening the religious force of the Memphitic and Theban polytheists (pretty much like two millennia later Charlemagne helped consolidate the power of the heretic Roman Catholic church). In such case, the Philistines would form a strong basis (a military encampment) in the southern confines of Canaan from where they would sustain their presence in Egypt. If the Philistines were defeated (as they actually were), they would apparently scatter (as they did) in the southern coast lands of Canaan, establishing primitive social structures and continuing their lives there (which is what happened).
By spending 40 years in the desert, the staunch monotheists, who followed Moses, took some distance, and gave themselves space and time; thus they could observe what would happen to Egypt and to its ferocious enemies, and then act accordingly. A defeat of Egypt may have sent them back to liberate the country from the evil and barbarian Sea Peoples, but as it happened, this was not needed.
The meaning of the original text of the Exodus was modified later, when the Ancient Hebrew kingdoms needed legends and epics to establish their monarchical ideology and to give themselves the role of the ‘chosen people’, which was the quintessence of the Assyrian imperial universalism, monotheistic dogma, messianic vocation, and eschatological belief. Duly Canaanized, the descendants of the Egyptian and the Hebrew monotheists, who followed Moses in the desert, became a ‘nation’ like the rest and the polytheistic rituals were only one aspect of their spiritual fornication. That is why it is difficult to understand the Biblical prophets: because the Egyptian past of the Ancient Hebrews was methodically de-contextualized long before this populace attributed to themselves a role invented by others in Mesopotamia, and not in Egypt.
But it is only due to this interpretation that Hosea (Ὡσηὲ) becomes meaningful (7:11): “And Ephraim was as a silly dove, not having a heart: he called to Egypt, and they went to the Assyrians” (καὶ ἦν Ἐφραὶμ ὡς περιστερὰ ἄνους οὐχ ἔχουσα καρδίαν· Αἴγυπτον ἐπεκαλεῖτο καὶ εἰς Ἀσσυρίους ἐπορεύθησαν).
VI. Iranians, Macedonians, Aramaeans, Romans: Reasons for the Confusion about the True Location of Mount Sinai
The confusion, which later covered the topic of the true location of Mount Sinai, has much to do with the numerous divisions (Cushitic-Sudanese pharaohs of the 25th dynasty vs. Berber-Libyan pharaohs of the 26th dynasty) and the various, successive conquests of Egypt (Assyrian, Iranian, Macedonian, and Roman), the loss of the largest part of Ancient Hebrews (conquest of Samaria by Sargon/Sharrukin II and transportation of the entire population of Ancient Israel, i.e. the ten tribes, to the northeastern provinces of Assyria; 721-718 BCE), the extensive destructions that took place during the conquest of Judah, namely the remaining two tribes, and Jerusalem (589-586 BCE) by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and the overwhelming transformation of the Ancient Hebrew religion into ‘Judaism’ during the Achaemenid times (550-330 BCE).
As a matter of fact, the very last indication that we have about Ancient Hebrews remembering correctly the location of Mount Sinai (or Horeb) is found in III Kings 19:8 (in modern English translations, such as NIV: I Kings 19:8); Elijah needed indeed ’40 days and 40 nights’ in order to reach the location (“So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God”; “καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἔφαγε καὶ ἔπιε· καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐν ἰσχύϊ τῆς βρώσεως ἐκείνης τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ τεσσαράκοντα νύκτας ἕως ὄρους Χωρήβ”).
The most probable reason for the ensued confusion must be the fact that the long duration of the Iranian, Macedonian (: mainly Ptolemaic) and Roman occupation and administration of Egypt involved also the annexation and government of Palestine (or Judea) by the said empires; this resulted in new demarcation lines, administrative changes, and transfer of lands from one province to another, as different parameters weighed in to improve the local governance and the province functionality or also cross-province functionality. The aforementioned changes that impacted the topic of our research (namely the confusion about the exact location of the Biblical Mount Sinai/Horeb) concern basically two issues:
-the ‘Sinai Peninsula’ (to use the modern name of the region) started being viewed as part of Palestine (and at times, of ‘Arabia Petraea’: see below), and not of Egypt;
-the demarcation of boundaries between Palestine (at times called Judea) and Arabia Petraea varied from time to time. In this regard, several changes were not accepted unanimously, more particularly because they were meaningless to different people. Consequently, these changes were not reflected in their historical sources.
With the importance that the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba acquired for the Achaemenid Empire and following the circumnavigation of the Arabian Peninsula, the ‘Sinai Peninsula’ became an important region for the transportation of trade (and eventually army) from the Persian Gulf to Egypt and vice versa.
With the increased role that the Aramaean merchants acquired within and beyond the borders of Iran, we observe a growing number of Aramaean trade colonies being established across the vast trade network that we nowadays conventionally call ‘the Silk-, Spice- and Perfume-Routes across Lands, Deserts and Seas’. This does not only concern the famous caravan cities, like Hatra, Nasibin (Nisibis), Urhoy/Urfa (Edessa of Osrhoene), Tadmor (Palmyra), Dura Europos, Rekem/Petra, some of which were the capital cities of rather short-lived kingdoms; it also involves the foundation of new cities like Qena (Kaine; Καινή), an Aramaean outpost in Upper Egypt, Gerrha (Γέρρα), a major Chaldean Aramaean entrepôt and port of call in the Persian Gulf (ca. 100 km west of Abu Dhabi in today’s UAE coast land), which rivaled with or even surpassed Alexandria in wealth, and Ptolemais Theron (Islamic times’ Suakin / Sawakin), a Ptolemaic colony in Sudan’s Red Sea coast land (east of the continental kingdom of Cush that had Meroe as capital).
These developments ushered the local people into a totally new world, which was highly interconnected, markedly multicultural, and open to new faiths, mysticisms, cults and interpretations; however, within a shell of universality, interdependence and cohabitation, many atrocities could happen and did actually happen.
The Egyptian Ptolemaic control over Sinai was not the first period during which the southern parts of Canaan and the Sinai Peninsula were parts of Kemet (: the most common name of Ancient Egypt in Egyptian hieroglyphics meant ‘the Black Land’); however, it was the first time when so many non-Egyptians were present and active in those regions: Iranians, Aramaeans, Yemenites and some Arabs. The entire area had a major strategic role as it was the borderland between Egypt and Seleucid Syria, a mighty opponent. Leaving aside the periods of Assyrian and Iranian occupation of Egypt, the Ptolemaic-Seleucid conflict was a real historical ‘remake’ of the Hittite-Egyptian rivalry.
This situation triggered the inception of the Aramaean Nabataean kingdom (3rd c. BCE – 106 CE), which -with capital at Rekem/Petra (Πέτρα) and necropolis at Hegra (Έγρα; ٱلْحِجْر) / Mada’in Saleh (مَدَائِن صَالِح)- controlled a sizeable territory including the northwestern confines of today’s Saudi Arabia (Hegra is located 560 km south of Petra and only 360 km north of Medina), the southern half of the modern kingdom of Jordan, and occasionally the eastern part of the Sinai Peninsula and the southern half of the state of Israel. It is noteworthy that, even without a proper kingdom in their hands, the indomitable Nabataean Aramaeans were able to inflict a very humiliating defeat on the Macedonian general Antigonus I Monophthalmus (the ‘one-eyed’) in 312 BCE (during the Third War of the Diadochi), when the inconsiderate combatant had adventured in the whereabouts of Petra.
Rekem / Petra
Rekem / Petra
Rekem / Petra
Hegra / Mada’in Saleh
Hegra / Mada’in Saleh
The Nabataean kingdom played an important role in the increased trade between Alexandria and India, and if we believe the comparisons made by the partially pro-Roman Strabo, it had an even more significant position in the dramatically increased trade between Rome and China in the first decades after Octavian’s invasion and annexation of Egypt. The transformation of Egypt into a Roman province (30 BCE), the end of the Hasmonean kingdom of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE), and the short-lived Herodian Tetrarchy (4 BCE – 44 CE) only accentuated the importance of the Nabataeans, who accumulated great wealth due to the control of a part of the trade with the East that they were able to undertake.
The Roman conquest of Jerusalem (70 CE) in particular, the three Roman-Jewish wars in general {namely the First Roman-Jewish War (66-73 CE), the Second Roman-Jewish War (also known as Tumultus Iudaicus or the Kitos War, after the name of the Berber Roman general Lusius Quietus/Λούσιος Κυήτος, who was the 11th legate of Judaea; 115-117 CE), and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE)}, and the ensued stupendous destructions, involving the death, the enslavement, and the dispersion of a great number of Jews, also contributed to the lack of knowledge (and therefore confusion) about the location of the Biblical Mount Sinai.
As a matter of fact, the Nabataean kingdom was imperatively mentioned in the leading historical source about the trade between Alexandria, East Africa, Yemen, Iran, India, the Deccan, and China, namely the Periplus of the Red Sea (Περίπλους της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης; also known as the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea), which was written during the second half of the 1st c. CE by an anonymous Egyptian Alexandrian captain and merchant; the text details the navigation, the trade, the local societies, kingdoms, and ports of call, as well as the climatological imperatives throughout the Eastern coast of Africa (down to today’s Darussalam in Tanzania), the coasts of Arabia, Yemen, Iran, India and the Deccan, and up to Chryse (lit. ‘the Golden’, i.e. Indonesia) and China. In its 19th paragraph, the Periplus of the Red Sea mentions the Aramaean Nabataean king Maliku (Malichus II):
“Now to the left of Berenice, sailing for two or three days from Mussel Harbor eastward across the adjacent gulf, there is another harbor and fortified place, which is called White Town, from which there is a road to Petra, which is subject to Malichas, King of the Nabataeans. It holds the position of a market-town for the small vessels sent there from Arabia; and so a centurion is stationed there as a collector of one-fourth of the merchandise imported, with an armed force, as a garrison”.
In the beginning of the 2nd c. CE, it became very clear that the Nabataean profit meant expensive products for Rome; following the death of Rabbel II (106 CE), Roman army was dispatched from Syria (the Sixth Ferrata legion) and Egypt (the Third Cyrenaica legion) to terminate the local structure and annex the territory. After invading Bosra (Βόστρα) and Petra, the Romans advanced in the south down to Hegra, also putting Leuke Kome (Λευκή Κώμη; White Town) under control. The events took place shortly before Trajan’s expeditions against Parthia (Arsacid Iran), during which (114-117 CE) Trajan proved to be the only Roman emperor to have reached the western shore of the Caspian Sea and the creek of the Persian Gulf in person.
Roman Empire around 125 CE
It was then (107-110 CE) that, during the tenure (106-116 CE) of the Greek Pontic Gaius Claudius Severus as the first governor of the new Roman province, the Via Traiana Nova (‘Trajan’s New Road’) was constructed to link Bosra and Petra with Aelana (modern Eilat in Israel and Aqaba in Jordan), and the Limes Arabicus (the desert frontier of the Roman Empire) was demarcated, involving the building of fortresses and watchtowers. The ultimate consequence of all these developments was the inception of the Roman province of Arabia Petraea.
Last, an even greater change, which took place as a consequence of the Roman annexation of the Nabataean kingdom, was the introduction of the Bostran Era, which was a lunisolar calendar that started on 22nd March 106 CE. The names of the months corresponded to those of the ancient Macedonian calendar, but the existing documentation (in Aramaic, Nabataean, Arabic and Alexandrian Koine) preserved mostly the Aramaean Nabataean equivalents. Furthermore, the Bostran Era was the calendar of all the Arab and Yemenite Christians in pre-Islamic times; it was still in use at least 100 years after the Hijri calendar was introduced among Muslims, in spite of the explicit rebuttal of the lunisolar calendars by prophet Muhammad (a position that was due to the fact that these calendars necessitate intercalary months).
Petra became the capital of the Roman province ‘Arabia Petraea’ (106 CE); initially, this province incorporated lands of Syria south of Damascus, the western part of Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula, and the NW confines of Saudi Arabia. The part between Petra and Bosra was the true center of gravitation in the new province; major cities or urban centers involved notably Philadelphia (today’s Amman), Gerasa (Jerash/ جرش; Γέρασα), etc. At the time, the Roman Province Judea still existed, but it was merged with Syria in 135 CE. Arabia Petraea remained a province of the Roman Empire and later the Eastern Roman Empire for more than 600 years, being a rather peaceful frontier zone.
Following a local rebellion, under Septimius Severus (193-211 CE), the Roman province of Syria was divided into three parts, namely Syria-Coele, Syria-Phoenice, and Syria-Palestina (Palaestina); this surely increased the importance of Arabia Petraea, taken into consideration the rivalry of the two provinces that had already lasted for a century. The Roman Emperor even enlarged the territory of the loyal province.
Later, during the process of restructuring of the Roman Empire under Diocletian (284-305 CE), the southern part of the province of Arabia Petraea was transferred to Syria-Palestina; it then became a division of the ‘Diocese of the East’ (Dioecesis Orientis), which was a major component of the Praetorian prefecture of the Orient (Praefectura Praetorio Orientis; Ἔπαρχότητα / ὑπαρχία τῶν πραιτωρίων τῆς ἀνατολῆς). Last, during the 4th c., Palestina was divided into three sections, namely Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Salutaris (or Tertia), which incorporated the Sinai Peninsula. Arabia was then shrunk into a small piece of land between Bosra and Philadelphia (Amman). Petra was included in Palaestina Salutaris.
Diocese of the East– Dioecesis Orientis, ca. 400 CE
Praetorian Prefectures, and the Praetorian prefecture of the Orient
Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Salutaris (or Tertia)
Subsequently, the confusion about the geographical and administrative terms ‘Egypt’, ‘Palestine’, and ‘Arabia’ was plain and the uncertainly about the correct location of the Biblical Mount Sinai was absolute. For this reason, the Tiran Island (جزيرة تيران; יוטבת; Ἰωτάβη; Iotapa) was represented Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) by bishop Macarius whose diocese belonged to the Eastern Roman province Palestina Tertia (and not to Arabia or Egypt). The same is valid for bishop Anastasius of Iotapa, who participated in the Council of Jerusalem (536 CE). It was an absurdity that the Tiran Island (Iotabe) was considered to be part of ‘Palestine’ and at the same time, the Sinai Mountain was believed to be located where it is thought to be today, but the confused minds of the people of those days were not able to discern it.
VII. From Ptolemy’s Geography to Al Biruni’s Chronology
Writing his illustrious Geography (Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις; lit. ‘Instruction on Geography) in the first half of the 2nd c. CE, the Egyptian geographer, astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy divided the Arabian Peninsula into three parts, namely
a- Arabia Petraea (lit. ‘Rocky Arabia’), which basically consisted in a mountainous region stretched from the Gulf of Aqaba (Ελανίτης κόλπος; Elanite Gulf) to the southern confines of Syria and Palestine (or Judaea) and from the Gulf of Suez to the desert inland (which was called Arabia Deserta); this means that it included the entire region that we now call ‘Sinai Peninsula’. Among the cities mentioned by Ptolemy, we find Petra, Gerasa, Bosra and Elana (Ελάνα; Eilat/Aqaba) in the creek of the Elanite Gulf.
b- Arabia Deserta (Έρημος Αραβία); as per Ptolemy’s Geography, this region was located south of ‘Mesopotamia’, west of Babylonia (which is the land we now call ‘South Mesopotamia’), east of Syria, Palestine and Arabia Petraea, and north of Arabia Felix (see below); this means that this part comprised the vast interior of the peninsula, involving several deserts, namely the Najd, the Nafud, the Dahna, and the Rub’ al Khali. Arabia Deserta was therefore thought of as totally deprived of coastlands.
c- Arabia Felix (or Eudemon Arabia; Ευδαίμων Αραβία); many modern scholars identify this region with just Yemen and Hadhramaut (the former states of North and South Yemen), but this is very wrong; a careful reading of Ptolemy’s Geography enables us to fully comprehend that the term ‘Arabia Felix’ denotes the following lands:
i- the long, mountainous region stretched (alongside the Red Sea coast of the Arabian Peninsula) from the Gulf of Aqaba to the oasis of Najran, which is the northernmost part of Yemen (being currently occupied by Saudi Arabia); ca. 1400 km long and about 100-150 km wide, this zone corresponds vaguely to the geographical term Hejaz (الحجاز) of the Islamic times. The Arabic term denotes the ‘barrier’, meaning the mountains that separate the desert (in the east) from the Tihamah plain (in the west). This narrow and oblong plain is located between the western slopes of those mountains and the Red Sea shore;
ii- the aforementioned lands that are regularly identified as ‘Arabia Felix’ by modern scholars, namely Yemen and Hadhramaut; and
iii- the lands of the modern states of Oman, UAE, and Qatar, as well as the Saudi coast land in the Persian Gulf almost up to today’s Kuwait. However, it has to be added that these Ancient Greek and Latin terms were used to also denote the city and harbor of Aden, which was the major entrepôt and port of call throughout the Arabian Peninsula (mentioned in the paragraph 26 of the Periplus of the Red Sea as part of the then merged kingdoms of Sheba and Himyar).
It goes without saying that the Roman province of Arabia Petraea was only a small part in the north-westernmost confines of the Arabian Peninsula. Contrarily, Arabia Deserta and Arabia Felix comprised of the major chunks of the peninsula. It is quite interesting to note that Ptolemy the Geographer describes the location and details the sites (and their positions) of Arabia Petraea in the seventeenth chapter of the fifth book of his masterpiece. The Greek text is available here – on p. 68 (Lib. V, cap. 17):
Ptolemy then proceeds with the description and the details of Mesopotamia (on p. 70; Lib. V, cap. 18) and dedicates the 19th (penultimate) chapter of the 5th book to the presentation of Arabia Deserta (p. 74). The last (20th) chapter of this book concerns Babylonia, i. e. South Mesopotamia. After the end of this book, the 6th book starts with the presentation of Assyria, Media, Susiana, Persis, Parthia, and the Desert of Kerman (Καρμανία Έρημος). Then, the seventh chapter of the sixth book concerns Arabia Felix (on p. 97). I expand on the way the great scholar of the Late Antiquity classified and presented his explorations, data, studies and conclusions, because it is essential for every reader today to understand that the Earth in general and the various lands more particularly were viewed very differently at the time. About:
This is how Ptolemy the Geographer describes the confines of Arabia Petraea (§ 5.17.1):
«Arabia Petraea is bounded on the west by that part of Egypt to which we have referred; on the north by Palestina or Judaea and the part of Syria along dividing line; on the south by the inmost point of the Arabian gulf, at 63°30′ & 29°50′ and by the Heroopolite gulf from the limit of Egypt up to the Pharan promontory, which is located at 65°00′ & 28°30′ and by the near side of the Elanite gulf, until its return at 66°00′ & 29°00′ The position of Pharan Kome is .65°00′ & 28°40′ Elana Kome, which is located in the inmost recess of the bay of this name, has this position 65°50′ & 29°15’».
As I already pointed out, the Elanite Gulf is the Gulf of Aqaba; I further clarify now that the Heroopolite gulf is the Gulf of Suez. An English translation (Arabia Petraea: paragraph 5.17.1; Arabia Deserta: paragraph 5.19.1; and Arabia Felix: paragraph 6.7.1) is available here: https://topostext.org/work/209
Writing no less than 850 years after Ptolemy completed his Geography, Al Biruni (البيروني; Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni being his complete name; 973-1048) referred to the Exodus in his grand opus ‘Chronology’. The complete title of the majestic opus is (کتاب الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية/Kitab al-athar al-baqiyah ‘an al-qurun al-khaliyah) ‘the Remaining Signs of the Past Centuries’; it was completed around the year 1000. According to conventional wisdom, this masterpiece consists in a comparative investigation, discussion, and presentation of different calendars and chronological systems that were in use among people of different religions, cultures and countries.
It goes without saying that, to undertake such an enormous effort, the Chorasmian (Khawarizmi) Iranian erudite scholar Al Biruni (whose name originates from the Farsi word ‘birun’ which means ‘the periphery’ or ‘the suburbs’, thus denoting that the person was born outside an urban center) had learned and was able to read Syriac, Hebrew, Sanskrit and Greek, in addition to Farsi, Arabic, and several other Iranian and Turanian languages. To proceed to this research, Al Biruni was already highly knowledgeable in, and well acquainted with, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity (involving Orthodoxy, Monophysitism/Miaphysitism, and Nestorianism), Judaism, Gnosticisms and Manichaeism. In addition, he had clearly accumulated an impressively vast documentation.
However, Al Biruni’s Chronology is much more than the display of highly valuable skills in diverse fields, such as mathematics, linguistics, astronomy, physics, history of religion, geography, ethnography, and wisdom, which is an Islamic field superior to ‘philosophy’. A brief look at the Table of Contents of his superb treatise (involving 21 chapters) is quite convincing.
Before expanding on the calendars, the months, and the festivals of the Persians, the Sogdians, the Chorasmians (Khawarizmis), the Greeks, the Jews, the Christians, the Nestorians, as well as those of the Mithraic Magi, the Sabians, the pre-Islamic Arabs, and the Muslims, Al Biruni wrote entire chapters on ‘the Derivation of the Eras from each other’, ‘the different Opinion of various Nations regarding the king called Dhu-al Qarnayn’, ‘the Nature of the Eras’, and ‘the Nature of that which is composed of Days, viz. Months and Years’. This shows that the quintessence of the Science that he served, explored and developed was totally different from what people today believe as ‘science’; this is so because for Al Biruni the material universe could not possibly exist without being fully parameterized after the spiritual universe. About:
At the end of his 6th chapter, titled ‘On the Derivation of Eras from each other, and on the Chronological Dates, relating to the Commencements and the Durations of the Reigns of the Kings, according to the various Traditions’ (p. 87 of the book; p. 108 / 492 of the PDF, ed. C. Edward Sachau, London, 1879; see link above), Al Biruni writes the following paragraph in order to introduce a table of data, which is presented afterwards:
«The following is a synopsis of the years of their rulers, who ruled over them after their exodus from Egypt, when they marched towards Bahr al-Kulzum (the Red Sea) in order to pass it, and to Altih, a desert in Alhijaz, in the direction of Jerusalem».
The appellation Bahr al-Kulzum of the Red Sea is due to the Arabization of the Greek toponym Clysma (Κλῦσμα), which was a city and fortress (or military encampment) close to Arsinoe (today’s Suez) that was Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’s greatest port of call in the Red Sea. During the Islamic ages, the use of the geographical term Bahr al-Kulzum differed from time to time and from author to author, meaning either the Gulf of Suez or the Red Sea down to the Straits of Bab al Mandeb.
The term «Altih desert» is a unique expression; quite interestingly, the term «التيه» (altih), including the Arabic article, is the very typical word used with respect to the desert that the Ancient Hebrews crossed after the Exodus and the Red Sea Crossing. The most interesting part of the excerpt is however Al Biruni’s firm designation of Altih desert as a location in Hejaz, not the peninsula that we call now Sinai. About:
Taking into consideration both, the period in which Al Biruni lived and wrote his grand opus and his strong acquaintance with Christians and Christian historical sources, we understand that, at a time when most of the Christians believed that the Biblical Mount Sinai was located in the whereabouts of St. Catherine Monastery, the correct knowledge about the original location of the holy place was still maintained among erudite scholars. As a matter of fact, the term Hejaz was never attributed to the land we now -mistakenly- call Mount Sinai. However, extensive research is urgently demanded for the whereabouts of Jebel al Lawz in order to confirm what many explorers were already able to deduce one way or another.
Can an African System of Social Organization be described in Western academic terms and jargon?
The official flag of Oromia
A while back, I exchanged correspondence with a young Oromo scholar, Mr. Jiregna Assefa, who prepares his Ph.D. in Punjabi University, Patiala (India); he asked me to write an initially brief comment about his 14-slide presentation of the thesis, and of its contents, which I did. The title reads: ‘Analysis of Philosophical Discourses towards Social and Political Values of the Oromo Gadaa System’; the PowerPoint presentation is available here: https://www.academia.edu/102122375/Analysis_of_philosophical_discourses_on_social_and_Political_Values_of_the_Oromo_Gadaa_system
Typical Gadaa meeting in Occupied Oromia
Back in the 2000s, I published many hundreds of online articles about Oromo History, Waaqeffannaa (the original, monotheistic religion of the Oromos), the clashes between the Cushitic Oromos and the Semitic Amhara and Tigray tribes, and the systematic Western colonial support of the Semitic Abyssinians during the second half of the 19th c. and the early 20th c., when the Oromo kingdoms were gradually invaded, abolished and incorporated into the Abyssinian colonial state, which was later renamed ‘Ethiopia’ in a most deceitful and mistaken manner.
I first denounced the Oromo Genocide, which is fully documented thanks to the details provided by the official Russian imperial envoy to Abyssinia (in the 1990s) Alexander Ksaverievich Bulatovich (Александр Ксаверьевич Булатович; 1870–1919; also known as Father Antony/ Иеросхимонах Антоний) in his books. About:
Most of my past publications about Occupied Oromia and the persecuted Oromo Nation (that totals ca. 45-50 million people living mainly in Abyssinia and Kenya) concerned either the Oromo History or the Oromo struggle for national liberation. Some of these articles, although published mainly in the period 2007-2010, have -still today- many fanatic readers; example: ‘Oromo Action Plan for the Liberation of Oromia and the Destruction of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) – 2010’
Important developments took place worldwide since those days; the pace of the change is such that one may get impressed; but it was to be expected. The perplexity and the ambiguity of the facts is such that many may view these developments as ‘positive’, whereas others do describe them as ‘negative’. But there is only one fact that truly counts for all Oromos, and this is undeniable:
– Unfortunately, Oromia is still occupied by the Amhara-led tribal-colonial Ethiopian dictatorship.
This means that the socio-economic, military, political, intellectual, and academic leadership of the Oromos failed in their foremost task, in spite of many insurgence cases, terrible bloodshed, and endless persecution.
However, Oromo resistance leaders, fighters, activists, intellectuals and academics have to be credited with a remarkable success in making Oromia, as mountainous Eastern African land, and their nation known to the world. This sounds odd, but it is not. Due to colonial policies imposed by England, France and America since the late 19th c., a thick and compact silence about all things Oromo had been scrupulously and systematically imposed throughout universities, publishing houses, mass media, politics and what is called ‘public life’ worldwide. Oromos started becoming known to the rest of Mankind mainly in the 21st c. (this is said for all lands beyond the wider context of Eastern Africa where the Oromos have always been known).
To what extent the anti-Oromo paroxysm of the colonial statesmen, politicians, and academics reached you will understand when you will read the following article of mine (first published on 23rd July 2021) in which I revealed that all my professors in France, England and elsewhere used a derogatory misnomer in order to ordinarily designate the Oromos in class.
I have therefore to admit that a worldwide awareness raising initiative is certainly indispensable for a nation, which aspires today to secede from the Cemetery of Nations called ‘Ethiopia’, and to achieve national independence.
All the same, it would be insane for any Oromo to believe that they can continue their resistance without first carrying out a severe criticism of their hitherto deployed efforts and a sincere assessment of the long path that they have followed until now. Numerous critical mistakes have undeniably occurred in the meantime; they were committed by the leaders of the Oromo liberation organizations, and by the Oromo politicians and statesmen, academics and intellectuals, activists and authors. If these grave errors are not fully identified, they will be committed again, and the Oromos will miss more opportunities in the future.
It is therefore necessary at this stage to first examine closely the few major changes that occurred between the early 2000s and the late 2010s, and impacted seriously the Oromo struggle for national independence.
—————————- Snapshots from Gadaa meetings —————————————-
————————————————————————
I. Changes that gravely impacted the Oromo Struggle for National Independence
These changes are not particular to the Oromos; they are general changes that affected almost every country and every nation; however, they impacted negatively the efforts of the Oromos (and of several other nations) to achieve national self-determination and to hold a seat in the UN General Assembly. As you will understand, the changes cannot be described negative per se, but the failure of the Oromos to adequately assess them turned the changes into negative developments for them.
1) The Oromos and the diffusion of the Internet
First, the diffusion and improvement of the Internet; this fact offered very wide perspectives of Oromo-related awareness campaign, but it was undertaken poorly by those who showed a commitment in this regard.
2) Oromo refugees and their great potentialities
Second, the dramatic increase in the number of Oromo refugees in either African countries (notably Sudan, Egypt and Kenya) but also in North America, Western Europe, and Australia; this development enabled Oromos to live among other nations and to speak widely about their persecution and troubles.
Quite unfortunately, the effort to make the Oromos, their culture, their persecution and their troubles known to other nations was not systematic or comprehensive. Mainly, it was politically-oriented; it certainly took place when grave violations of Human Rights in Occupied Oromia were denounced in public by NGOs. But instead of providing a regular and representative reflection of the Oromo culture and daily life, it looked like an ebb and flow pattern. So, the various Oromo refugees, in spite of their endless activities and commemoration events, failed to widely engage the local societies in their favor at a superior level (events in universities, participation in political festivals of various parties, etc.).
3) Young Oromo scholars
Third, the substantial surge in the number of Oromo fresh graduates from diverse universities in Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia), Africa, Western Europe, North America, and Australia; this development contributed to the rise of the number of Oromos, who can adequately popularize aspects, elements, and dimensions of the Oromo popular culture, folklore tradition, popular religion, spirituality, moral and everyday life by means of dissertations for various university degrees.
One may find the third change as very positive and useful, but in reality, it was not. It certainly appeared to be so, but there was a terrible drawback. Why this was so is easy to grasp; to describe the data about the Oromo popular culture that each young Oromo explorer and scholar wants to focus on and present analytically, he certainly has to use Western academic criteria, measures, principles, standards, terms and an entire jargon, which are all at the very antipodes of every notion of Oromo culture and civilization.
The risk is exactly due to the fact that the Oromos have not properly studied (let alone incorporated in their own system of historical considerations) the History of the Western World in which they ‘suddenly’ find themselves. Even worse, this situation can be superficially assessed and gravely misunderstood. Example: if an Oromo refugee settled in the UK thinks -on the basis of privileges he has locally and in the light of his monstrous persecution back in Occupied Oromia (Fake Ethiopia)- that England (or another Western state) is a ‘democratic’ country, then the ensuing misunderstanding will be colossal. Furthermore, it will affect negatively the chances of the Oromos to liberate Occupied Oromia.
Oromo Borana tribe virgin girls during the Gadaa ceremony; how can Gadaa system be called ‘democratic’, since virginity is not a value for the lawless, criminal Western democracy?
II. Mistakes, Omissions and Oversights carried out by Oromo Politicians, Activists and Intellectuals
At this point, I have to make clear the reasons for which I already stated that the aforementioned three changes (and opportunities) were not properly exploited by today’s Oromos. I will therefore highlight the mistakes, omissions and/oversights made by the Oromos in each and every case.
1) How the Oromos should use the Internet in view of Independent Oromia
When it comes to the diffusion and improvement of the Internet, the apparent inability to undertake the following projects jeopardized the Oromo struggle for national independence.
Yet, realizing the great potentialities that this fact (and technological advance) offered them, the major Oromo organizations should have pulled their resources together and financed the projects below;
i- establishment of a team of Oromos well versed and highly knowledgeable in Chinese, Russian, Urdu/Hindi, Farsi, Turkish, Bengali, Malay, Bahasa, Arabic, Hausa, Spanish and Portuguese;
ii- development, maintenance and creative expansion of many different portals about Oromia, each entirely elaborated in one of the aforementioned 12 languages, plus the main four European languages (German, French, Italian and English); these portals should be hosted in the respective countries and function as rudimentary centers of information and as hubs of bilateral relations;
iii- creation of an online School of Foreign Languages for Oromos in which young Oromos in Occupied Oromia would learn one of the aforementioned 16 languages in view of their active mobilization for national purposes;
iv- foundation of a multilingual online Oromo University that would offer degrees in Oromo Language & Literature, Spirituality and History of Religion, Folklore and Oral Tradition, Social Organization and World Conceptualization, while gradually introducing courses of World History and other sectors of Humanities in Afaan Oromoo. Courses of Oromo language for diverse foreign students should also be highly popularized;
v- constitution of a National Oromo Library and Archive site, which would make every historical printed or handwritten Oromo document, every foreign book with references to the Oromos or entirely written about the Oromos, every Oromo book, printout or handwritten concise text available in various scanned formats;
The aforementioned examples do not contain all the ideas that I have at times discussed with several Oromo friends in this regard; all the same, they consist in a representative array of proposals with which the existing Oromo leaderships have to start dealing systematically, fully assuming their responsibilities.
2) Oromo Diaspora: an asset or a liability?
Speaking about the Oromo refugees in various countries, we end up with the already known and discussed, modern phenomenon of the Oromo Diaspora. In the second part of the previous unit, I mentioned several examples of lack of action, lack of method, and lack of effort systematization that typically characterized the Oromo communities of refugees in many countries as regards the popularization of their struggle for national independence, and of their History and Culture. I will herewith mention several lurking dangers in this regard.
First, the attraction to the new country where the refugee has settled may be overwhelming; incomparably superior in every sense -if viewed through a materialistic viewpoint-, the new homeland of the formerly persecuted refugee has everything to please him. This situation irreparably affects the ability of the refugee (Oromo, Ogadeni, Sidama, Somali or other) to judge impartially and to evaluate things correctly. But this attraction is merely an illusion and a deception at the same time. In fact, all major Anglo-Saxon countries (US, UK, Canada and Australia) have regularly and systematically been the foremost supporters and promoters of every single criminal act perpetrated by the colonial state of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia).
Second, their bizarre condition totally escapes the mind of these refugees who may get variable types of residence and work permit; I describe their situation ‘bizarre’, because it so is. They were persecuted, penniless and totally deprived of professional opportunities back in Occupied Oromia, but all of a sudden they feel free, they have some money, and they can advance in their professional field; however this situation occurs in no other countries but those that are the powerful patrons of, and merciless accomplices of the crimes committed by, the colonial-dictatorial Abyssinian regime of Fake Ethiopia.
As these Oromo refugees, who may eventually stay abroad for decades, continue their regular activities in support of their persecuted brethren and compatriots, they cannot assess what in reality happens in the process. As a matter of fact, they are happy with their new homeland and they believe that from there they can contribute to the liberation of Occupied Oromia; but mysteriously, the years pass, the decades pass, and everything proves that Independent Oromia remains always a distant dream. The truth is simple, but the well-established, affluent Oromos of the Diaspora have no eyes to see it; in reality, they contribute so little to their target that, in the face of the combined UK-US-Canadian-Australian support to the bloodthirsty, criminal regime of Abyssinia, their own contribution, although real and undeniable, looks minimal, ineffective and truly speaking, fruitless.
Third, what is really missing to these Oromos (and similarly to many other African refugees) is the aerial perspective; they never questioned their own situation as a fully independent topic. They never explored their suspicions (if they ever had any) about UNHCR; Oromia was oppressed and the Oromos were persecuted in the 1950s and in more recent dates, but the rampant number of Oromo refugees is a relatively recent phenomenon. Why? Who triggered it? What are the intentions behind the scenes? What is being achieved in this manner? Qui bono?
All the same, to fully assess their own situation and the perspectives of their struggle, the Oromo Diaspora must come to terms with the following points, which consist in some of the reasons for which the colonial powers carried out this international scheme. Generating a great number of refugees and methodically accommodating them throughout their territories, the Anglo-Saxon colonial powers and their annexes (UK, US, Canada, Australia) attempted consciously to
i- eliminate from Occupied Oromia (and generally Fake Ethiopia) a significant part of the Oromo leadership and many active pioneers of the national liberation struggle;
ii- ease the tensions at the local level (due to point i);
iii- utilize the skills of the Oromo refugees for the administration of colonial powers;
iv- fool the Oromo leadership by means of fake promises or declarations of support;
v- facilitate the survival of the colonial Abyssinian state of Fake Ethiopia;
vi- enable the perpetuation of the Amhara-led colonial dictatorship in Abyssinia; and
vii- maintain the cruelest colonial machine in Africa ready for new genocides.
3) Young Oromo scholars: to the benefit of UK/US or Oromia?
The greatest threat to which young Oromo explorers, scholars and intellectuals are exposed is the acceptance of the modern Western World and the consideration of the colonial countries as a normal part of World History. However, I have to admit that, if an Oromo refugee enrolls in a Western university and he starts thus accepting the dogmas that are diffused by the said university in terms of Humanities, History, Social Sciences, etc., he will not be the only to make the mistake of considering the contents of his studies as real, truthful and correct; this is a typical fault made by researchers and academics in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe.
Naïve and unsophisticated minds, fools who believe that lack of brutality means absence of tyranny, and poorly educated guys who accept Western propaganda are the first victims of the long-established criminal Western academics and intellectuals whose racism has no limit and whose anti-African hatred has no end.
It is silly for anyone to believe that the colonial powers diffuse lies only at the political, economic and military level; their foremost lies, their most poisonous forgery, their most villainous falsehood is expressed in fields like History, History of Religion, Art History, Ethnography, Literature, Philosophy, Sociology, Humanities in general, and several other disciplines. Even worse, the Western academic lies are not new; they are old. They were systematically repeated at home first and subsequently projected onto the rest of the world. In fact, these lies are the culmination of their evildoing: because they wanted to impose this compact falsehood onto the rest of the world, they conquered seas and continents only because they acquired firearms that the indigenous nations did not possess.
The existence of the Western World is illegal, lawless, criminal and inhuman.
The essence of the Western academic lies in History, Law, Humanities, Orientalism, African Studies, ‘Hellenism’, and other fields is excruciating for anyone to accept; this is so because the paramount concept of this fallacious structure is the unquestionable superiority of the Western European White Man.
However, in striking contrast to the fallacious narratives of the Western universities, true and unbiased History fully demonstrates that the Western European White Man constituted throughout the millennia the epitome of barbarism, profanity, debasement and blasphemy. In other words, the Western academic lies are the foundation of the foremost racism.
The diffusion of these lies caused
a) the genocides of the Aztecs and the Incas in what is currently called ‘America’,
b) the enslavement of the Mughal Empire of South Asia and of numerous sultanates across the Indian Ocean,
c) the progressive dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire (1798-1919),
d) the onslaught on Qajar Iran and Qing China,
e) the shameful Opium Wars (1839-1860), and
f) the Scramble for Africa in the 1880s.
The same inhuman, absurd and evil resolution of England, France and America to propagate their vicious historical revisionism, which was incepted during the so-called period of Western European Renaissance, triggered WW I and WW II, and it is now about to plunge the Mankind into chaos and nuclear conflagration.
Many Oromos and many Africans are well versed in several efforts of historical interpretation that can be generally described as Afrocentric; despite several minor mistakes that may be involved, these attempts are basically correct and go to the right direction. However, the term ‘Afrocentrism’ (which I also use) is erroneous in the sense that the historical truth, which should be the target of every researcher, explorer, academic and thinker, is always objective, neutral, and impartial.
Although it is necessary to refute and reject Eurocentrism (or Western-centrism) in every single concept, notion, theory, book and article, the objective truth that we seek, the impartial and unprejudiced conclusions that we want to draw, should not be described as ‘Afrocentric’; this is so because the term -in and by itself- contains a preference or predilection for Africa, whereas an impartial approach imposes no preference, no proclivity and no partiality.
A while back, in an article titled ‘Oromo Gadaa System, Ancient Carthage, and Western Fallacies, Revisionism & Evildoing: Renaissance, Enlightenment, Politics, Democracy and Colonialism’ and published on 31st December 2020, I expanded on these topics; the article can be found here:
III. Rejection of the Basic Terms and Standards of the Western Academic Dogma
So, young Oromo scholars must beforehand put a question in front of themselves: for whose interests are they working? Are they truly working for their persecuted nation’s interests? Or is their research useful and beneficial to the academic forgery of the English, Canadian, Australian, American, French and Dutch universities?
One may need more than a thousand articles to duly analyze the topic, but at this point, I have to highlight the worst aspect of the racist (and therefore anti-human, anti-African and anti-Oromo) forgery that the Western universities shamelessly present as ‘academic truth’. This has nothing to do with typical historical lies about the impact of Hellenism or the diffusion of Roman civilization; the worst mistake one can make, when it comes to the Western academic dogma, is to accept its basic terms, measures, standards and jargon.
Philosophy?
There is no philosophy; the term (originally meaning ‘being friendly to wisdom’) denotes only the inferiority of the Ancient Greek and Roman thinkers opposite the Ancient Egyptians, Cushites-Meroites, Sumerians, Assyrians-Babylonians, Hittites, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and Iranians whose vast sacerdotal-scientific colleges had reached heights of transcendental wisdom that were impossible for guys like Plato and Aristotle to attain.
For all purposes related to African wisdom, transcendental experience, spirituality, moral, and popular sagacity, you certainly cannot use the disreputable, vulgar and blasphemous term ‘philosophy’ of the racist Western European and North American universities. You can use all the other, descriptive terms, clearly also stating that the term ‘philosophy’ is unable to categorize expressions of African spirituality, faith, piety, wisdom, moral, cult and world conceptualization, which are higher, deeper and larger than anything denoted by the term in question.
Democracy?
There is no democracy; the term (initially meaning a ‘city-state ruled by the people’ and denoting one of the then existing systems of governance for a city-state) revolves around the sacrilegious and profane state of Ancient Athens, which is well known for having deliberately perpetrated genocide against another state.
In Ancient Rome, ‘democracy’, as system of governance, caused incessant civil wars, strives and killings, until at the end, it was replaced by the ‘imperium’ (empire).
In contrast to the so-called ‘ancient democracies’ (about which enormous falsehood has been diffused), ‘modern democracies’ are not ‘direct’ but ‘indirect’. Indirect democracy is tantamount to unsurpassed fraud, systematized deception, vicious calumny, unadulterated bias, and intentional criminality.
For all purposes related to traditional African systems of morally-guided, righteous, direct and fair governance, you certainly cannot use the sacrilegious, criminal and inhuman term ‘democracy’. Besotted Africans-victims of the Western propaganda may use the evil term only until the next genocide, which will sooner or later take place against their own nation. Then, they will surely regret for having accepted those falsehood-producing factories that are nowadays euphemistically called ‘Western universities’.
In the light of the above, one can easily understand that ‘democratization’ in Oromia means simply … ‘de-Oromo-ization’. Who is the Oromo who wants to cease being an Oromo?
Politics?
There is no politics; the ignominious term (merely denoting the ‘governance of a city’) involves
a) total disconnection of the decision-making process from any spiritual, moral, religious compunction,
b) malignant and intentional imposition of material interests over moral standards and spiritual principles,
c) criminalization of governance in view of profit extraction, and
d) introduction of mechanisms to ensure
i- social injustice,
ii- predominance of a segment of the society, and
iii- behind-the-scenes-control exerted by the socially unknown members of secretive, seclusive societies (or orders) whose evil cult is at the antipodes of the religion cherished by the outright majority of the people of the said society.
Politics is the most ingenious rejection of the Oromo Gadaa system; politics among the Oromo society is tantamount to division of Oromos across fake lines, moral putrefaction of Oromia, foremost cancellation of Oromummaa, and progressive transformation of all Oromos into soulless, heartless and brainless consumerists and faithless materialists.
The ominous word brings forth many other nefarious terms, which are all fake and invalid; they are the result of the ongoing, systematic Western academic propaganda, which tries always to repeat, reshape, reinvent and reinstate the same lies in new forms: political life, polity, political philosophy, political leadership, etc.
‘Political life’ in Oromia would mean the dissociation of Gadaa system from Waaqeffannaa, the traditional, monotheistic Oromo religion. Is this possible for an Oromo today? Certainly not! However, it will become possible after some decades, if several dozens of gullible Oromo students pass their PhD theses in various Western universities, gradually and catastrophically accepting Western academic categories, measures, standards and terms for the superior Oromo popular culture. All the same, these Oromo students should not forget that the Western European nations never had a culture of the same value, height, virtue and nobility as the Cushitic Oromo culture.
It is silly to name ‘polity’ an organized society or a self-governed state, because the term originates from the Ancient Greek word ‘polis’, which is a marginal historical phenomenon without impact on World History.
Similarly, ‘political philosophy’ involves considerations about the organization of governance in Ancient Greece and Rome, but these lands are not representative of World History and their particularities cannot be seriously taken as ‘norms’ for Africans, Asiatics, Latin Americans, and most of Europeans. There was no ‘political philosophy’ in Ancient Egypt (Kemet) and Cush, in Sassanid Iran, in the Eastern Roman Empire, in the Islamic Caliphates, in Tang China, etc., and -worse- if notions of Ancient Greek and Roman ‘political philosophy’ were presented in all these major historical civilizations, they would have been rejected as low, nonsensical and profane.
Humanism?
There is no humanism; this viciously egoistic and absurd term was invented by Western European Renaissance intellectuals in order to replace ‘God’ with ‘Man’ at the epicenter of the Western European society and thus progressively drag their victims far from faith, piety, spirituality, moral, religion and civilization; due to the colonization of the world by the Western European powers, the concept was later diffused worldwide. It goes without saying that ‘humanism’ constitutes the most advanced form of racism, because for the pioneers of this absurd and peremptory theory, the ‘exemplary man’ (or if you want, the ‘ideal human’) was the Western European ‘rebel man’, and not the pious African, the devoted Muslim, the God-fearing Christian, the Asiatic mystic or the Andean Qaalluu, i.e. the South American counterpart of the Oromo sacramental figureheads.
What the impostors of the Western universities portray as ‘humanism’ is a concocted apostasy involving tons of disbelief, absurd self-praise, moral relativism, historical revisionism, counterfeit spirituality, monumental narcissism, genuine amorality, evil self-indulgence, autistic behavior, atheism or agnosticism, anarchy, mental disorder, sexual anomalies, and every sort of paranoia preposterously catapulted as ‘human right’.
The only response to ‘humanism’ is the forthcoming, inevitable nuclear annihilation; but the Oromos and many other, noble and ancient nations must keep themselves far from this horror. There is nothing to add to Waaqeffannaa, which is a complete, perfect and universal system of faith that the Oromos have to keep intact from any Western academic or intellectual filth. That is why it is improper to use Western academic terms easily and thoughtlessly as in the case of the otherwise remarkable presentation ‘Gadaa (Oromo Democracy): An Example of Classical African Civilization’ by Elias M. Waday
Terminating this introductory approach to the topic, I have to shift focus to two critical issues. First, while expanding on issues pertaining to African civilization, culture, history, spirituality and tradition, many African explorers and intellectuals find it necessary to refer to well-known statements made by distinguished African thinkers, statesmen and fighters, like Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972), Léopold Sédar Senghor (1906-2001), Nelson Mandela (1918-2013) and many others. This is basically wrong and also misleading to some extent.
As we all know, these people belong already to another era; times have evolved. A statement that was considered as advantageous in the 1960s and 1970s may not be viewed as such now. Furthermore, the thinker or statesman quoted may have not always been as anti-colonial and as anti-Western as people thought before 50 years. One after the other, the generations advance, the experience and the skills develop, people mature and understand things better, and then reassessments are made; the decolonization process of the 1960s and the 1970s may therefore look really minimal today. When decolonization will become identical with de-Westernization, all the aforementioned leaders will not look bad or wrong but obsolete.
What to do in this case?
I think that the African heritage, culture and past have answers for everything; with his mistakes and oversights, the best man, in spite of his eventual foresightedness and exploits, has only a relative value. But the radiation of the African wisdom, faith, spirituality and heritage is inexorable; few words of an African proverb are enough to effectively counterweigh the purported wisdom of Thomas Aquinas’ voluminous opus ‘Summa Theologiae’. That is why I find it always preferable for African authors, explorers, academics, and intellectuals to bring to the forefront the utmost simplicity and the foremost sagacity of African wisdom in the form of maxim or adage. African anonymity, instead of Western eponymity, marks an irreversible triumph for the Black Continent.
Second, writing about their topics, many African researchers and students feel the need to refer to Ancient Egypt (Kemet) and Cush-Meroe, Africa’s best documented Antiquity where everything started. This is very correct, but unfortunately, it is not enough. Because every African concept, notion, principle, world conceptualization, mental process, spiritual exercise, moral standard, cultural value, and processing of divine matters started in Kemet and Cush, the Oromos, the Somalis, the Sidamas, the Afars, the Berbers, the Dogon, the Tuareg, and many other African nations have to systematically organize their own pool of Egyptologists.
The Oromo Diaspora must give themselves the means to finance the studies (up to postdoctoral level) of at least 4-5 professional Egyptologists and Sudanologists, who will be able to establish the links that connect Ancient Kemet and Cush with Modern Oromos, propagate them among younger generations as Oromo National Education, and correct numerous mistakes and distortions deliberately made by the Western Egyptologists for the sake of their racist historical dogma. None can interpret the African past better than an African.
The Intertwined Destiny of the Russians, the Kazakhs, and the Other Turkic (Turanian) Nations
Казахстан от Гёктюрков (Небесных тюрков) и Чингисхана до джадидской интеллигенции и Нурсултана Назарбаева
Переплетающиеся судьбы русских, казахов и других тюркских (туранских) народов
Оглавление
Введение
I. Казахская нация: крупная историческая туранская нация
II. Казахи, иранские Сефевиды и Могольские Тимуриды против узбеков и османов
III. Казахи-мусульмане, русские христиане и китайцы-конфуцианцы в войнах против экстремистских буддийских джунгар
IV. Казахские племена и их диахроническое значение
V. Казахи и русские: параллельная жизнь двух туранских народов
VI. Русско-казахские отношения (16-19 вв.) и завоевание Казахского ханства русскими
VII. В Казахстане, Сибири и Средней Азии никогда не было русской колонизации
VIII. Казахи при царизме
а- Царские поселения по всей Средней Азии
б- Деномадизация (или оседлость) казахов и других туранских народов
в- Отмена рабства и крепостного права
г- Административная организация
д- Внедрение современных технологий и, в частности, строительство железных дорог
е- Русский язык в образовании
IX. Джадидское движение как основание всех современных туранских мусульманских народов в Восточной Европе, Центральной Азии и Сибири: исторические корни
а- Габдрахим Утыз-Имяни аль Булгари
б- Таджетдин Ялчыгул
в- Нигматулла Тукаев
г- Габденнасыр Курсави
д- Шигабутдин Марджани
е- Абай (Ибрагим) Кунанбаев
ё- Кадимизм
X. 25 самых выдающихся интеллектуалов, ученых, активистов и политиков движения джадидов.
а– Исмаил Гаспринский
б- Абдурауф Фитрат
в– Файзулла Ходжаев
г– Мирсаид Султан-Галиев
д- Муса Бигеев
е- Мухаммед-Габдулхай Курбангалиев
ё- Алимардан-бек Топчибашев
ж- Гасан-бек Зардаби
з– Мирза Фатали Ахундов
и– Махмуд Ходжа Бехбуди
й- Сайфулла-кади Халид Башларов
к– Салимгирей Сеидханович Джантюрин
л- Садриддин Айни
м- Хайрулла Усманов
н– Фатали Хан Искендер оглы Хойский
о– Халил-бек Хасмамедов
п- Мулланур Муллазянович Вахитов
р- Ахмет-Заки Валидов
с– Ризаитдин Фахретдинович Фахретдинов
т– Бахытжан Бисалиевич Каратаев
у– Халел Досмухамедов
ф- Жаханша Досмухамедов
х– Сакен Сейфуллин
ц– Мукыш Боштаев
ч- Алихан Букейханов
XI. Джадидское движение между имперской Россией и СССР: светский характер казахов и других мусульман Средней Азии
XII. Так называемое Андижанское восстание
XIII. Неправильное толкование истории Центральной Азии местными учеными-жертвами западных посольств и американо-британских институтов
XIV. Среднеазиатское «восстание» 1916 года
XV. Так называемое восстание басмачей (1917-1923 гг.)
а- Восстание басмачей в Ферганской долине (первая фаза)
б- Восстание басмачей в Хорезмии
в- Восстание басмачей в Бухаре
г- Восстание басмачей в Ферганской долине (вторая фаза)
д- Восстание басмачей в Самарканде
е- Восстание басмачей в Закаспийской области
XVI. Годы становления советской власти в Средней Азии
а- Туркестанская Советская Федеративная Республика
б- Хорезмская Народная Советская Республика
в- Киргизская Автономная Социалистическая Советская Республика
г- Бухарская Народная Советская Республика
д- Противоположные теоретические подходы к образованию советских республик в Средней Азии
в- Голод, исход, депортации, демографические изменения в Казахстане 1930-х гг.
г- Корейцы Казахстана
д- Туркменская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1924-1991)
е- Узбекская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1925-1991 гг.)
ё- Таджикская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1924-1991, в т.ч. АССР)
ж- Киргизская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1925-1991 гг., в т.ч. Автономную область и АССР)
з–Основание Казахской Советской Социалистической Республики и рождение современной казахской нации
и- От Мирзояна до Жумабая Шаяхметова (1933-1954)
XVIII. Казахстан от Брежнева до Назарбаева
а- Космодром Байконур, Освоение целины и Массовые угрозы в Темиртау
б- Патриотическая позиция Динмухамеда Кунаева и шымкентский мятеж (1967 г.)
в- Исмаил Юсупов, уйгурский лидер Казахстана, и Безудержное пренебрежение границами Никиты Хрущева
г- Декабрьские события в Алма-Ате (Желтоксан; 1986): теории заговора и исторические искажения, распространяемые западными учеными и средствами массовой информации
XIX. Казахстан в переходный период
а- Возвышение Нурсултана Назарбаева, величайшего тюркского государственного деятеля после Кемаля Ататюрка
б- Нурсултан Назарбаев: основные достижения и упущения
Послесловие
————————————–
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Kazakh Nation: a Major Historical Turanian Nation
II. Kazakhs, Iranian Safavids & Mughal Timurids against Uzbeks and Ottomans
III. Muslim Kazakhs, Christian Russians & Confucian Chinese in Wars against the Extremist Buddhist Dzungars
IV. The Kazakh Tribes and their Diachronic Importance
V. Kazakhs & Russians: Parallel Lives of two Turanian Nations
VI. Russian-Kazakh Relations (16th-19th c.), and the Russian Conquest of the Kazakh Khanate
VII. In Kazakhstan, Siberia, and Central Asia, there was never Russian Colonization
VIII. The Kazakhs under the Czarists
a- Czarist settlements throughout Central Asia
b- Denomadization (or sedentarization) of the Kazakhs and other Turanian nations
c- Abolition of slavery and serfdom
d- Administrative organization
e- Introduction of modern technology and, more particularly, construction of railways
f- Russian language in the education
IX. The Jadid Movement as the Foundation of all Modern Turanian Muslim Nations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia: the Historical Roots
a- Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari
b- Taj al-Din Yalchygul
c- Nigmatullah Toukaev
d- Ghabdennasir Qursawi
e- Shigabutdin Marjani
f- Ibrahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly
g- Kadimism
X. The 25 most Illustrious Intellectuals, Scholars, Activists and Politicians of the Jadid Movement
a- Ismail Gaspirali (Gasprinsky)
b- Abdurauf Fitrat
c- Fayzullah Khodzhayev
d- Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev
e- Musa Yarulovich Bigiev
f- Muhammed-Gabdulkhay Kurbangaliev
g- Alimardan bey Topchubashov
h- Hasan bey Zardabi
i- Mirza Fatali Akhundov
j- Mahmud khodja Behbudiy
k- Saifullah qadi Khalid Bashlarov
l- Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin
m- Sadriddin Ayni
n- Hairullah Usmanov
o- Fatali Khan Isgender Oğlu
p- Khalil bey Khasmammadov
q- Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov
r- Ahmed Zaki Validov
s- Rizaeddin bin Fakhreddin
t- Bakhytzhan Bisalievich Karataev
u- Khalil Dosmukhamedov
v- Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov
w- Saken Seifullin
x- Mukysh Boshtayev
y- Alikhan Bukeikhanov
XI. The Jadid Movement between Imperial Russia and the USSR: the Secular Nature of the Kazakhs and the Other Muslims of Central Asia
XII. The So-called Andijan Rebellion
XIII. Misinterpretation of the History of Central Asia by Local Academics-Victims of Western Embassies & US-UK Institutions
XIV. The Central Asiatic ‘Rebellion’ of 1916
XV. The So-called Basmachi Revolt (1917-1923)
a- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (first phase)
b- Basmachi Revolt in Chorasmia
c- Basmachi Revolt in Bukhara
d- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (second phase)
e- Basmachi Revolt in Samarqand
f- Basmachi Revolt in the Trans-Caspian region
XVI. The Formative Years of Soviet Rule in Central Asia
a- Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic
b- Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic
c- Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic
d- Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic
e- Opposite theoretical approaches to the formation of soviet republics in Central Asia
f- National Territorial Delimitation (Национально-территориальное размежевание)
XVII. Kazakhstan and Central Asiaunder the Communists
a- Famine 1919-1922 in Kazakhstan
b- The Malefic Role of Filipp Goloshchyokin in Kazakhstan
c- Famine, Exodus, Deportations, Demographic Change in 1930s Kazakhstan
i- The Foundation of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Birth of the Modern Kazakh Nation
j- From Mirzoyan to Dzhumabay Shayahmetov (1933-1954)
XVIII. Kazakhstan from Brezhnev to Nazarbayev
a- The Baikonur Cosmodrome, the Virgin Lands Campaign, and the Temirtau Riots
b- The Patriotic Stance of Dinmukhamed Kunaev and the Shymkent Riots (1967)
c- Ismail Yusupov, the Uighur leader of Kazakhstan, and Nikita Khrushchev’s Unrestrainable Disregard of Borders
d- The Jeltoqsan riots (1986): conspiracy theories and historical distortions diffused by Western academics and mass media
XIX. Kazakhstan in Transition
a- The rise of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the greatest Turkic Statesman after Kemal Ataturk
b- Nursultan Nazarbayev: major achievements and oversights
Postface
Introduction
There is no geopolitics and there is no global energy politics. There are no states and there are no international organizations. There are nations (not in the villainous and distortive manner they have been portrayed by malevolent ‘philosophers’ of the so-called Enlightenment era) and there are humans. The existence, i.e. the Creation, of Man is the primordial fact, when it comes to human societies; and because this is so, nothing matters more than Faith and Moral. Any study and analysis of a historical fact is by definition a moral endeavor, a moral evaluation, and a moral conclusion. Without Moral, there is no Man, there are no human societies, and there must not be states at all. That is why there are no ‘interests’ of persons or of states, and every act of every human is a moral examination, before we all return to the Spiritual Universe from where came here.
My current presentation serves as a background and as a point of reference for a forthcoming article in which I will present the reasons for which the UK-US-NATO-EU villainous evildoing and shameless attempt to overthrow the current, widely popular and fully legitimate administration of Kazakhstan was doomed to fail as it finally did in the early days of January 2022. Certainly, in the administration of any society anytime anywhere human mistakes are perpetrated and misconceptions lead to impasses. However, there are always formidable, ethnic, social and cultural factors, formed and consolidated during the history of a nation, that play a determinant role in the time of upheaval and in a moment of challenge; in the present, lengthy article, my intention is to plainly reveal these factors.
History is primordially History of Nations, i.e. of peoples – not states. Peoples matter; states do not. States matter only when they reflect the culture and the traditions, the spirituality and the character, the identity and the integrity of a nation. This reality was plainly reconfirmed in Kazakhstan in January 2022.
As the Kazakh nation has always been intertwined with other Asiatic and Eastern European nations, I intend to highlight the interaction, the interdependence and the interconnectedness of the Kazakhs, the Russians, the Kirghiz, the Tatars, the Uzbeks, the Cossacks, the Mongols, the Turkmen, the Uighurs and –also- the Iranian nations.
Kazakhstan is the leading nation of the Turkic/Turanian world, but it remains deliberately unknown to most of the world. There are other, more densely populated Turanian nations, notably the Uighurs or the Uzbeks. But it is the degree of national consciousness and the authenticity of national integrity that determine the identity of any nation at any moment. For this reason, at the critical moment, the Kazakhs were not fooled, but wholeheartedly sided with their government, supporting President Tokayev’s decision to defend the state against the puppets of the evil forces of UK-US-NATO-EU. To demonstrate the causes of the Kazakh national unity around President Tokayev, I herewith expanded extensively.
All links to entries of the Wikipedia have been included for those among the readers, who would like to undertake their own research and find bibliography and further documentation there. In many cases of the English version of Wikipedia particularly, I fully disagree with either specific points or the overall structure of the entry.
I. Kazakh Nation: a Major Historical Turanian Nation
The Kazakhs (or rather the Qazaqs / Qazaqtar – قازاقتار) constituted a major component of the Turanian Cuman-Kipchak (Kıpçaklar/ Кыпшак) Confederation that dwelled in and controlled most of Eastern Europe, Western and Central Siberia, as well as the northern confines of Central Asia from the beginning of the 10th c. until the middle of the 13th c. Known as 钦察 (Qincha) to the Chinese, Половцы (Polovtsy) and Куны (Cuni) to Slavic sources, and Cumani to Eastern Roman and Latin sources, the Cuman-Kipchak emanated from the Second Turkic Khaganate (7th-8th c.), which consisted in a revival of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate (6th-7th c.), i.e. one of the two halves of the divided Göktürk (Celestial Turanian) or ‘First’ Turkic Khaganate (6th-7th c.). The Göktürks had put an end to the Rouran Khaganate (柔然, Juan-Juan for the Chinese) that lasted from the 4th to the 6th c.
Жужаньский каганат – Rouran Khaganate (: early khanate)Göktürk (Celestial Turanian) or ‘First’ Turkic KhaganateТюркский каганат – ‘First’ Turkic Khaganate
The Kipchak are first mentioned as part of the Second Turkic Khaganate whereas their Confederation was well known to Iranian historians as دشت_قبچاق (Dasht-e Kipchak/Steppe of the Kipchak). The end of the Cuman-Kipchak Confederation is entirely due to the phenomenal development that is current described as ‘Mongol Invasions’. The collapse of the Confederation was the reason that Kipchak spread everywhere in Asia, Africa and Europe. With their renowned military experience, they metamorphosed into Mamluks whereas others served the armies of the vast Mongol Turanian Empire (Golden Horde). About:
Whereas the formation of a Kazakh nomad state dates back to 1465, the name itself is mentioned quite earlier, but not as an ethnonym. The meaning of the word hinges on different possible etymologies as per which it can mean the ‘free man’ (in the sense of gaining one’s freedom / qazğaq or qazğan or qaz). As an alliance Uzbek-Kazak, they were first noticed by the famous general and historian Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat (ميرزا محمد حيدر دوغلات /1499-1551; ruler of Kashmir) in his تاریخ رشیدی (Tarikh-e Rashidi) and described as pastoral nomads wandering around the northern and the western borders of Moghulistan (14th-17th c.), which was a derivative khanate of the Chagatai Empire (one of the vast empires founded by the sons of Genghis Khan). About:
The Kazakh Khanate covers almost 400 years of Central and North Asiatic History (1465-1847), and at the time, it was involved in all major historical developments of the Eurasiatic landmass. Its inception has been rather called the ‘Kazakh War of Independence’ (1468-1500); this war took in fact the form of a civil war within the White Horde, i.e. the eastern wing (also known as the left wing) of the Golden Horde (also known as ‘Ulug Ulus’, the ‘Great State’), i.e. the northwestern part of Genghis Khan’s Mongol Turanian Empire.
More specifically, Abu’l-Khayr Khan (born 1412; 1428-1468), also known as Abu’l-Khayr Shaybani, one of the scions of Genghis Khan, Jochi and Shiban, Khan (king) of the Uzbek Khanate, was considered as illegitimate ruler of the Golden Horde by Kerey (Kerei) and Janibek (Zhanibek), the sons of Barak Khan, ruler of the Golden Horde (1423-1428). Fearing persecution, Kerey Khan (born 1425; Керей-хан) and Janibek Khan (born 1428; Жанибек хан) left and, being accompanied by 200000 nomads, reached the western confines of Moghulistan. It was then that they called themselves Kazakhs (Qazaqs) for the first time. This is how Kerey (1465-1474) and Janibek (1474-1480) became the first two khans of the Kazakh Khanate.
Алтын урда/Altyn Orda – Golden HordeЗолотая Орда (Golden Horde) или/or Великое Государство (the Great State)Казахское ханство – Kazakh KhanateThe flag of the Kazakh KhanateThe three hordes of the Kazakhs – Три жуза казаховKazakh Khanate, The Golden Throne series 2019
II. Kazakhs, Iranian Safavids & Mughal Timurids against Uzbeks and Ottomans
At this point, I must highlight some very critical points; for the aforementioned events and for several ensuing developments, there have been conflicting historical narratives that present enormous variations in favor of one or the other side. They represent the Kazakh and the Uzbek versions of historiography and oral tradition; to offer an example, for the former, Abu’l-Khayr Shaybani was a traitor, whereas for the latter, he was a brave ruler. For two tribal nations that relied extensively on oral traditions due to their cultural identity and moral-spiritual integrity, the heroization of one another’s historical enemy underscores a quasi-permanent rivalry.
From the above, it becomes clear that, at the very moment of the formation of the Uzbek and Kazakh nations, the two tribal structures appeared to form the two main poles of rivalry in the vast area between the Tian Shan Mountains and the Caspian Sea. Despite several long decades of common struggle and fight against the czarist invasion and, notwithstanding that Kazakhs and Uzbeks were viewed by others -and came indeed to live and cohabitate- as fraternal nations during the decades of the Soviet rule, the burden of the past has always been omnipresent down to our days. If the common future of the two major Central Asiatic nations and states remains always a worthwhile perspective, the shadows of the past constitute a worthless nightmare that the two governments must work hard to irrevocably invalidate and obliterate. Even more so, since evil diplomats, working for criminal governments, are persistent in always doing exactly this: exacerbating the impact that old nightmares may have today.
To the original moment of conflict and to several subsequent events are also linked historical alliances that lasted for centuries. Example: Abu’l-Khayr Khan’s grandson Muhammad Shaybani (born 1451; 1488-1510), before he established the Khanate of Bukhara, was defeated by the Kazakhs in Iasy (today’s Turkistan, in the southern confines of Kazakhstan). During his rise to power, Muhammad Shaybani betrayed the Timurid ruler of Samarqand Sultan Ahmed Mirza, making an alliance with Moghulistan. In the battle of Chirciq (Чирчик) River in 1488, the joined armies of Moghulistan and the Uzbeks, the latter under Muhammad Shaybani, won a decisive battle, and Iasy was given back to the Uzbeks.
On this background, it is only normal that the Kazakhs had friendly feelings for the founder of the Safavid Iranian dynasty Shah Ismail I (a Turkmen born in 1487; 1501-1524); the great victory of the Qizilbash Safavid army in the Battle of Merv (1510) and the subsequent death of Muhammad Shaybani were surely auspicious news for the Kazakhs. It is not therefore strange that, under Kasym Khan (born 1445; 1511-1521; قاسم بن جانيبك خان / Қасым бин Жәнібек хан), the Kazakh Khanate reached its greatest expansion. However, Qizilbash involvement against the Ottomans in Anatolia and the excesses of Ismail Safavi’s victory (Shaybani was beheaded and his skull was turned to a drinking vessel) turned the Ottomans against Iran and in favor of the Uzbeks; in any case, Shaybani had already established an Uzbek-Ottoman alliance.
Qasim bin Janibek Khan in the contemporary popular imaginationOttomans, Safavids, Uzbeks, Kazakhs and the Mughal Empire
While discussing all these topics, one must not however forget that these were -one way or another- merely family affairs; not only Kasym Khan and Muhammad Shaybani had common origin from Genghis Khan, common Turanian language and culture, as well as common religion, but they were -literally speaking- cousins. All the same, the disastrous relations that Shaybani and his Uzbek successors had with the Timurids and the support extended at a critical moment by Kasym Khan to Babur (born 1483; 1526-1530;ظهير الدين محمد بابر / Zahir ud-Din Muhammad), founder of the immense Mughal Empire of South Asia (Moghul Empire of India), brought the Mughal emperors and the Kazakh khans close to the Iranian shahs and against the Ottomans and the Uzbeks. If we add the irrevocable Turkmen antipathy for the Ottomans, who constantly and absurdly persecuted Turkmen populations in Anatolia and elsewhere, we get the entire picture. About:
III. Muslim Kazakhs, Christian Russians & Confucian Chinese in Wars against the Extremist Buddhist Dzungars
The clashes and wars between the Uzbeks and the Kazakhs remained for centuries an invariable trait of the History of Eurasia. All the same, in rough terms, the Kazakh Khanate occupied approximately the same area as today’s Republic of Kazakhstan (Qazaqstan Respublikasy), being surrounded by the Nogai Horde (in the west), the Uzbek Khanate of Bukhara (in the south), Moghulistan (in the east), and the Khanate of Siberia (in the north).
As the History of the Kazakh nation is not part of the scope of the present article, I would like to herewith highlight the historically important role that the Kazakh Khanate played while combatting -along with several allies- the infamous, extremist Buddhist Dzungar Khanate. The Dzungar (準噶爾 / Жоңғар / Джунгары; the name means ‘left hand’) were one Oirat Mongol Turanian tribe that established a Buddhist Khanate (1634-1755), which -converted to Mahayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhism- became the major factor of destabilization across Eastern and Central Asia. The Dzungar fanatics invaded and occupied the area of today’s Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), undertook attacks on China, Tibet, Siberia and Kazakhstan, and finally proved to be an existential threat for China, the Kazakh Khanate, and Russia. The Confucian – Islamic – Christian alliance of the three realms had to oppose ferocious armies, engage in successive wars, and undertake many attacks before defeating and decimating the Dzungars. The Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756) helped Qing China pacify Eastern Turkestan and eliminate Dzungars from that region; however, this was possible only after three Dzungar-Qing wars took place.
Central Asia & Siberia 1636Kazakhs and DzungarsDzungar Khanate 1760Dzungar Khanate
IV. The Kazakh Tribes and their Diachronic Importance
Every historian, political scientist, commentator or analyst, who happens to speak today about Kazakhstan, without referring to the Kazakh tribes {or, to be more accurate, the Kazakh hordes (ٴجۇز / жүз; Zhuz)}, is by definition an ignorant and farcical idiot. In fact, the Kazakh tribal particularity always played an important role in Kazakh History, and so it does indeed nowadays. And as it will be demonstrated below, this is not only a societal issue, but also a topographical / geographical factor; in other words, it concerns the different parts of the country’s territory, de facto classifying them as per the traditional tribal criteria. This implies that, under such circumstances, the transfer of capital (from Almaty/Alma Ata to Astana-Nursultan) is not an easy, one-dimensional affair.
The Kazakh word for horde is identical with the number one hundred (100): жүз (zhuz); this relates to a typical trait of Turkic linguistics as per which -y turns to -zh in some languages (equivalents: жүз in Kighiz; yuz in Uzbek; ýüz in Turkmen; yüz in Turkish). In this case, the Kazakh number has the connotation of ‘horde’. There are three Kazakh hordes and their names are quite indicative:
– the Great Horde, lit. the Great Hundred (ۇلى ٴجۇز / Ұлы жүз; Uly Zhuz),
– the Middle Horde (ورتا ٴجۇز; Орта Жүз; Orta Zhuz),
and
– the Minor Horde (كىشى ٴجۇز; Кіші Жүз; Kishi Zhuz).
Considerations about the territories of the three zhuzes (hordes) may differ.
The Uly Zhuz encompasses illustrious tribes, notably the Dulat (or Dughlat), who supported Genghis Khan and rose later to prominence among all Mongol Turanians, the Jalayir, who got permission from Genghis Khan’s sons to settle in Central Asia, and the Kangly, whose name is mentioned in the Kul Tigin Inscription (end of 7th-beginning of 8th c.). Parts of the Great Horde are also the following tribes: Ysty (Ысты), Oshakty (Ошакты), Suwan (Суаны), Alban (Албаны), Sary-Uysin (Уйсун), Shapyrashty (Шапрашты), Sirgeli (Сиргели) and Shanyshqyly (Шанышкылы). In total, the Great Horde is composed of 11 tribes; each tribe is made of several clans and sub-clans. Indicatively, I mention herewith that the Dughlat are divided into Botpai (Ботпай), Janys (Жаныс), Sikym (Сикым) and Shymyr (Шымыр), whereas the Jalairs consist of the Syrmanak (Сырманак/with 5 clans), the Shumanak (Шуманак/with 7 clans), and the Birmanak (Бирманак/with one clan). One must point out that these names are not just academic terms with which only historians, ethnographers, linguists and other scholars keep themselves busy, but the real quintessence of a Kazakh’s identity description and ancestral pride. And for a nation with vast oral tradition like the Kazakhs, my previous sentence is merely an understatement.
Great Horde Kazakhs dwell today in a rather small part of Kazakhstan’s territory, notably the southern confines and the Semirechye (Seven Rivers’) region, and also in an adjacent province of Uzbekistan (forming the local Kazakh minority). For all intentions and purposes, it is quite significant to take into consideration the fact that, from 1718 until 1798, the most noble and most prominent Kazakh horde had its capital in Tashkent, today’s capital of Uzbekistan. And despite the reasonable choice for the post-Soviet independent Kazakhstan to make a new start with a totally brand new capital, a large part of Uly Zhuz (Great Horde) Kazakhs did not accept the transfer of the capital from Almaty to Astana (now Nur-sultan), which is located in the northern confines of the territory of the Middle Horde; that region is viewed as a less important ancestral land. Almaty (آلماتی; Алматы; i.e. ‘the city which is full of apples’) is actually the continuation of an earlier settlement named Almatau (i.e. ‘the mountain of the apples’); it was renamed in Russian as Алма-Ата / Alma-Ata (with the accents on the ultimate syllables), i.e. ‘the father of the apples’. This name reflects the traditional belief that this region was the land of origin for all apple trees. Almaty is located with the territory of the Dulat, one of the most illustrious tribes of the Great Zhuz/Horde.
Comprising six main tribes {Argyny (Аргыны), Naimany (Найманы), Kipchaki (Кипчаки), Konyraty (Коныраты), Kerei (Кереи) and Waki (Уаки)}, and numerous clans and sub-clans, the Middle Horde occupies almost half the territory of present day Kazakhstan (the central, northern and eastern regions of the vast country). When it comes to epics, oral traditions, tribal virtues, Kazakh fables, and heroic narratives, the Orta Zhuz appears to be less brave, less intrepid, and less renowned than the Great Horde.
Last, the Minor Horde consists of remnants of the Nogai Horde, one of the less brave and less famous realms among the Turanian nations. Divided into three tribes, namely Alimuly (Алимулы), Zhetyru (Жетыру) and Bayuly (Байулы) and many clans, the Kishi Zhuz occupies around one third of Kazakhstan’s territory, i.e. the entire western part of the country. About:
V. Kazakhs & Russians: Parallel Lives of two Turanian Nations
The encounter between the Kazakhs and the Russians did not start under auspicious circumstances. The Russians were viewed as a newer, constructed, nation by the Kazakhs (and by many other historical nations of Central and North Asia), and this consideration was very correct and accurate indeed. Although we attest a Kazakh nation in the 2nd half of the 15th c., we have to admit that there were no ‘Russians’ at the time. What is now called ‘Ukraine’ and what makes the quasi-totality of Russia’s European territory still belonged to several Turanian Islamic realms at the time. In fact, if the Golden Horde did not split to several pieces, there would not be any Russian today.
I cannot herewith expand on issues pertaining to the History of Eastern Europe and Northwestern Asia and to what is nowadays presented as ‘History of Russia’, which are entirely fabricated fallacies and historical untruths propagated by Western colonial universities and academies as part of their malignant bogus-historical dogma, but I have to make a series of brief points related to these topics in order to elucidate the confusing situation that average people have in their minds, being the victims of the Western colonial falsehood.
1- Eastern Europe was been the regular habitat of various nomadic Turanian nations, starting with the Huns, who spread in these territories around the middle of the 4th c. CE, coming from Central and Northeastern Asia.
2- The Slavic migrations have been a minor episode of the History of Turanian Migrations to the West; indeed Slavs settled mainly in the Balkans and Central Europe. The fact that Slavs settled in great numbers throughout Macedonia, Thrace and particularly Greece in the late 6th c. (i.e. within the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire) is due to the arrival of the Turkic nation of Bulgars, who settled mainly in the lands of today’s Ukraine, the central and southern parts of Russia’s European territory, and also throughout many adjacent lands. The original language of Slavs is not known and therefore cannot be linguistically identified / categorized.
3- As a continuation of the ‘Old Great Bulgaria’ that controlled Crimea and all lands around the Azov Sea from ca. 630 until ca. 690, Volga Bulgaria was a {first Tengrist (the traditional Turanian religion) and later Muslim} kingdom that lasted from 660 until the arrival of the armies of Genghis Khan at ca. 1240.
4- Islam arrived long before Christianity in Eastern Europe. The kingdom of Volga Bulgaria accepted Islam at the times of Almış (Almish Elteber; Алмуш; ألمش بن يلطوار), who lived at the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th c.; more specifically, in 921, the Elteber (title of king) of Bolghar (Volga Bulgaria’s capital) sent an embassy to the Abbasid caliph at Baghdad, asking the dispatch of an embassy and religious authorities officially designated to preach and teach Islam throughout his state. Ahmad ibn Fadlan was then dispatched and, in his Resalah (Report of Journal), he detailed in scrupulous detail the historical developments that took place in 922, i.e. ca. 70 years before Kievan Rus’ accepted Christianity at ca. 990.
Volga Bulgaria in the popular imagination1100 years of Islam in Volga BulgariaRus Khaganate – Русский каганат
5- There is not a shred continuity from the Rus’ Khaganate (ca. 800-900; a Turanian, Scandinavian and Slavic nomadic confederation under a purely Turanian ruler, i.e. ‘Khaqan’, whose whereabouts are entirely unknown due to the lack of clarity of the various historical sources – eventually somewhere in the Krasnodar region) to the Novgorod-based, Varangian–Scandinavian, Rurik dynasty that was founded by Rurik in 862, and to the Kievan Rus’, an extraordinarily multi-ethnic principality founded in 882, which disintegrated in the 1240s due to the Mongol invasions.
Volga Bulgaria, Rus and Mongols
6- The Turanian Mongolian Invasions of the 13th c. only reconfirmed the fact that what is now falsely called ‘Eastern Europe’ has always been an ethnically, culturally and spiritually integral part of (Central, Northeastern, Northern and Northwestern) Asia. With the settlement of Turanian Mongolian populations throughout the lands of the Mongol Empire (and later of the Golden Horde) in Eastern Europe, the ethnic-cultural-religious identity of the local populace was homogenized. The marginal town of Moscow/Muscovy was an entirely Islamic city, and there was a mosque in the castle of Kremlin.
7- The entire reconstruction of Alexander Nevsky’s biography is based on posterior propaganda and untrustworthy sources that make of this insignificant vassal of the Turanian Mongolian Empire a fabulous hero. His genealogy is fabricated, and this proves that there is absolutely no connection between Kievan Rus’ and the so-called ‘principality of Muscovy’, which was turned to ashes in 1389 by the Great Emperor Tokhtamysh (Тухтамыш /Tuqtamış / توقتمش), great grandson of Genghis Khan. The so much praised victory of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi (prince of Moscow 1359-1399) over the Khaqan of the Blue Horde, Mamai, at Kulikovo (1380) was not properly speaking a victory, but a machination of Tokhtamysh (1376-1397; Khaqan of the White Horde and later of the Golden Horde), who deliberately did not help Mamai in order to later merge his territory and that of his defeated counterpart, thus re-establishing the Golden Horde.
The Golden Horde before its division into Blue and White Hordes
8- The internecine conflicts among different Turanian tribal rulers, notably Timur’s (Tamerlane’s) invasion of Tokhtamysh’s lands and the subsequent war in 1395 and the Battle of the Vordskla River (in 1399; between the victorious Tatars, supported by Timur, and Tokhtamysh, supported by the Poles and the Lithuanians), allowed the principality of Moscow to be re-established again. But it was not an independent state even at the times of Vasily I (1389-1425). Even more significantly, he may have been a Christian, but the majority of his fiefdom’s population was Muslim. That is why any annexation of territories (as in the case of Nizhny and Suzdal) was always made in the name of the Turanian Muslim lord of the Muscovite vassal princes.
9- Under the princes Vasily I, Vasily II (1425-1462), Ivan III (1462-1505), Vasily III (1505-1533), and Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584), Muscovy experienced first a long period of stability (for more than a century) and then an expansion. It was at that time, when the theory of the Slavic Orthodox ancestry of Muscovy was invented and the entire antiquization propaganda started being developed in order to deliberately and distortedly position ‘Russia’ (Россия / Rassiya; an absolutely new and forged name that meant nothing to 15th–16th c. Muscovites) as spiritual-religious-imperial successor to Kievan Rus’ (Ки́евская Русь), which had already been -as we already presented- an imaginatively nebulous substance with undocumented history and unsubstantiated claims. To the old stuff, the subsequent Romanov and Communist layers of propaganda added many false maps whereby the inimical past appears as ‘small’ and the various fabricated realms (which supposedly demonstrate a historical continuity) look ‘big’.
10- In the state of Ivan IV the Terrible, the outright majority of the local population was Turanian of origin; and the peerage, i.e. the famous Boyars (Бояре; in Singular Boyarin/Боярин; of entirely Turanian, not Slavic, etymology), was ostensibly composite, namely of Genghisid and Rurikid ancestry. That’s why Ivan IV the Terrible imposed a real tyranny on them, involving also numerous massacres, in order to subdue them and to deprive them of their immense power (Опричнина / Oprochnina). Old Slavonic, which was already used for religious purposes, became a linguistic goldmine for local vindictive grammarians, who wanted to eliminate (‘purify’) every Turkic linguistic trace. All the same, the expanding state of Ivan IV the Terrible was so weak that, even after the conquest of the Khanate of Kazan (1552) and the Khanate of Astrakhan (1556), the Khanate of Tatar Crimea was still able in 1571 to lay siege of Moscow and burn the entire city within few hours.
11- The so-called Tsardom of Russia (1547-1721; Русское царство/Russkoye tsarstvo) expanded tremendously beyond the Urals throughout North and Northeast Asia, starting with the conquest of the Tatar Islamic Khanate of Siberia (1574-1601) the territory of which corresponded to today’s province of Western Siberia). The entire process involved extensive genocides of the indigenous Turanian and other nations. Meanwhile, the central part of the tsardom (the European territory of today’s Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) was inhabited by Turanian Muslims, who had to accept forced Christianization and linguistic Russification in order to survive. This situation led to extreme turmoil, which is presently known as the ‘Time of Troubles’ (Смутное время /Smutnoe vremya); the years of upheaval lasted from 1598 until 1613, when the Romanovy (Романовы /House of Romanov) rose to power. After the death of the last Khan of the Khanate of Siberia, the Russians advanced to the East, reaching Yenisei River (1605) and the coast of the Pacific Ocean (1639).
This map is very false, because it presents the domain of Muscovy as ‘Russia’; it was not named like that at the time. In fact, there was no Russia, whereas the Kievan Rus was over. Even worse, the dark-colored territory was not under control of Ivan the Terrible before the Novgorod massacre (1570) and before the annexation of all the associated territories to Muscovy. This means that only the southern fifth (20%) of the territory marked as ‘Russia’ belonged truly to the vassal chieftain, who -after his invasions and cruelty- became known as Ivan the Terrible. The expansion of the small state of Ivan IV the Terrible (the massacre of Novgorod and the successive invasions of the Khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia) simply turned Muscovy into a Turanian state in which Slavs and Scandinavians were a tiny minority. Due to terror, the Muslim majority had to accept Christianity in order to survive; but this was only a very superficial and therefore meaningless conversion.
12- Furthermore, the centuries of Romanov proved to be not only the time of an intensified linguistic Russification (or de-Turanization) and Christianization (or de-Islamization) but also the period of an imposed educational Occidentalization (or Europeanization) from top to bottom. These monstrous and tyrannical practices and dictates absolutely disfigured the real face of the inhabitants of the vast realm. So, it is not enough to just state today that the Romanovs ruled over a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural and multi-religious realm; one has to also point out that the so-called ethnic ‘Russians’ are the Turanian descendants of Tengrist and Muslim ancestors and that they undeniably belong culturally to the world of the historical Oriental nations.
13- Now, we can understand what happened, when these ‘Russians’ attempted to move southwards and advance in Central Asia; they actually first expanded to the east and then to the south. And when these ‘Russians’ attacked the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Turkmens and the other Muslim Turanian nations throughout Central Asia, they had apparently forgotten that their remote ancestors may well have been the cousins and the brothers of the Kazakhs’, the Uzbeks’ and the Turkmens’ forefathers.
14- In fact, there has never been Russian colonization in the sense we use the word for the abominable deeds and the execrable crimes of the villainous, vicious and inhuman English, French, Dutch and Americans. But the early Muscovite and the Imperial Russian expansion against Turanian Muslim nations in Eastern Europe, Siberia, and Northern, Northeastern and Central Asia played into the Anglo-French colonial game, offering the Western powers greater benefits than those it granted to the Crown of the Russian Empire itself. Indeed, the Muscovite-Russian expansion helped consolidate the Western colonial powers and it brought the Romanovs to their knees. Today’s Russians must take note of this fact, and act accordingly in order not to play anymore into the same game that 16th c. English ambassadors were able to induce Ivan IV the Terrible to indulge himself in. About:
VI. Russian-Kazakh Relations (16th-19th c.), and the Russian Conquest of the Kazakh Khanate
The Russian conquest of the Kazakh Khanate -viewed in the correct historical context- was due to the disintegration of the Golden Horde and the expansion of the Muscovite lordship (later tsardom and empire). Furthermore, this development is also due to the internal divisions and the historical warrior nature of the Kazakhs. The Kazakh Khanate carried out wars against the Dzungars, the Oirat, the Bashkirs, the Kalmyks, the Cossacks, the Russians, the Germans settlers in Russia, and also the Fergana Valley-based Khanate of Kokand, which was ruled by the Shaybanid-Genghisid Turanians, who seceded from the Khanate of Bukhara in the early 18th c. and exercised authority over Iranian and Turanian populations (whose descendants today are divided in three countries: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan).
In this regard, it is noteworthy that, at the time of the early Russian expansion (16th c.) under Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584; reigned after 1547) and during the Time of Troubles (Smutnoe vremya / Смутное время; 1598-1613), the Kazakhs were mostly occupied in wars against the Khanate of Bukhara.
The Kazakh Khanate and Russia established official contacts already at the end of the 17th c., when Tauke Muhammad Khan (طاوك محمد خان – Тәуке Мұхаммед хан; 1625-1718; ruled after 1680 as Shah-i Turan, ‘Emperor of Turan’) met Peter I (the Great) of Russia in 1698. The religious difference between the Kazakhs and the Russians was initially an insignificant matter – in total contrast to numerous modern scholars’ forgeries and falsifications that serve only the purpose of the colonial powers of the West, their fake historical dogma, and their disreputable products, i.e. the political Islam and Islamic extremism.
This is so because of the cultural propinquity and the ethnic affinity of the 16th–17th c. Russians and Kazakhs, who were Turanian of origin and Asiatic-Oriental of culture. In addition, one must bear in mind that, among Turanians, the diffusion of Islam never erased the original Turanian Tengrist faith, worldview and traditions; this factor made them view Islam and Christianity as two similar religions with many affinities. That’s why Kazakhs repeatedly allied with the Christian Cossacks, when the latter rebelled against the Russian nobility and bureaucracy during the 17th (Khmelnytsky Uprising 1648-1657; Stepan Razin’s Rebellion 1670-1671) and 18th (Pugachev’s Rebellion, 1773-1775) centuries.
The existence of common enemies brought indeed the Russians and the Kazakhs together for some time, mainly in the 18th c.; on several occasions, the Kazakhs asked the help of the Russians against the Dzungars and the Chinese, particularly when the Qing emperors were markedly strengthened after the extermination of the extremist Buddhist Dzungar khanate. At the same time, the Kazakh slave trade on German and Russian settlements in the Volga region created its own dynamics, notably during the 18th c., increasing the number of raids undertaken against one another.
The divisions among the Turanians appeared quite early and more particularly in the failed attack that Peter I launched against the Khanate of Khiva (1717), which was led by a Muslim convert into Christianity, Alexander Bekovich-Cherkassky. It is indeed noteworthy that, although the attack should have been perceived negatively by the Kazakh Khanate, only one year later Mirza Abu’l-Khair Muhammed Khan (1693-1748; ruled from 1718; Мырза Әбілқайыр Мұхаммед хан/ ميرزا أبو الخير محمد خان), the leader of the Minor Horde, asked Russian help against the Dzungars, who are also Turanians.
As the same Khan of the Minor Zhuz (Horde) asked Russian help again in 1730, he made it easier for the czarists to control the western part of today’s Kazakhstan.
Alexander Bekovich-Cherkassky / Александр Бекович-Черкасский (born Muslim as Devlet-Girei-mırza / Девлет-Гирей-мурза)Nader Shah Afshar’s invasions of India and Central Asia
When his eldest son, Zairullah Nur Ali Khan (1704-1790; ruled from 1748 until 1786; Зайруллаh Нұр-Әли хан/ زير الله نور علي خان) decided to break the alliance with Russians, the Minor Horde was too weak to possibly face the imperial army; after several heroic battles and decisive defeats, the Minor Horde was annexed to Russia. At that time, the victorious Qing armies annexed the Uighurs of Eastern Turkestan, and in 1759 Russia and China started having common borders. Multi-fragmented Turan (Central Asia) ) stood no chance to survive due to the numerous irreconcilable khanates, which could neither make peace among themselves nor ally with the illustrious Turkmen Afshar Nader Shah (نادر شاه افشار) of Iran (1688-1747; ruled from 1736). In 1740, the conqueror of Delhi (1739) invaded Khiva and Bukhara, thus further exposing the Kazakhs of the Middle Horde.
As it is already stated, the Russian expansion to the east was the consequence of the 16th c. conquest of the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia); the Russian advance to the South (: Central Asia) took place much later. The permanent and omnipresent Turanian divisions facilitated this development, and it is quite indicative that the only who tried to unite the Turanians of Central Asia against the Russians were the English colonials, who dispatched several diplomatic missions from India to Central Asia in the middle 19th c. but failed to convince the Turanian warring factions to stick together against the Russians, paying for the daring attempt with their lives.
At this point, it is essential to add that the Russian conquest of the Kazakh and the other Central Asiatic khanates was not a war between Christianity and Islam; the Russian Empire had Orthodox Christianity as official religion, but it was neither an exclusively Christian empire nor an anti-Islamic monarchy. A sizeable part of the population was Muslim and there were also Buddhists, Tengrists and Shamanists among the subjects of the czar. When it comes to the Muslims of the Russian Empire, it is essential to point out that as early as 1788 the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia (Центральное духовное управление мусульман России) was established (by decree of Catherine II) with headquarters at Ufa. The original name was Оренбургское магометанское духовное собрание (Orenburg Mohammedan Spiritual Assembly).
The first Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia: Ufa (1788)
To consolidate their newly invaded lands across Siberia and the rest of Northern-Northeastern Asia, the Romanovs started setting up, during the 17th and the first half of the 18th c., several formidable fortresses that constituted the nuclei of the homonymous modern cities. Indicatively (from west to east): Uralsk (1613), Guryev (1645), Orenburg (1743), Orsk (1735), Omsk (1716) on today’s Russian soil, and Petropavlovsk (1752), Pavlodar (1720), Semipalatinsk (1718; today’s Semey) and Kamenogorsk (1720; today’s Oskemen) in today’s N-NE Kazakhstan. Due to the advanced disintegration of the Kazakh Khanate, the different Zhuz (hordes) fought separate wars with the Russians, at times also allying themselves with them in order to fight various and occasional Turanian enemies.
The first Kazakh to lead an uprising against the czarist armies was Syrym Datov (Сырым Датов/Сырым Дат-улы) from the Minor Horde, who started a rebellion (1783-1797) because of socio-economic discrimination, infringement on the rights of tribal elders, robbery and violence against the people of his tribe.
The Nogais of the Minor Zhuz (Horde) used to attack repeatedly Russian cities in the province of Astrakhan (by that time a border region) and the Russians had to ally with the Buddhist Kalmyks (in the NW coastland of the Caspian Sea) to face them. The Khiva Khanate combatted the Nogais too, also invading the Mangyshlak Peninsula (NE Caspian Sea shore), which constitutes nowadays Kazakhstan’s westernmost confines. The Bukey Horde was then incepted in 1801, and it formed an independent tribal confederation of the Nogai (Minor Horde), before being invaded by the Russian armies (1845). Kazakh resistance started almost immediately and the most famous among the earlier rebels were Isatay Taymanuly (Исатай Тайманов), Kenesary Kasymov (Кенесары Касымов), and Makhambet Otemisuly (Махамбет Утемисов), who led various uprisings against the Russians between 1837-1838, 1837-1847, and 1838-1846 respectively (the first and the third were supported by the Minor horde, whereas the second gathered commitment from all three hordes).
Due to his involvement in the Dzungar-Chinese wars and because of his continuous tergiversations in this rivalry (at times allying with China, at times supporting the Dzungars), Abu’l-Mansur Khan of the Middle Horde (1711-1781; ruled the Middle Zhuz after 1733 and all the hordes, i.e. the entire Kazakh Khanate, after 1771; Әбілмансұр хан / أبو المنصور خان) was exposed to the then powerful Chinese. That’s why he asked the help of the Russians; for some time, he was able to keep a certain balance in his relations with the two empires, but he gradually reduced the Kazakh Khanate to a buffer state between Russia and China. Known also as Abylai Khan (Абылай / (أبيلي, Abu’l-Mansur Khan was inconsequential, acknowledging Chinese suzerainty in 1757 but not Russian authority in 1779. To add insult to injury, he campaigned against the Kirghiz {the national name means “we are forty” (tribes)} and attacked the Khanate of Kokand, also invading Tashkent. His three sons took the Turanian divisions to the basics, i.e. the family level, only offering Russians the best excuse to increase their presence in the region and to justify the czarist expansion as an effort to bring ‘order’ to the chaotic periphery.
The Middle and the Great Hordes engaged in many wars with the Russians in the first half of the 19th c. Unfortunately, Abu’l-Mansur Khan’s grandsons imitated their fathers and started warring one upon the other; at the same time, they engaged in skirmishes against the Russians and attacked the Kokand Khanate, which invaded most of the territory of the Great Horde. When it became clear that the Kazakhs had to unite against the Russians, they did so, but it was too late. After many battles and retreats, the Kazakhs were betrayed by the Kirghiz, and in 1847, the Russian armies invaded finally the Kazakh capitals Hazrat-e-Turkistan (presently Turkistan) and Syghanaq (currently Sighnaq), thus officially abolishing the Kazakh Khanate. It was at that time that Eset Kotibaruli (1803–1889) started his rebellion (1847–1858).
The Russian Conquest of Kazakhstan was not an easy affair and it was carried out gradually, because the czars were deeply involved in European affairs, there warring against all major nations of Central and Eastern Europe; even more so because Russia was threatened by France at the times of Napoleon. The failed Russian attack against the Khanate of Khiva (1839) proved that the czarist army necessitated enormous resources to entirely invade Central Asia. Whereas the Kazakh Khanate was invaded from north to south, the rest of Central Asia was conquered from east to west. During these invasions, the Russians had to also to squelch the rebellion launched in 1870 by the Adai (Russian: Адай, Адайцы; Kazakh: Адайлар) clan of the Minor Horde in the Mangyshlak (Мангышлак) Peninsula by the Caspian Seaside.
The czarist armies advanced to Semirechye (‘Seven Rivers’ Land’ in Eastern Kazakhstan) in 1847-1850, Almaty (1854), Hazrat-e-Turkistan (1864; re-captured from the Kokand Khanate), Tashkent (1865), Khojand and Bukhara (1866), Samarqand (1868), Khiva (1873), Kokand (1876) and, last of all, Turkmenistan (1879-1885, involving Geok Tepe, Merv, and Panjdeh). Only the Pamirs, in the area of today’s borders between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan from one side and China from the other side, were conquered last, due to the extremely harsh mountainous terrain (1872-1895). In fact, the current borderline between Kazakhstan and China was demarcated in 1851 (Treaty of Kulja) and 1864 (Treaty of Tarbagatai) between Romanov Russia and Qing China. About:
Nikolay Karazin, Russian troops in Tashkent 1865Nikolay Karazin, Russian troops in Samarkand 1868Nikolay Karazin, Russian troops in Khiva 1873Central Asia, Semirechye, and Eastern TurkestanSemirechye (Семиречье) – Zhetisu (Жетісу) – Land of Seven RiversImperial Russian map of the Seven Rivers’ Region, 1913N. N. Karazin. Explanation of the Middle horde – 1891 From: https://rus-turk.livejournal.com/249552.html
VII. In Kazakhstan, Siberia, and Central Asia, there was never Russian Colonization
A lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the czarist ‘colonial’ empire, but in vain; this fabricated accusation consists merely in Anglo-French colonial propaganda, as per which their enemy (i.e. Russia) ‘had’ to be as criminal and as pestiferous as they were. The racist, absurd and paranoid anti-Russian propaganda of the colonial powers England and France (and later America) was continued with the formation of an entire anti-Soviet ‘block’. It ends up with the current anti-Russian paroxysm, but this phenomenon is partly due to the czarist, soviet and republican Russian elites who made the colossal mistake to consider the English and the French (and more recently the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the Israelis) as ‘normal’, ‘regular’ and ‘real’ states or nations whereas they are not; however, this is a totally different issue.
There is nothing properly ‘colonial’ in the Russian expansion in Siberia and Central Asia; in fact, it consists in land occupation and annexation of several, ethnically and culturally similar, Asiatic nations. Irrespective of the expansion phase, namely the conquest of the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia) or the seizure of the Kazakh Khanate, the Russian advance does not have anything in common with the Anglo-French overseas adventures and the criminal financial exploitation of the colonized nations by Paris and London. The Russian military differed greatly from the racist Western European colonial invaders, who denigrated, belittled and vilified their victims. The Russian expansion in Siberia, North Asia, and Central Asia did not come with political subjugation, cultural disfigurement, educational distortion, intellectual alteration, socio-behavioral subjection and spiritual falsification.
One may contend that spectacular changes took indeed place in the occupied territories of Siberia, Northeastern Asia, Kazakhstan, and the rest of Central Asia; that is true, but the real nature of these changes was technological modernization. In other words, there was not a real Russification (or Russianization / Русификация) as it had happened earlier and more specifically during the formative years of the Moscow principality (vassal state of the Golden Horde) and the so-called Tsardom of Russia, i.e. during the reigns of Ivan III (1462-1505), Vasili III (1505-1533), and Ivan IV (1533-1584). It was then that the populations living in the territories under control by the three aforementioned vassal rulers were exposed to intense Russianization and Christianization, because they were Turanian in their outright majority. This fact makes of today’s Russians a preponderantly Turkic (or Turanian) nation.
In reality, modernization would come to Central Asia and more specifically to Kazakhstan one way or another; it does not make any difference if it was launched by Alexander II or initiated by a Kazakh military officer acting in total similarity with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey few decades later. Indeed, modernization is modernization; and both Russians and Kazakhs are fraternal nations of the same, Asiatic origin, Turanian ancestry, and Oriental culture. There are many, who would disagree with this down-to-earth approach, but this would only be their own mistake. Those who hold a different view on the topic present contrasting pictures of Russia and Central Asia in the 19th c.; but if we don’t take into account the modernization dimension, there was no difference at all between the Russian-speaking and the non-Russian speaking subjects of the czars.
The false, contrasting pictures of Russia and Central Asia in the 19th c. and in the early 20th c., which are presented as ‘proofs’ by Western European and North American historians and colonial forgers, are uneven indeed; the false contrast involves the comparison of the Westernized Russian elite, i.e. a minimal fraction of the entire population, and the then recently annexed nations of Central Asia, namely the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, etc. But this is a vicious distortion. History is not and cannot be the ‘history’ of the elites and their ideas, erroneous delusions and pathetic obsessions; History is the History of Nations, i.e. the description of the spirituality, the faith, the culture, the achievements, the exploits, and the behaviors of the peoples.
When, at a certain moment and in a specific country, the king and the people are one, there is absolute cultural unity and homogeneity between the ruling elite and the average people; this occurred at the times of Ramses III, Tiglath-pileser III, Darius I, Harun al Rashid, Timur (Tamerlane) and many others. But when the elite are totally detached from the average people and the locally prevailing culture, it is absolutely impermissible for historians to portray a people and a nation after the image of their local elite. This erroneous historiography is misleading and unrepresentative. In other words, if we speak about the Russian Empire in 1900, we cannot afford to take Anton Chekhov as a ‘representative’ specimen of the Russian culture and civilization; quite contrarily, the average people in Moscow, Ryazan, Saratov. Astrakhan, Kazan, Baku, Tashkent, Bukhara, Khiva, Almaty and elsewhere were the correct, genuine representatives of the authentic local culture: they were ‘Russia’.
In fact, the misperception of the cultural difference between Russians, Kazakhs and other non-Russian natives across the czarist empire is due to the Westernization of part of the imperial elite; but this development constituted in reality the Western European colonization of Russia. It did not have a military dimension, but it took all the other dimensions of the obnoxious and calamitous practice, namely financial (foreign investment), intellectual (diffusion of Western European ideas, theories and ideologies), artistic (concerted effort of the Russian elite to demonstrate their fake ‘European’ identity), cultural, educational (blind imitation of the Western European systems), academic (dependence of Russian scholars on their Western European counterparts’ methods and approaches), socio-behavioral and political (Western ambassadors’ pressure for parliamentary reforms).
Russia’s colonization had started under Peter I, but it never penetrated the local masses. Even as late as the time of Nikolai (Nicholas) II, it affected much less than 10% of the total population. But the Westernization of part of Russia’s imperial elite was, in true terms, sheer De-Russianization; meanwhile Russian Orientalism was totally different from the vicious Anglo-French doctrine and fallacy. Even when it comes to Russian Classical Music and Opera, the Queen of Spades (Пиковая дама) finds its Oriental counterpart in the Tale of Tsar Saltan (Сказка о царе Салтане), the Enchantress (Чародейка) has as counterweight the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevroniya (Сказание о невидимом граде Китеже и деве Февронии), and Eugene Onegin (Евгений Онегин) finds its opposite in the Golden Cockerel (Золотой петушок).
The Russian academic and military elites did not have an accurate and pertinent scientific knowledge about Central Asiatic nations, literatures, faiths, religions, spirituality, folklore and traditions. The Westernization of the czarist elites was the main reason for this lack of correct perception, extensive study, and thorough research; this phenomenon constituted in fact a great success for the colonial powers, France and England, which formed in this regard a catastrophic wedge between the Russians and the nations invaded by the czarist armies. It is true that Russian Turanology (or Turkology), Iranology, Sinology, Ethnography, History of Religions, Art History, History, Linguistics started late (around the end of the 18th c.); even worse and with respect to methodology, the Russian academics followed the false colonial model of Western Orientalism. This was an academic, military and national disaster for Imperial Russia.
Czarist Russia promoted an incorporation strategy, which hinged on the following six axes:
a- Czarist settlements throughout Central Asia
b- Denomadization (or sedentarization) of the Kazakhs and other Turanian nations
c- Abolition of slavery and serfdom
d- Administrative organization
e- Introduction of modern technology and, more particularly, construction of railways
f- Russian language in the education
a- Czarist settlements
Some of these axes are apparently interconnected; more czarist settlers decided to move from regions west of the Ural Mountains and relocate to parts of Central Asia after the construction of the railways. It is therefore normal that the settlements were near the main lines or close to earlier built fortresses. In fact, this practice was not new, as Muscovites and others had already started settling in parts of Northern Asia, after the conquest of the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia), at the end of the 16th c.
An independent organization, the Migration Department (Переселенческое Управление), was set up in St. Petersburg to duly supervise and streamline the trend. As the territory of the Kazakh Khanate was far larger than that of all the other Turanian Central Asiatic khanates, it is quite normal that more czarist subjects relocated there than to the area of the other four Central Asiatic countries. In current terms, the area of Kazakhstan (2725000 km2) is more than double the territory of Turkmenistan (491000 km2), Uzbekistan (449000 km2), Kyrgyzstan (200000 km2) and Tajikistan (143000 km2). Although many nations or ethnic-religious groups were forced to relocate under the Soviet rule, the aforementioned reality lasted down to our days.
However, to be accurate, one must admit that the czarist settlers were of quite diverse ethnic background; they were not only ‘Russians’, but also Germans, Tatars, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Jews, Armenians, and others. Today, Russian natives in Kazakhstan outnumber by far the Russian ethnic minorities in the other four Central Asiatic states; their percentage is 18.9% in Kazakhstan, 5.6% in Kyrgyzstan, 2.2% in Turkmenistan, 2.1% in Uzbekistan, and 0.4% in Tajikistan. In total, ca. 400000 czarist subjects relocated to Kazakhstan in the 2nd half of the 19th c. and about 1000000 people moved there in the 1st half of the 20th c.
Thanks to the Russian, German, Cossack and other settlers, Christianity was diffused again in the wider region of Central Asia during the 19th century, after having been eradicated for about 500 years; of course, the earlier phase of Christianity in Central Asia, which antedates the arrival of Islam in the region, concerns Nestorianism and the presence of the Eastern Christian Church of the East Syriac Rite (which was based in Ctesiphon/Mahoze). However, Nestorian Christianity had disappeared around 1400. With the Russian settlers already established in the region, a Christian Orthodox bishopric was established there in 1871, based first in Almaty (former Verniy) and after 1916 in Tashkent.
The ruins of the old, stone cathedral of Verniy are due to earthquake; 1887.
b- Denomadization (or sedentarization)
The Kazakh resistance against the czarist rule was neither a Muslim–Christian divide nor a Slavic-Turanian (or Turkic) rivalry; it did not have either ethnic or religious character in the beginning. On the contrary, it concerned mainly the denomadization (or sedentarization) process. The czarist rule brought about a tremendous socio-economic change, making it impossible for the traditional nomadic organization to exist. This caused a terrible destruction, involving economic disaster, dismantlement of the Kazakh tribes, socio-behavioral shock, and even famine. The eradication of the normal Kazakh lifestyle and the creation of structures hitherto unknown made it impossible for many to survive, and the entire Central Asia was plunged into poverty and destitution.
When land and water were given to settlers, the Kazakh formed the first nuclei of resistance against the czarist discrimination. Several other reasons for the Kazakh resistance appeared later, but in fact they were all due to the czarist mismanagement of the conquered lands. The czarist administration had no idea what programs were needed for the straightforward sedentarization of an entire nation. As the Romanovs ruled the newly invaded territories as Western lords, they triggered indignation. The Russian dynasty paid dearly for her naivety to view Central Asia only in terms of the Great Game, and not as a union of Oriental peoples, cultures and traditions. That’s why the Romanovs got the hit from the back, and in 1916 the entire Central Asia was out of the czarist control.
c- Abolition of slavery
Slavery existed among various Central and Northern Asiatic nations in different forms, starting from the typical case of a war prisoner. Since the middle of the 16th c., there were different types of slavery in Russia, which also involved slave trade. The household slaves and the state slaves constituted only one category, whereas the serfs were unfree peasants who could be sold only with the land that they labored. Peter I ended slavery in 1723, thus turning the slaves into serfs, but the abolition of serfdom took place only in 1861 with the Emancipation reform introduced by the Freemason czar Alexander II (Александр II Николаевич; 1813-1881; ruled from 1881 until the day of his assassination by a group of monstrous Zionist gangsters).
Alexander II frees the serfs. Александр II освобождает крепостных. From: https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/03/07/altwo/The evil English hysteria unleashed: in a cartoon from the London Punch magazine (1863), the Russian Czar and the American President are depicted as tyrants, under the paranoid label “Extremes meet”; Abraham Lincoln addresses Alexander II with the words: “I see that we are both in the same situation: you are with your Poles, I am with the southern rebels”. From: https://историк.рф/journal/15/aleksandr-avraam-i-drugie-ofitsialnyie-litsa-6f.html
In Central Asia, the slave trade had flourished for several hundreds of years; Iran, the Central Asiatic khanates, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were involved in the process. The major markets for slave trade were Kara-Köl (Каракуль) in Kyrgyzstan, Karshi (Карши), Samarkand and Bukhara in Uzbekistan, and Chardzhou (چهارجوی – Чарджоу; present day Türkmenabat) in Turkmenistan.
Slaves were liberated throughout the annexed parts of Kazakhstan in 1859. The advancing Russian armies terminated slavery in Bukhara, Samarqand and Khiva in the 1870s; the last to be liberated were the slaves of the area of Turkmenistan. Several thousands of Iranians and Russians were then allowed to go free back to their countries.
d- Administrative organization
The territory of the Kazakh Khanate underwent a true trichotomy; this was due to the formation of the Governor-Generalship of (Russian) Turkestan (Туркестанское генерал-губернаторство) and the Governor-Generalship of the Steppe (Степное); the former was established in 1867 and it included the regions of Trans-Caspian (Закаспийская), Samarkand, Semirechensk (Seven Rivers’ Land/ Семиреченская), Syr-Darya, and Fergana regions, i.e. the southern parts of today’s Kazakhstan, parts of Uzbekistan, and also most of Turkmenistan’s territory. Its capital was located in Tashkent.
The Governor-Generalship of the Steppe (Степное генерал-губернаторство) was established in 1882 with capital at Omsk, in today’s Russia; it comprised parts of Siberia, the Kazakh steppe (i.e. today’s northern and eastern regions of Kazakhstan), and parts of Kyrgyzstan. Its main subdivisions were Semipalatinsk (today’s Semey; Семипалатинская) and Akmola (Акмолинская; the region around today’s Nur-sultan, which was founded in 1830 as Akmoly only to be renamed as Akmolinsk two years later, Tselinograd in 1961, Astana in 1998, and Nursultan in 2019). For 17 years, the Seven Rivers’ Land (Semirechensk) was transferred to the authority of the Governor-Generalship of the Steppe, but in 1899, it was returned to the Turkestan Governor-Generalship.
Last, the northwestern part of Kazakhstan had already been part of the Orenburg Governorate (Оренбургская губерния), which was established in 1744.
The administrative organization of the newly conquered lands was connected with considerable military deployment and construction of defensive lines; many Russian fortresses were built on Kazakh territory during the 2nd half of the 19th c., notably at 1) Novo-Aleksandrovsky (1846; Ново-Александровский; known as Fort-Aleksandrovskii / Форт-Александровский between 1857 and 1939; currently known as Fort-Shevchenko / Форт-Шевченко) on the Mengystau Peninsula by the Caspian Sea side,
2) Fort-Perovsky (1853; Форт-Перовский; today’s Kyzylorda/ Кызылорда) east of Aral Lake,
3) Syr-Darya fort No. 1 (1853; Сыр-Дарьинский форт № 1; today’s Kazaly / Казалинск / Қазалы) east of Aral Lake, and
4) Almaty (1854; Верный – Укрепление Верное / Fort Verny), Kazakhstan’s former capital.
The interconnection between imperial administration and the army is also attested in the cumulation of two roles, namely that of the governor-general and military officer.
e- Introduction of modern technology and, more particularly, construction of railways
As Russia was systematically dragged by the colonial Western powers into the racist delusion of European superiority, it was only normal that the Westernized elite of Russia deployed an enormous effort to imitate the practices and the novelties, the techniques and the applications, the changes and the trends launched by England and France, imitated by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan, the US, Mexico, Brazil and Spain, followed by diverse smaller states, and imposed on the Anglo-French colonies. The implementation and expansion of railway networks became a matter of ferocious competition among kingdoms, republics, colonial empires, and even decadent and obsolete states like Qing China, Qajar Iran, and the Ottoman Empire during the 19th and the early 20th c.
It is undeniable that the railways played a critical role in the colonial balance of power worldwide for many reasons. For Imperial Russia, the world’s largest contiguous empire in the beginning of the 20t h c., the expansion of railway networks would play and did indeed play a vital role in the consolidation of the territorial enlargement that the czarist armies had made possible. The Russian defeat in the Russian-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905) fully proved that the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway (21 June 1904) was completed insufficient (initially, it consisted of one track) and quite tardy (if completed 5 years earlier, it would definitely change the war outcome). It was apparently a mistake of the czarist administration to start such a critically important project with a so considerable delay.
In Kazakhstan and the wider region of Central Asia, the first railway infrastructure undertaking was the construction of the Trans-Caspian railway (Закаспийская железная дорога); it started only in 1879 and first, it connected Uzun Ada (Узун-Ада), a harbor on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea, with Ashgabat, Merv, Turkmenabat (in today’s Turkmenistan), Bukhara and Samarqand (in today’s Uzbekistan). It was completed in 1888 (ca. 1500 km). In 1895, the Caspian Sea terminal was transferred to Krasnovodsk (Красноводск; today’s Turkmenbashi/ Түркменбашы/ توركمنباشی). In 1898-1901, the railway was extended to Tashkent and Andijan, and in 1905 a train ferry started linking Krasnovodsk with Baku in Russian Azerbaijan. The English colonial gangster and statesman George Curzon (1859-1925), who visited Central Asia and Russia in 1888-1889, described the construction of the Trans-Caspian railway as a threat for the English colonial plans in the Great Game – a statement that highlights the importance of the project and the size of the criminal English intensions and targets.
For the period 1891-1904, Russia undertook the epic effort to construct the Trans-Siberian railway (Транссибирская магистрал), which is =still today- the world’s longest railway line with over 9200 km. Presently, the Trans-Siberian does not cross any part of Kazakhstan, but when it was constructed it crossed Siberian cities, which served as the headquarters of administrative divisions that comprised vast parts of today’s Kazakhstan, notably Omsk.
The Tashkent railway (Ташкентская железная дорога), which is also known as Trans-Aral railway, was constructed in several stages between 1887 and 1906 to finally connect St. Petersburg and Moscow with Central Asia, and thus consolidate the czarist rule in the newly conquered lands. The most critical stage (1905-1906) was the construction of the part of the railway, which linked Orenburg (Оренбург) with Kandagach (currently Kandyagash / Кандагач – Қандыағаш), Kazalinsk (currently Kazaly / Казалинск – Қазалы), Dzhusaly (presently Zhosaly / Джусалы – Жосалы), Arys (Арысь – Арыс), and Tashkent (Ташкент). Last, with the construction of the Kinel-Orenburg section (1905), the Trans-Aral railway was attached to the Samara-Zlato-ust (Златоуст: lit. ‘St John Chrysostom city’) railway. This has been mainly known as Kuybyshev railway (куйбышевская железная дорога), because Samara was renamed as Kuybyshev from 1935 until 1991. In 1913, the Trans-Aral railway had a length of ca. 2200 km, 552 steam locomotives, 7853 freight carriages and 655 passenger coaches.
However, for the proper railway connection of Central Asia with Siberia, one had to wait until the 1920s and 1930s. It was only then that the Turkestan–Siberia railway (known as Турксиб: туркестано сибирская магистраль) was constructed (ca. 2400 km; 1926-1931). This railway connected Tashkent (Uzbekistan), Shymkent, Taraz, (Kazakhstan), Bishkek, Balykshy (Kyrgyzstan), Shu (Kazakhstan), and Almaty, with Semipalatinsk (Semey), Pavlodar (in Kazakhstan) and with Barnaul (Барнаул кала) and Novosibirsk (which had been built in 1893 as Novonikolaevsk) in Russia (then USSR).
Imperial Russia had 23000 km of track in 1880; the network increased to 31000 km in 1890, 51000 km in 1905 and 81000 in 1917. However, during WWI and the Russian Civil War ca. 60% of the railway network and no less than 80% of the locomotives and coaches were destroyed. The Soviet governments had to start almost from scratch. About:
After the Russian military officers, settlers, administrators, engineers and priests appeared progressively in the lands of the invaded and abolished Kazakh Khanates and other Central Asiatic states, it was the turn of the teachers and the schools to emerge. All the same, across all these newly conquered and annexed lands, no universities were built before the two revolutions of 1917, the Russian Civil War, the chaotic situations that prevailed in Central Asia in the late 1910s and the early 1920s, and the consolidation of the Soviet rule. According to what I already have repeatedly stated, the destructive Westernization of Imperial Russia was such that, out of twelve (12) universities functioning at the time of Nikolai II, only one was located in Asia, and more specifically in Siberia, namely the Imperial Tomsk University (established in 1878).
All those, who -based on idiotic Islamist doctrines or Pan-Turanianist (Pan-Turkist) dogmas- accuse Russia of implementing imperialist agendas and carrying out vast Russification campaigns, are talking nonsense. These false accusations consist merely in ludicrous English, French and American propaganda and in anti-Russian racist paroxysm. Even before the conquest and unification of Central Asia, the imperial administration did indeed set up (as early as 1828) schools with instruction in Azeri, Georgian and Armenian in the Caucasus region. In 1850, the state educational network comprised already of Christian, Muslim (Tatar), Jewish and Caucasian schools.
However, a major landmark took place in 1864 with the far-reaching novelties and the educational transformation introduced with the Statute on Elementary Public Schools (Положение о начальных народных училищах), which reflected the modernization efforts and ideas of Alexander II. As per the Statute, elementary education was open for the first time to all social strata. Education in Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and other languages became the norm, whereas particular programs were launched in Finland and Poland.
Around 1870, the educational system expanded to other nations of the empire, involving the introduction of new, Cyrillic alphabets created for the languages of the Muslims and the Buddhists. Further legislation detailed the modalities and specified the curricula, whereas civil society organizations emerged due to the commitment of teachers and instructors. One must bear in mind that illiteracy was very high, and as per the 1897 census, there were only three (3) literate people out of ten (10) subjects of Imperial Russia (29.6%; 44.4% and 15.4% respectively among men and women); in rural areas, less than one out of four persons (24.6%) was literate.
However, in Central Asia, the situation was calamitously worse, and analphabetism was the overwhelming norm; this undeniable fact strikes a blow on all arguments recently made by Islamist and Pan-Turanianist (Pan-Turkist) propagandists, who speak against the Imperial Russian invasion and annexation of Kazakhstan and the rest of Central Asia. Only 8% of Kazakhs, 8% of Turkmens, 4% of Uzbeks, 3% of Kirghiz, and 2% of Tajiks were literate in 1897. That is why it is absolutely absurd and totally misleading to describe the implementation of the imperial language policy as a “tool of russification”; such an approach does not originate from academic research but consists in political propaganda. Example: Ayaz Ahmad, Sana Hussan, Syed Ali Shah; Russification of Muslim Central Asia: An Overview of Language, Culture and Society, in: Global Regional Review (GRR), vol. 2 no 1 (2017), p. 75 (https://www.grrjournal.com/jadmin/Auther/31rvIolA2LALJouq9hkR/IdfqKhkYv5.pdf)
These blind propagandists are unable to realize that, if the Imperial Russian conquest of Central Asia did not take place, the tenebrous warring factions of the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Turkmens, the Tajiks and the Kirghiz would continue fighting against one another, while remaining illiterate and uneducated, and living in abject poverty and abysmal ignorance, because their civilized past had long gone. Even worse, all these Muslim nations would become the prey of the criminal English colonials, who would diffuse among them the Satanic doctrines of Political Islam and Wahhabism, therefore plunging these nations to extreme evilness, total inhumanity, and unprecedented self-destruction.
In reality, the introduction of Russian in the primary and secondary education as the main means of communication throughout the empire was normal, because it was the official language of the empire; the incorporation of all the schools into the state educational network helped the educationally, pedagogically, and academically underdeveloped regions catch up with the advanced ones. Due to the new, Cyrillic alphabets created for several Central Asiatic languages, millions of young Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks and Kirghiz were able to flock to universities and form internationally acknowledged scholars; Kazakhstan, more in particular, became an academically leading state (SSR) within the USSR.
Central Asia retained several distinctive features within Imperial Russia, notably the traditional courts with the qadis, and the communal administration by the elders (being generally known as Aqsaqal/ Аксакал, i.e. the white bearded ones, but more specifically divided into four categories shal/ шал, kariya/ кария, aqsaqal/ аксакал and абыз/abyz).
Bilingual education was introduced in Russian Turkestan as early as 1884; the new schools were called Русско-туземные школы (Russian-native schools). The first bilingual school opened in Tashkent. The curricula comprised courses similar to those in all the educational establishments in other regions of the empire, and a basic curriculum of traditional Islamic education (as in a typical madrasah or maktab). Native teachers took care of this part. In the beginning, only few schoolchildren attended the courses. In 1901, throughout the Russian Turkestan, there were 45 schools of this type; in 1905, they increased to 82′ and in 1912, they totaled 89. About:
Totally biased presentation: Ulrich Hofmeister, Civilization and Russification in Tsarist Central Asia, 1860–1917; in: Journal of World History, vol. 27, no. 3, 2016, pp. 411–42 (JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631473)
IX. The Jadid Movement as the foundation of all Modern Turanian Muslim Nations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia: the Historical Roots
The long Russian-Turanian educational consociation and complementarity were mainly due to the leading role played by the Tatars, who had already coexisted with the Russians for more than 300 years. It was therefore only normal that the Central Asiatic nations were influenced by the intellectual, educational, socio-behavioral and theoretical systems devised and the ideas and approaches diffused by the Kazan and Crimea Tatars. This is an important parameter of the Russian-Turanian coexistence during the late 19th and the 20th centuries. The Jadid Movement was set up initially by Tatar intellectuals and modernists, who preached a new approach to education and social organization. The leading figures, the intellectuals, and the followers of this trend organized several groups and launched experimental schools that would and did indeed change dramatically the educational landscape among the Muslims in Central and Northern Asia and in Eastern Europe.
The term Jadid (جديد) is an Arabic word meaning ‘new’; the educational system, its theoretical background, and the associated ideology were called Jadidiyah (جديدية). In Russian, the terms were retained: Джадид and Джадидизм. The same happened in Turkish: Cedidci and Cedidcilik. As the word denotes, the promoters of these ideas wanted to introduce innovative concepts and astounding reforms to the traditional religious education of all the Muslims irrespective of location or ethnic origin. They denigrated the Islamic religious authorities, namely the qadis, the ulamas and the imams/sheikhs, whom they considered -quite rightfully- illiterate and idiotic.
From the Mollah Nasraddin magazine of the illustrious Azeri Jadidist intellectual Omar Faig Nemanzadeh (Ömər Faiq Nemanzadə/Омар Фаик Неманзаде) From: https://realnoevremya.ru/articles/33803
There is a tendency among Western colonial historiographers to equate the Jadid Movement with the İttihat ve Terakki (Committee of Union and Progress) Movement (also known as Young Turks/ Genç Türkler) in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. But this is very wrong indeed; in reality, the Jadid intellectuals in Russia wanted to and did actually introduce groundbreaking reforms and irrevocable changes that found their parallel in the formidable state of Kemal Ataturk.
The notorious 1910 cartoon that was published in Mollah Nasraddin magazine: it illustrated the progress of the Western countries in contrast with the state of sloth and uselessness in which the high lands of historical great civilizations were fallen. Materials like this poster do indeed highlight the community of ideas and world perceptions between the Jadidist intellectuals and Kemal Ataturk. From: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Молла_Насреддин https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molla_Nasraddin_(magazine)
That is why the Jadid intellectuals also functioned as the formative threshold of all the Muslims of Imperial Russia to the world of Marxism-Leninism and to the state founded by Lenin; actually, the imperial elite disliked the Jadid Movement, as it looked quite secular and republican to them. This was a serious mistake committed by the czarist authorities, and it was due to their traditional, deeply-seated hatred of Islam and mistrust of Muslims. However, this was not the opinion of all the Russians at the time, as biased Western scholars tend to pretend (a very typical example: Jeff Sabadeo, Progress or peril: migrants and locals in Russian Tashkent, 1906-1914; in the collective volume Peopling the Russian Periphery: Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History, London, 2007).
The very beginning of the Jadid Movement cannot be easily discerned; however a certain relationship can be delineated with the few remaining (late 18th and early 19th c.) Muslim mystics, erudite polymaths, and repositories of traditional Islamic scientific knowledge: these were the few authoritative visionaries who systematically and resolutely rejected the cholera of the Constantinopolitan Sunni pseudo-Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which had already -since the end of the 16th century- spread the darkness, the ignorance, the barbarism, the depravity, and the wickedness of the Satanic systems of Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ahmed ibn Taimiyyah. These few Muslim mystics and scholars knew that Islamic science was very much hated, reviled and therefore prohibited by the Ottoman theological elite, which was the sole reason for the decadence, disintegration and disappearance of the Islamic Civilization; they were therefore quite happy to be far from Ottoman Constantinople, the epicenter of every anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish evildoing.
a- Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari
One can find in the works of the Tatar mystic, poet, scholar and educator Gabdrahim ibn Usman ibn Sarmaki ibn Krym (who was rather known as Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari / Габдрахим Утыз-Имяни аль Булгари; 1752-1836) a very strong criticism of the rich, materialistic, parsimonious, individualistic and villainous imams, sheikhs and mullahs. At the same time, the commentary that Gabdrahim composed for the book ‘Resurrection of the sciences of faith’ (Iḥya Ulum al-Din; إحياء علوم الدين) by great Iranian mystic, wise elder, and scholar Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058-1111; أبو حامد الغزالي) lets us discern in Gabdrahim’s intentions an effort to revive the Islamic sciences of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization.
Габдрахим утыз-имяни аль булгари мечеть в Казани – Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari Mosque in Kazan
b- Taj al-Din Yalchygul
Similar perceptions of the Islamic past, and parallel approaches to, concepts of, and intentions for the revival of the Muslim World can be found in the works of the Bashkir mystic, therapist, historian, poet, pilgrim and renowned traveler Taj al-Din Yalchygul (1768-1838; Таджетдин Ялчыгул), who is known for his Таварих-и Булгария (History of Bulgaria), which is a typical Asiatic Shajara (usually oral, genealogical historical legend of a tribe or group of tribes); in this case, the name ‘Bulgaria’ is a mere reminder of Volga Bulgaria and of the earlier Turanian nomad nations, whereas the main narrative establishes a sketch of Bashkir History.
c- Nigmatullah Toukaev
The same concerns the Tatar Nigmatullah Toukaev (1772-1844; Тукаев Нигматулла ибн Биктимер ибн Тукай аль-Стерли), a major mystic, tarkhan (Turkic nobleman), imam of mosque and madrasa, multilingual author, manuscript copyist, and erudite polymath, who spent all his money to collect historical manuscripts. He placed at the epicenter of a Muslim’s life three fundamental elements, namely ethics, knowledge and hard work. He thus categorically denounced the incredible sloth in which the Ottoman Constantinopolitan theologians plunged their Muslim subjects in order to control them and eliminate opposition to their idiotic plans, which finally destroyed the Ottoman Empire.
Other mystics, poets, wise polymaths, and enlightened intellectuals, who realized the extent of the spiritual, cultural, intellectual, scientific, and educational collapse of the Islamic World, and tried to change and improve this situation, are:
d- Ghabdennasir Qursawi
The Tatar theologian, intellectual, imam of mosque and madrasa, reformer and educator Ghabdennasir Qursawi (1776-1812; Габденнасыр Курсави), opposed the Maturidi theological school, and decried the conservative theologians, repeatedly debating with them in public and proving them erroneous and obnoxious for the Muslims. Qursawi was persecuted by the immoral, materialist, utilitarianist and reprobate sheikhs and imams whose decisions were exclusively based on their own dirty interests (for the defense of which they used to shamelessly mobilize their theological skills). Although incessantly persecuted during his life, Qursawi won a staggering posthumous victory by attracting the outright majority of Tatars, as well as of other Muslims of the Russian Empire to his ideas, concepts and approaches. After performing Hajj, he contracted cholera and died in Istanbul.
The Tatar Shigabutdin Marjani (1818-1889; Шигабутдин Марджани) was a historian, ethnographer, Orientalist, theologian and educator, who after studying in Bukhara and Samarqand, returned to Russia, lived and preached in Kazan and Orenburg, and proved to be the first to diffuse secular principles and approaches to education and social life among Russia’s Muslims. He was one of the most conscious Muslims of the 19th c., as he well understood that due to the wrong theological schools, education and teachings, and owed to the ensued darkness, Muslims worldwide had entered the status of hibernation. He promoted a balanced education that would encompass their cultural heritage (Turanian past, Islamic sciences, and Iranian culture) and the Russian and European new ideas and technologies. Marjani’s extensive criticism of the Islamic theology, which had decayed and become a liability already in the 19th c., is quite appropriate and beneficial to study for 21st-century sheikhs, muftis and qadis from Turkey to Egypt to Saudi Arabia. The reforms of the madrasas that he evoked constitute an urgent need for the wrong and obsolete religious educational systems of today’s Muslims.
f- Ibrahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly
The Kazakh Ibrahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly {1845-1904; Абай (Ибрагим) Кунанбаев} was a poet, writer, composer, intellectual, cultural reformer, and the founder of Modern Kazakh Literature. He was the first promoter of the concept of a Muslim-Turanian rapprochement with the Russian-Western culture, which would take place on the basis of the historical tradition preserved by the enlightened Muslims (i.e. the repository of the heritage of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization), therefore totally excluding and rejecting the contemporary, uneducated, ignorant and conservative, Muslim theologians. That’s why all the leaders of the Alash Movement (see below: part X units f, u, v, x and y; part XI and part XIV) constantly referred to his works, texts and ideas.
One of the leading Jadidists (джадидисты), Ismail Gaspirali (İsmail Gaspıralı /Исмаил Гаспринский; 1851-1914) launched in 1884 in Crimea an experimental school, which had a tremendous success and became the reference model for many other similar educational institutions. Several Tatar intellectuals contributed to the establishment of a new pedagogical approach and innovative curricula involving World History, Geography, Mathematics, and Science. They met opposition from the outdated religious authorities for which they coined the term Кадимизм (Kadimism) from the Arabic word قديم (kadim), which means ‘ancient’; of course, the use was derogatory, but actually true and correct. The Jadidists rejected the traditional Islamic system of education, demonstrating that it was absolutely unable to equip students with skills and knowledge needed in the modern world and to form adequately prepared elites well versed in modern technologies.
However, the Jadidists were intellectuals, activists and militants, who did not have time to extensively explore, evaluate and analyze the issue through a historical viewpoint; they therefore generated a misplaced divide (the ‘new’ vs. the ‘old’ or ‘modern science’ vs. ‘Islamic theology’), whereas in reality, 19th and 20th c. Islamic theology is a distorted, meaningless and useless leftover of the historical Islamic sciences, which had long decayed and were abandoned, because of the gradual diffusion of the catastrophic indoctrination of the Muslim populations with the obscurantist pseudo-Islamic theories of ignorant theologians like Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ahmed ibn Taimiyyah, and Muhammad ibn Abdelwahhab.
Thinking that they were properly educating the pupils and accurately teaching the Islamic sciences, the ignorant sheikhs and the idiotic imams of the 17th-19th c. were indeed renegades, who totally abandoned and absolutely forgot the true, historical Islamic sciences. That’s why they reduced their curricula to few topics and to wrong interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith. About:
X. The 25 most Illustrious Intellectuals, Scholars, Activists and Politicians of the Jadid Movement
Among the leading intellectuals of the Jadid Movement, the following 25 thinkers, scholars, journalists and politicians were the most illustrious and the most influential:
a- Ismail Gaspirali (Gasprinsky)
The Crimean Tatar Ismail Gaspirali (Gasprinsky/see also above: part IX no g) was a remarkable intellectual and politician, and stood critically against the decay of the traditional Muslim social life and education, denouncing the idiotic imams who had failed to understand the changes that were taking place at those days. He launched newspapers and journals to fight against the obscurantism of the traditional theologians; he organized several congresses, and traveled extensively. He spearheaded publications for women and children, and mobilized his family for this purpose. More specifically, he was one of the most committed activists in the Ittifaq al-Muslimin (اتفاق المسلمين / Иттифак аль-Муслимин / Union of Muslims), i.e. the main organization and party of Muslims in the Russian Empire (which cooperated with the Kadet/Cadet Party, i.e. the Constitutional Democratic Party).
The Uzbek Abdurauf Fitrat (Абдурауф Фитрат; 1886-1938) is the intellectual whom my former professor Hélène Carrère d’Encausse considers as the real ideological leader of the Jadid Movement; he rejected the Bukharan emir, he sided with the Communists, and he held several positions in the soviet administration of Bukhara. Although he opposed several Jadid concepts in his early years, he soon became one of the most prominent proponents of the movement. Author, poet, journalist, theoretician, activist and politician, Fitrat wrote in many languages and traveled extensively. Acclaimed by the Bukharan Diaspora, he spent several years in the Ottoman Empire (Mecca and Istanbul) where he encountered -amongst others- the great mystic Şehbenderzâde (lit. ‘son of consul’) Filibeli (from Philippopolis) Ahmed Hilmi (1865-1914), a Bulgarian Turk born in Plovdiv, who combatted materialism and initiated Fitrat into the spirituality of Wahdat al Ujud (‘Unity of Being’). Fitrat’s books became very popular there, but the outbreak of WWI forced him to return to Bukhara where he became immediately an active member of the Young Bukharans (جوانبخارائیان; Yosh buxoroliklar; Genç Buharalılar; Младобухарцы), a typically Jadid organization.
He was able to combine many aspects of the Jadid Movement, feeling comfortable with Russian nationalism, Pan-Turanianism, Pan-Islamism (not to be confused with either Pan-Ottomanism or Political Islam), and Communism. More importantly, Abdurauf Fitrat was the first Muslim, Turanian and Soviet intellectual, who identified England, France and the US as the main enemies of the Muslim World and of the Mankind. He therefore called for a strategic alliance between Russia and the Muslim World in order to destroy the colonial empires of the West, a call that remains appropriate and timely even today. Fitrat held several ministerial positions, and carried out critically important work for the preservation of Uzbekistan’s cultural heritage, but after a certain period of time, his pan-Turanianist approaches and his contacts with Turkey and Afghanistan were viewed as dangerous for Soviet Union. Along with others, he was considered as ‘anti-revolutionary’ by Stalin and therefore executed in 1938.
c- Fayzullah Khodzhayev
The Uzbek Fayzullah Khodzhayev (Файзулла Убайдуллаевич Ходжаев; 1896-1938) originated from Bukhara. He was among the founders of the Young Bukharans, and in 1918, he tried to form a pro-Soviet government in Bukhara, reducing the power of the local emir, but in the process, he failed and had to escape to Taskkent, after losing several hundreds of partisans. He strongly combatted the Basmachi Revolt (see below) and the Young Turks’ leader Enver Pasha. This critical development serves as effective proof of the fact that the Jadid Movement had nothing in common with the ideas of the ill-fated Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti/ إتحاد و ترقى جمعيتی), which exercised political power in the Ottoman Empire for several decades. Khodzhayev was the true leader (Chairman of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee) of the short-lived Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (a quasi-independent state recognized by Moscow; 1920-1924) and, after the redrawing of the borders in Soviet Central Asia, Chair of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. However, after 1929, he disagreed with Stalin’s policies for Uzbekistan, and he was subsequently executed in 1938.
The Tatar Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev (Мирсаид Хайдаргалиевич Султан-Галиев; 1892-1940) was a fervent communist who became known as one of the main proponents of the Muslim National Communism. Sultan-Galiev has been a worldwide leading critic of the Western European genocide of the indigenous nations of the Americas, and an early and remarkable champion of the dependency theory, as per which an eventual communist revolution in England would not change the imperialist-colonial nature of that state. Sultan-Galiev defended Bolshevism as the natural choice for all Tatars, Turanians and Muslims, offering as example the calamitous colonization process of entire continents by the Western powers and the ensuing destructions caused to great historical nations in Asia, Africa and America. Well-versed in World History, he published devastating criticisms of the uneducated and obsolete sheikhs and imams whose ignorance did indeed function in favor of the colonial powers. He actively participated in the Civil War and he had a strong relationship with Lenin, but unfortunately, after 1924, his pan-Islamist and pan-Turanian views (which however were all intertwined with Communism) were misinterpreted and after several years of exile and forced labor, he was executed in 1940. He was one of the best interconnected pioneers of the Jadid Movement, who progressively accepted Marxism-Leninism.
The Tatar Musa Yarulovich Bigiev (Муса Яруллович Бигеев; 1873-1949) was one of the most outstanding Turanian Muslim intellectuals and most committed activists in the Ittifaq al-Muslimin. He traveled extensively in young age, notably in Russia, in the Ottoman Empire (Mecca, Damascus, Istanbul, etc.), and in the English colonies of Egypt and India. With time, his trips increased, and in middle age, he moved even more considerably: in Turkey (where he attended several parliamentary sessions and met with leading statesmen, like Ismet Inonu), in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (as Soviet Muslim delegate in the Pan-Islamic Congresses), in China and Afghanistan (where he ran into exile in 1930), in the English colonies of Palestine and India, in Indonesia and Japan (invited by the famous 19th-20th c. Pan-Turanianist Abdurreshid Ibrahim / Абдурашид Гумерович Ибрагимов), and also in Germany. He too encountered many ups and downs in his relations with the Soviet government, although he was a passionate supporter of the Bolsheviks and he considered them as the best ally against the English and the French colonials.
In striking contrast with many other Jadid intellectuals, the Bashkir Muhammed-Gabdulkhay Kurbangaliev (Мухаммед-Габдулхай Курбангалиев; 1889-1972) entered into alliance with the White Movement and the leading Turkophile, Austrian-German-Russian nobleman, general, mystic, and potentate Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, before living successively in Manchuria, China and Japan, and spending 10 years in jail (1945-1955) in the USSR.
The Azeri Alimardan bey Topchubashov (Алимардан-бек Топчибашев; 1863-1934) was a prominent leader of the Ittifaq, and later Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaker of the Parliament of the short-lived (1918-1920) Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (the first secular republican state in the Turanian and the Muslim worlds), and head of the Azerbaijani Delegation at Versailles Conference,
h- Hasan bey Zardabi
The Azeri Hasan bey Zardabi (Гасан-бек Зардаби; 1842-1907) was a leading secular Muslim intellectual and activist very close to the ideas of the Russian Narodniki (народничество), and founder of Akinci (Экинчи/Əkinçi/اکينچی), the first newspaper in Azeri.
i- Mirza Fatali Akhundov
The Azeri Mirza Fatali Akhundov (Мирза Фатали Ахундов; 1812-1878), a leading Azeri nationalist, materialist and atheist, epitomized the Turanian-Iranian-Russian unity, as he identified Russia as his empire, Turkic Azeri as his ancestry, and Iran as his nation. Written in Farsi, his ‘Eastern poem on the death of Pushkin’ (1837) proved to be a real symbol of unity for the Russian, Turanian and Iranian worlds.
j- Mahmud khodja Behbudiy
The Tajik and Uzbek Mahmud khodja Behbudiy (Махмуд Ходжа Бехбуди; 1875-1919) was a distant descendant of the illustrious 12th c. Turkic mystic, philosopher and poet Khoja Ahmed Yasawi (whose tomb is a magnificent edifice located in Turkistan, South Kazakhstan). He traveled and lived in Mecca, Cairo and Istanbul, returned to Samarqand, launched the famous weekly Ayina (Oino), participated actively in the Ittifaq, wrote numerous textbooks, theatrical plays, and articles, took part in the first executive committee in Samarkand after the February 1917 revolution, and was in good terms with the Soviet government, only to be arrested by the counterrevolutionaries and executed in 1919 by the rebel Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan (the last Emir of Bukhara, who was finally deposed in 1920 and died in exile in Afghanistan in 1944).
k- Saifullah qadi Khalid Bashlarov
The Dagestani Saifullah qadi Khalid Bashlarov (Сайфулла-кади Башларов; 1853-1919) was early expelled to Saratov in 1878 (for having participated in the 1877 rebellion), joined the Ittifaq, returned to Dagestan in 1909, supported the anti-clerk rebellion in 1913 (which forced the czarist administration to partly abandon the local plan for introduction of the Russian alphabet), was exiled to Kazan, and finally killed in the White Movement (in 1919).
l- Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin
The Kazakh Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin (or Jantyurin / Салимгирей Сеидханович Джантюрин; 1864-1926) was a nobleman from Ufa and a descendent of the Kazakh khans of the Bukey Horde; he was one of the principal leaders of the Kazakh national movement. He graduated from the Faculty of Mathematics of Moscow University, worked for the czarist administration in the Ufa province, and became a remarkable landowner, a pioneering politician, a philanthropist, member of the Ittifaq Central Committee and member of the Kadet Party. Despite his outstanding career and benefactions, after the rise of the Bolsheviks to power, he lived a modest life and died in an accident.
Studying Dzhantyurin’s biography, achievements and contributions, one discovers and has therefore to underscore the extraordinary contrast between the Russian-Muslim osmosis and the Anglo-French colonial disparity with the Muslim World. Because of their antithesis with the Muslims, the Western colonial powers carried out a pernicious infiltration into the colonized Muslim societies and they systematically distorted the local version of decayed Islam. Quite contrarily to what happened in Muslim lands colonized by the English and the French, as early as 1906, Dzhantyurin was intellectually advanced enough to advocate the abolition of death penalty.
In striking contradiction to Dzhantyurin’s Islamic humanism, throughout the territories colonized by the evil colonials of England and France, uneducated and paranoid sheikhs and imams, duly utilized by their criminal colonial masters (without even understanding it), started advocating extremist ideas, criminal acts, and increased ignorance. The detrimental comparison is quite enough to prove to all Muslims that, as per the principles of Islam, it is absolutely impermissible for any Muslim to live in the colonial countries of the West, to accept their embassies in Muslim countries, and to study in these countries’ disreputable universities which propagate a historical forgery to indoctrinate and thus enslave the idiotic Muslims who find it normal to study in Australia, Canada, US, UK and France.
Джантюрин также присутствовал в Выборгском воззвании (11 декабря 1907). Dzhantyurin was also present in the Vyborg Appeal (11 December 1907).
m- Sadriddin Ayni
The Tajik Sadriddin Ayni (Садриддин Айни; صدرالدين عينى; 1878-1954) was a widely acclaimed author, poet, theoretician, historian and philologist, who propagated Communist ideas in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. He became member of the Supreme Soviet of Tajikistan, and more importantly, he extensively elaborated and cultivated the Tajik cultural identity, so that nowadays in Tajikistan he is widely viewed as their national poet.
Sadriddin Ayni was one of the few Jadidists who survived all troubles and purges in the USSR. From: https://ok.ru/tajikistanmoyarodina/topic/62708887118025Statues of Sadriddin Ayni & Maxim Gorky in Dushanbe, Tajikistan’s capital
n- Hairullah Usmanov
The Tatar Hairullah Usmanov (Хайрулла Абдрахманович Усманов; 1866-1915) was a leading educator and pedagogue, who introduced Jadid methods and approaches in many schools and madrasahs. Mobilizing Tatar businessmen, like A. G. Husainov (А. Г. Хусаинов), and average people for the cause of the Jadid Movement, Usmanov directed several cultural centers and took active part in the Ittifaq. He was elected as deputy in the Second State Duma (1906) and there he drafted a Bill, demanding the abolition of restrictions on political and civil rights related to religion and ethnicity.
o- Fatali Khan Isgender Oğlu
The Azeri Fatali Khan Isgender Oğlu (‘son of Alexander’) Khoyski (i.e. from Khoy in today’s NW Iran) was the first Prime Minister of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920). Khoyski (1875-1920; Фатали Хан Искендер оглы Хойский; فتحعلی خان خویسکی) was a court lawyer and he was elected in the Second State Duma, before becoming a minister in the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (April-May 1918). As he did not want to engage Azerbaijan against the Russian counterrevolutionary Denikin and his army, the Red Army invaded and annexed Azerbaijan. Khoyski escaped only to be later assassinated in Tbilisi by an Armenian terrorist.
p- Khalil bey Khasmammadov
The Azeri Khalil bey Khasmammadov (Халил-бек Хасмамедов; 1873-1947) was a lawyer and an enthusiastic supporter of Ismail Gaspirali’s ideas and thoughts. He was elected in the First and Second State Dumas, appointed in several ministerial positions in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and then dispatched as ADR ambassador to Turkey, where he stayed for the rest of his life, because he decried the Soviet occupation of Azerbaijan and he disagreed with the Soviets.
q- Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov
The Tatar Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov (Мулланур Муллазянович Вахитов; 1885-1918) was a leading figure of the Muslim Socialist Committee (MSK), editor of a Communist journal in Kazan, and commissar of Central Muslim Commissariat of Narkomnats (Народный комиссариат по делам национальностей; People’s Commissariat on Nationalities); he was killed defending Kazan against the armies of the counterrevolutionaries.
The Bashkir Ahmed Zaki Validov (or Zeki Velidi Togan / Ахмет-Заки Валидов; 1890-1970) was an outstanding member of the Jadid Movement, activist, fighter for the liberation of Bashkortostan, theoretician, explorer, scholar, author and professor, who -like so many other Jadid intellectuals- tergiversated in favor and against the Bolsheviks. Ahmed Zaki Validov was also one of the leaders of the Basmachi Movement (against the Soviets), chairman of the National Union of Turkistan, refugee in Iran, head of a secret organization that collaborated with Nazi Germany, and a multilingual academic with working experience in many countries (Turkey, Austria, Germany, US, Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.).
The Bashkir and Tatar Rizaeddin bin Fakhreddin (1858-1936; Ризаитдин Фахретдинович Фахретдинов) was a leading author, educator, and director of madrasah; he proved to be a very active member of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia (Центральное духовное управление мусульман России, which was then named Оренбургское магометанское духовное собрание/Assembly) at Ufa. As a systematic reformer, he came up (1905) with a comprehensive project, which he submitted to the aforementioned institution, also asking the imperial permission to allow them to extend their authority among the Kazakhs. This was rejected, because the imperial authorities believed that it would lead to a very centralized Muslim authority throughout their vast country. Fluent in many languages, he published extensively on topics of Islamic History, Philosophy, Spirituality and Jurisprudence.
The Kazakh Bakhytzhan Bisalievich Karataev (or Karatayev; 1863-1934; Бахытжан Бисалиевич Каратаев / Бақытжан Бейсәліұлы Қаратаев) graduated from the Orenburg gymnasium and the Faculty of Law in St. Petersburg, and then worked as bailiff and later as attorney. He participated (1905-1914) in the Cadets (кадет партия; the Constitutional Democratic Party), becoming the leader of the Ural-Kyrgyz group (which represented several nations). Elected in the Second State Duma, he was part of the Muslim group and the Siberian group. He confronted the czarist premier Stolypin’s policy of resettlement (переселенческая политика), because he viewed it as a threat for the interests of the indigenous nations. He was a prolific writer and contributor to many newspapers, and he assisted the Muslim faction of the Third State Duma, being dispatched (1907-1908) on behalf of the Kazakhs of the Steppe Governorate. He actively participated in the works of the 4th Muslim Congress (1914; St. Petersburg) that came up with great proposals of major reforms in the religious administration.
Opposing Russia’s participation in WWI, Karataev demonstrated remarkable foresight and real love for all the nations of the empire; he participated (December 1914) in the All-Russian Congress of Representatives of Muslim Public Organizations (Всероссийский съезд представителей мусульманских общественных организаций); after that point, he distanced himself from the Cadets and gradually became member of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) {Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия (большевиков)}. He was arrested (early 1918) and imprisoned for 9 months by the White Cossacks (a counterrevolutionary group in the South Urals), before assuming many positions during the early years of the Soviet administration (member of the Kirghiz Revolutionary Committee; delegate of the 1st and 2nd Congresses of Soviets of the Kirghiz ASSR; chairman of the Aktobe Provincial Collegium; employee in the State Archives of the KASSR in Aktobe). Following several disagreements with other local authorities, he withdrew and later was expelled from the Communist Party.
State Duma (2nd convocation) Muslim deputies; Bakhytzhan Karataev, first from left
u- Khalil Dosmukhamedov
The Kazakh Khalil Dosmukhamedov (Халел Досмухамедович Досмухамедов; 1883-1939) was the first Kazakh to feel the need for a political organization or party to defend the national interests of the Kazakhs, along with those of the other Turanian and Muslim nations of the empire. He graduated from the Ural Military Real School (Уральское военно-реальное училище) in 1902; he then entered the St. Petersburg Imperial Military Medical Academy (Санкт-Петербургская императорская военно-медицинская академия), which is now named Военно-медицинская академия имени С. М. Кирова (S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy). He served as medical doctor in the Perm province, in the 1st Turkistan, 2nd Ural Kazakh-Russian rifle battalion, and then in the Urals. In his book “How to deal with the Plague among the Kirghiz People”, he described in details the methods he used to combat the plague that broke in 1916.
His political career started with articles and strongly Jadidist proposals published as early as 1905 (in newspapers like Uralskiy Listok/уральский листок and Fiker/Фикер). He was member of the All-Russian Congress of Muslims in Moscow (May 1917), member of the 1st All-Kazakh Congress, member of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (November 1917), and member of the Kazakh party Alash (Алаш), which was allied with the Constitutional Democratic Party (rather known as the Cadets / from the first syllable of the first two words: Конституционно-демократическая партия).
He was member of the Alash Orda government, in March 1918, and along with others, he entered into negotiations with Lenin and Stalin with respect to Kazakhstan’s autonomy; after the dissolution of the Alash government (following the defeat of the White Army in 1920), he took part actively in the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Republic of Turkestan and later held several other positions in the USSR. Dosmukhamedov is today considered as the father of modern scientific research in Kazakhstan, because he contributed greatly to the establishment of regular academic education and scholarly exploration, also publishing many books. However, he was rather viewed suspiciously, arrested and exiled in the 1930s; before being executed, he died when hospitalized in 1938, but he was rehabilitated thanks to Nikita Khrushchev.
v- Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov
The Kazakh Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov {Жанша (Жаханша) Досмухамедов; 1887- 1938} was a leading Kazakh lawyer, scientist, author, translator, political activist, cultural reformer, and national statesman. He originated from a family of steppe shepherds, and after studying in a Russian-Kazakh moving school (Булдуртинская аульная передвижная русско-казахская школа) and in the one-year Russian-Kazakh secondary school (одноклассное русско-казахское училище) in Dzhambeity (Джамбейты; today Zhymbiti/Жымпиты), he enrolled in the Ural Military Real School in Uralsk {Уральское войсковое реальное училище; which is currently named after him (Высший педагогический колледж имени Жаханши Досмухамедова)} and then in the Faculty of Law (Moscow University). His studies, like those of almost all the Kazakh students, were financed by Kazakh foremen of the administrative districts from which the students originated. As student, he treated Russians with sympathy and respected Russian culture. He always supported a position of convergence between Russians and Kazakhs, which predetermined the Kazakh national stance toward Kazakh-Russian relationship.
As chairman of the Ural Regional Kazakh Committee, Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov participated in the All-Russian Congress of Muslims where he was elected deputy chairman. He formed the Uilsky Olyat government (the Western branch of Alash Orda) and therefore participated in the Alash government (proclaimed at the 2nd All-Kazakh Congress, in 1917). He was the jurist, who shaped the legal concept of Alash. In 1918-1919, along with his old schoolmate Khalil Dosmukhamedov, he negotiated with Lenin and Stalin. As a lawyer, he translated the Soviet civil and criminal codes to Kazakh, and he greatly contributed to the consolidation of the national culture. He was arrested and persecuted several times in the 1930s, and despite his sickness, he was executed in 1938, only to be rewarded with rehabilitation and recognition due to Nikita Khrushchev.
w- Saken Seifullin
The Kazakh Saken Seifullin (1894-1938; Сәкен Сейфуллин; Сәдуақас Сейфоллаұлы Сейфуллин) was a great poet and writer; he has been acknowledged as the father of Modern Kazakh Literature. In addition, he was the founder of the Union of Writers of Kazakhstan, and he proved also to be a remarkable statesman and a prominent member of the Bolshevik Communist Party. Member of the Argyn (Аргын/аргун) tribe (from the Middle Horde), he studied first in the Russian-Kazakh school of the Copper Smelter Plant at Spask (спасский медеплавильный завод; Karaganda region, i.e. NE Kazakhstan), which was built in the 1850s. He continued in the Akmola Primary School and in the 3-year Secondary School at Akmola (Акмолинское трёхклассное городское училище), and then he started teaching Russian language to Kazakh and other Muslim schoolchildren in a madrasa.
In 1913-1914, Seifullin entered the Omsk Vocational School for Teachers (Омская учительская семинария) and started publishing articles and writing poems in Kazakh, before becoming one of the pioneers of the Kazakh youth organization Birlik (‘Unity’). During that period, he befriended and collaborated with other young Kazakh activists, who took part in the Jadid Movement before becoming the leading intellectuals, academics, and statesmen of the Kazakh nation in the early 20th c., namely Magzhan Zhumabaev (Магжан Жумабаев), Zhanaydar Saduakasov (Жанайдар Садуакасов; Джанайдар Садвокасович Садвокасов), Nygymet Nurmakov (Ныгымет Нурмаков), Abylkhayyr Dosov (Абылхайыр Досов), Shaimerden Alzhanov (Шаймерден Алжанов).
In April 1917, Seifullin founded a society named Жас қазақ (Zhas Kazak/Young Kazakhs), the name of which alludes to the organization Genç Türkler (Young Turks) in the ailing Ottoman Empire; all the same, the cultural, ideological and socio-political identity of the Young Kazakhs was totally different from that of their Ottoman coreligionists. In the same year, Seifullin composed a pro-Soviet poem, which has been considered as the first piece of Kazakh Soviet literature. He was elected member of the presidium of the Akmola Soviet of deputies, and then appointed as People’s Commissar of Education. During the Civil War, Seifullin was arrested by the counterrevolutionaries, imprisoned and condemned to death, but managed to escape and survive. After the end of the hostilities, he assumed several positions in the early soviet administrations and later, in November 1922, the 3rd Congress of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) ASSR elected him as head of the government (‘Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Republic’). One month later, he was elected member of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR (Центральный исполнительный комитет СССР).
Seifullin deployed a great effort in order to change the wrong appellation and to impose the correct national name (‘Kazakh’ instead of ‘Kirghiz’) as that of the SSR, thus rightfully granting to his native tongue the status of state language. At this point, one must clarify that the confusion of names was due to the traditional Russian appellation of the Kazakhs and the Kirghiz: the former were known to Russians as Kirghiz-Kazaks (киргизы-казахи or also Киргиз-кайсаки) and the latter were called Kara-Kirghiz (кара-киргизы/Black Kirghiz). Seifullin is credited with the historic sentence “Let’s call the Kazakhs Kazakhs! Correct the mistakes! Until today, Russians called Kazakhs Kirghiz.” (Давайте называть казахов казахами, исправим ошибки. До сегодняшнего дня русские называли казахов киргизами.)
3rd Congress of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) ASSR: Saken Seifullin is in the second row, 2nd from left.Saken Seifullin as rector of the Kazakh Institute of Public Education, among students
Although he was well-known for his staunch pro-Soviet stance, for his impressive award (Order of the Red Banner of Labor), and for his outstanding contribution to the consolidation of the Soviet rule in Kazakhstan, despite his enormous engagement in the establishment of the Soviet academic life, and in spite of his commitment to the diffusion of Marxism-Leninism among the Muslims of Central Asia, Seifullin was arrested, sentenced and executed (1938), only to be rehabilitated under Khrushchev.
x- Mukysh Boshtayev
The Kazakh Mukysh Boshtayev (1897-1921; Мукыш Боштаев) was jurist, journalist, and political activist; he also became a leading member of the Alash Movement. This group proved to be one of the many efforts undertaken by Turanians and Muslims to implement the concepts and the ideals promoted by the Jadid Movement across a far wider area, not only Kazakhstan. In fact, the Alash Movement was the first Kazakh political party, and it formed a provisory government until the end of the Civil War (August 1920). This movement sought to consolidate the Kazakh identity, but it was divided around several issues, such as secular society, modern education, state run economy, free market, etc. Boshtayev published groundbreaking articles about Kazakh education, culture, autonomy, social organization and modernization. In 1917, he was elected as candidate for the All-Russian Constituent Assembly from the Semipalatinsk region, and at the 1st All-Kazakh Congress, he was nominated as a deputy from the Alash party. At the 2nd All-Kazakh Congress, he was elected in the Alash government (Orda). He died during the hostilities in an unknown location.
The Kazakh Alikhan Bukeikhanov (1866-1937; Алихан Нурмухамедович Букейханов) was one of the most determinant figures of Modern Kazakh History, first Kazakh Prime Minister (in the Alash Orda state), and one of the founders of the Alash Movement; he was a leading statesman, scientist, writer, secular intellectual, and member of the Communist Party. More importantly, he was a far descendent of Genghis Khan and the great-grandson of Barak Sultan, the khan of the Bukey Horde (see above: part VI 12th paragraph). This fact is also denoted in his family name: Bukeikhanov. From his mother’s side, he was a far descendent of the famous Mamai, the Khaqan of the Blue Horde (see above: part V no 7). Not only did his origin play an important role in his rise among the Kazakh Jadidists, but also his wholehearted commitment to the cause of Modern Kazakhstan reserved for him a truly distinct position. Making of his secular ideas a way of life, he was one of the very first Muslims in Imperial Russia to get married with a Russian Christian lady: Elena Yakovlevna Sevostianova (Елена Яковлевна Севостьянова). Even his son bore two personal names, one Christian and one Muslim (Sergei Oktay / Сергей Октай).
After studying in the Russian-Kazakh school, the Omsk Technical School, and the St. Petersburg Forestry Institute (Dept. of Economics), he worked on statistics also publishing articles in the newspaper Семипалатинские областные ведомости (Semipalatinsk Regional Statements); in young age (24), he changed his name from Nurmukhamedov (surname after his father’s name) to Bukeikhanov (after his tribe’s name), which is clear indication of Kazakh national identity. Quite interestingly, in 1904, he willingly participated in the expedition of the Russian Cossack scholar and leading statistician (also known as the ‘Father’ of Russian Zemstvo Statistics), and Narodnik politician Fyodor Andreyevich Sherbina to prepare for a mass resettlement of peasants from Central Russia to the Steppe region of Kazakhstan. His commitment is of critical importance for us today, because it clearly demonstrates that, as early as the first years of the 20th c., the Kazakhs -quite contrarily to the then criminal Anglo-French colonial attempts and in full rejection of the current, nonsensical and utterly fallacious Western bibliography and diplomatic pretentions- did not view the Russian conquest as an inimical invasion by an alien force, but as a re-congregation of all the Turanian, Slavic and Northern Asiatic nations under a fraternal, progressive and reinvigorating plan.
Bukeikhanov represented the mainstream of Kazakh intelligentsia that was oriented toward modernization, educational improvement, cultural revival, and national re-awakening. At the time, they named this trend, concept, tendency and approach ‘Westernization’ (Западничество or западническое направление/Western direction), but in reality they meant that the Kazakhs and the other Turanian and Muslim nations of the region needed to follow the example of the Russians and to empower themselves in order to successfully compete with all the leading nations of the world; in fact, their approaches and ideals were finally implemented not in the Soviet Union but in Turkey of Kemal Ataturk. That’s why in the 1900s, most of the Jadidists, irrespective of their later career path and theoretical-ideological choices, felt close to, and were allied with, the Cadets (Constitutional Democratic Party) whose official name was ‘Party of People’s Freedom’. Strong in his anti-colonial determination, Bukeikhanov opposed both, the czarist effort to colonize Kazakhstan and the nonsensical anachronism of the imams, the mullahs and the traditional Tatar merchants.
The political career of Alikhan Bukeikhanov started with his participation in the All-Russian Congress of Local (Agrarian and Municipal) Authorities’ Representatives (общероссийский съезд земских и городских деятелей), which took place in Moscow on 6th-13th November 1905; there he identified himself as the spokesman of “four million Kirghiz (: Kazakh)” and condemned the persecution of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) medium schools. However, these points need to be carefully examined, because on similar statements are based modern Western misinterpretations and distortions of Asiatic, Turanian and Russian History. The czarist persecution of these schools was not denounced by Bukeikhanov on racist Anti-Russian grounds; more specifically, he decried the czarist censorship, because it did not allow the translation (from Russian to Kazakh) of 46 fables by Ivan Andreyevich Krylov (1769-1844; Иван Андреевич Крылов). In other words, Bukeikhanov wanted to bring the two nations -the Kazakhs and the Russians- educationally, culturally, and intellectually closer.
Member of the Cadet Party after 1905, Bukeikhanov was elected and participated in the Central Committee from 1906 to 1917; known for the numerous newspapers that he edited, for the Vyborg Manifsto (Выборгское воззвание) that he signed, and for his steadfast struggle for autonomy, he was elected in the 1st State Duma from the Semipalatinsk region. He was repeatedly imprisoned, banned from elections, and forced to contractual exile in Samara. In the early 1910s he became member of the pro-French Freemasonic political organization ВВНР (Великий восток народов России/Great Orient of the Peoples of Russia) and of the Lodge Чермак (Chermak) in St. Petersburg. After the February Revolution (1917), he disagreed with the Cadets (notably on the issue of autonomy for Kazakhstan) and left the party. He used his experience to create {with others, notably Akhmet Baitursynov (1872-1937; Ахмет Байтурсынов) and Mirzhakip Dulatov (1885-1935; Миржакип Дулатов)} the Kazakh political organization Alash in order to participate in the Constituent Assembly of Russia (November 1917-January 1918; Всероссийское учредительное собрание). Bukeikhanov participated in the congress of the Siberian autonomists (Сибирская областная дума) in Tomsk (December 1917) where the Kazakhs were given full autonomy as part of the short-lived Siberian Republic (Сибирская республика; 4th June – 3rd November 1918).
At Bukeikhanov’s initiative, at the 2nd All-Kazakh Kurultai (General Assembly; with more than 200 delegates), the Alash autonomy was discussed; the historic event was held in Orenburg (December 1917-January 1918). The final decision was postponed for a month, but the autonomy was de facto valid and most of today’s Kazakhstan’s territory was ruled autonomously. The Kazakh autonomous government, Alash Orda, participated in the Civil War against the Soviet government, and because of this situation, Bukeikhanov and other members of the government had to hide for a long period. Around the end of 1919, the Bolsheviks prevailed, the Alash Orda had to capitulate, and the first Kazakh Prime Minister, who considered Lenin’s rise to power as an illegal event, had to abandon his ambitions and political career in order to achieve a nominal recognition of the Kazakh autonomy. Among Kazakhs, the pro-Soviet activists of the party Ush Zhuz (Уш жуз) opposed Bukeikhanov’s ideas. He therefore preferred to work in the fields of culture, education, academic research, and publications; in the 1920s, he worked for several years as literary employee in the Central Publishing House of the Peoples of the USSR (in Moscow). In the late 1920s and the 1930s, he was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned; last, in 1937, he was condemned to death and executed. It is only in 1989 that the verdict of the Supreme Commissariat of the USSR Armed Forces was canceled as unfounded, Bukeikhanov was posthumously acquitted, and his reputation restored. About:
XI. The Jadid Movement between Imperial Russia and the USSR: the Secular Nature of the Kazakhs and the other Muslims of Central Asia
The above brief portraits represent only a small number of intellectuals, scholars, activists, journalists and politicians, who formed the Jadid Movement, but they are quite representative. They allow every reader understand that the formidable movement, which shook Northwestern, Northern, Central and Northeastern Asia and Eastern Europe, was actually an enormous intellectual nebula, which comprised people of very different ethnic backgrounds, diverse walks of life, distinct theoretical directions, disparate ideological motivations, divergent philosophical opinions, and varied political intentions.
Under this title, one can find Muslim secularists, Turanian nationalists, anti-czarist progressives, pro-Russian socialists, liberal economy supporters, social reformists, educational pioneers, Islamic modernists, revivalists of the Golden Era of Islam, cultural identity advocates, pan-Turanianists, pan-Islamists, propagandists of a variably and differently conceived Westernization, and even Muslim traditionalists. Men from all the walks of life were actually in tune with some of the concepts advanced and the principles heralded by the Jadid Movement. However, it is noteworthy that none of the Jadidists supported the so-called ‘Turkish History Thesis’; neither can one find liberal Kemalists among them. This is clearly shown in the case of the Azeri scholar, theoretician, author, journalist and politician Ahmet Ağaoğlu (1869-1939; Ахмед бек Агаоглу or Ахмед-бек Агаев), a student of the French Orientalist Ernest Renan and an associate of the French Iranologist James Darmesteter, who finally got naturalized Turk, became a close adviser of Kemal Atatürk, was elected in the Turkish Parliament, and served in several positions.
If there is an ideologically critical common denominator for all the Jadidists, this is certainly the notion of ‘awakening’; this was brilliantly elaborately by many among them, notably the Kazakh Mirzhakip Dulatov, one of the founders of Alash, who published (in Ufa) the historic book ‘Awake, Kazakh!’ (Оян, қазақ!) in 1909. Other outstanding Kazakh Jadidists were the following intellectuals, activists and politicians: Valid Khan Sherafedinovich Tanachev (1882-1968; Валидхан Шерафеддинович Таначев), Bakhtygerei Ahmetovich Kulmanov (1857-1919; Бахтигирей Ахметович Кулманов), Muhammedjan Tynyshpaevich Tynyshpaev (1879-1937; Мухамеджан Тынышпаевич Тынышпаев), Koshmuhambet Duysebaiuly Kemengerov (1896-1937; Кошмухамбет Дуйсебайулы Кеменгеров), Smagul Sadvakasov (1900-1933; Смагул Садвакасов), and Ylyas Omarovich Omarov (1910-1970; Ильяс Омарович Омаров).
Mirzhakip Dulatov (1885-1935; Миржакип Дулатов – Міржақып Дулатұлы) first from right / From: https://novoetv.kz/myrzhakyp-dulatov-fakty-iz-zhizni/Old customs in Jadid intellectuals’ daily life: Dulatov (middle) smoking narguilé (hookah) – Миржакип Дулатов с кальяном 5 мая 1921 года, Ташкент / Mirzhakip Dulatov on 5th May 1921 in Tashkent / From: https://interesnoe.me/view2/content
If there is a politically critical common denominator for all the Jadidists, this is certainly the fact that most of the Jadidists born in the 2nd half of the 19th c. were either forced to emigrate {like the Tatar Musa Bigiev (see above part X unit e) and the Azeri Adil Khan Ziyadkhanov (Адиль Хан Абульфат Хан оглы Зиятханов; 1870-1957)} or killed in wars that took place after the end of WWI (like Adil Khan Ziyadkhanov’s older brother Ismail Khan Ziyadkhanov; 1867-1920; Исмаил Хан Абульфат Хан оглы Зиятханов) or decimated (like the Uzbek Abdulhamid Sulaymon oʻgʻli Yunusov, who became rather known as Choʻlpon, his penname; 1893-1938; Абдулхамид Сулейман угли Чулпан) in the Yezhovshchina (Ежовщина), i.e. the Great Purge in 1930s’ USSR, during which Stalin sought to eradicate any pro-Trotsky elements or disappeared without leaving any traces (like the Bashkir Sharafutdin Abdulgalimovich Kulbakov; 1849-?; Шарафутдин Абдулгалимович Кульбаков).
As I already said, the Jadid Movement is absolutely irrelevant to the Genç Türkler (Young Turks) Movement; there cannot be comparison even at the practical-factual level. The Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti) ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 to 1918, whereas the Alash Autonomy was a short-lived state, which controlled a small part of the territory that it claimed to represent and lasted only for few months, before being dragged into the Civil War and subsequently defeated. In addition, it has to be taken into consideration that the Bolsheviks initially viewed positively the demands of many nations for autonomy, due to then prevailing ideas and Lenin’s fundamental theory about ‘the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (which was also the title of a book published in May 1914 by the head of the Bolsheviks: О праве наций на самоопределение).
On the other hand, it has to be underscored that the Jadid Movement was totally different from the so-called Islamic Modernism, which has been a fake, Western colonial fabrication geared by French and English Orientalists in order to deliberately plunge all the Muslims, who have been living in their colonies, into a pathetic anachronism, obsolete concepts, fake dilemmas, and the impossible idea that the measures and the criteria of an outdated period can be matched with modern socio-economic standards, political systems, and technological determinism.
Actually, it would be more accurate to specify that the Jadid Movement was diametrically opposed to the nonsense that French and English Freemasons meticulously projected onto naïve, gullible and unsophisticated people like Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Mahmud Shaltut, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and others in order to definitely engulf them in a spiritual, ideological, intellectual, and educational impasse, and to therefore make them genuinely unable to achieve a proper nation building process.
Today, what is called ‘Islamic Modernism’ is -in reality- a religious reductionism, a dogmatic rigidity, a theological heresy, a spiritual sterility, a catastrophic ignorance of the Islamic Civilization, and an unprecedented identitarian crisis inextricably mixed with abject immorality, grave lack of piety, total disregard for the human being, materialistic conceptualization of the world, ridiculous political eschatology, and full compliance with the anti-Islamic interests of the anti-Christian colonial powers. As a matter of fact, all the figureheads of the Jadid Movement were at the very antipodes of the reactionary movement of ‘Islamic Modernism’. About:
The czarist control of Central Asia did not happen without several types of problems and inconveniences; but this does not mean that the various revolts were due to a direct rejection of the Russian conquest. It is well-known that the long period of decay prior to the czarist rule was filled with intra-Turanian and intra-Muslim factionalism and endless hostilities. This means that we cannot afford to take let’s say a one-day event, like the so-called Andijan Rebellion (Андижанский мятеж или Киргизско-Андижанское восстание; 17 May 1898; Andijan being a 2500-year old, historical city located in the Fergana Valley, in today’s Uzbekistan, not far from the borders of Kyrgyzstan), as an expression of either national Kirghiz or religious Islamic resistance against the czarist government. First, it was not a mass revolt; second, it had genuinely tribal character; third, it was not timely supported or posteriorly defended by any prominent figure of the Jadid Movement. On the contrary, all people affiliated with this movement reviled the backward leader of the misfortunate event.
Biased historians, academic forgers, vicious political scientists, and ignorant geopolitical analysts of today’s corrupt Western countries promote their fallacious dogmas and approaches, systematically trying to export their false historical model onto all the lands that the colonial countries of the West (England, France, and more recently the US) did not conquer, notably throughout the Caucasus region, Central Asia, Russia and China. To do so, these mendacious and disreputable academics highly politicize, ideologize, and fully distort several events (like the one-day so-called Andijan Rebellion) in order to integrate them (not as true, historical events anymore but as factoids) into their pseudo-historical version as per which Russians would have always been the ‘aggressors’, the ‘enemies’ of the Turks (or all Turkic nations) and the ‘oppressors’ of Muslims. That’s absurd and ludicrous. Any Muslim, who believes and accepts the vicious lies of Western (and Western-educated Muslim) academics, diplomats and politicians, is an infidel and an idiot.
As a matter of fact, the root causes of the Andijan Incident go back to a period that antedates the Russian conquest by several decades; the leader of the few hundreds of Kirghiz rebels, Muhammad Ali Madali (Мухаммад Али Мадали; 1856-1898), who was also known as Dukchi Ishan (Дукчи-ишан), had already revolted many times against Sayid Muhammad Khudayar Khan III (or just Khudayar Khan; Сайид Мухаммед Худояр-хан III / خدايارخان), the last true ruler of the Kokand Khanate (1829-1886; reign: 1844-1875).
If we now examine closely what occurred during the three decades of Khudayar Khan’s rule in Kokand, we will soon realize the indescribable extent of lawlessness that prevailed among the decayed, self-destructive, and multi-divided local tribes. In fact, his rule was interrupted four times (1851 by one usurper; 1858-1862 by two other usurpers; 1862 by two other usurpers; 1862-1865 by three other usurpers and by a surviving earlier usurper) and, at the end of his reign, Khudoyar Khan asked the help of the Turkestan Governor-General (a czarist officer) and finally in 1875, he fled to Tashkent under the protection of Russian troops.
Muhammad Ali Madalithe location of Andijan
His son, Nasir al-din Khan (Насриддин-бек или Насриддин-хан; 1850-1877), participated in the revolt against his father, which was undertaken by some tribal leaders and sheikhs, and succeeded his father. Few months later, he signed an agreement with Russia in order to concentrate his efforts on the internal front, only to be soon overthrown by the unruly tribal leaders, i.e. the likes of Pulat khan (1844-1876; Пулат-хан; his true name was Ishaq Hasan uglu / Исхак Хасан-уулу.), Muhammad Ali Madali, and Abdurahman Aftobachi (1844-1884; Абдурахман-автобачи). He made a brief comeback in January 1876 only to escape to Tashkent, as the ill-fated Khanate was duly and ultimately abolished. However, quite indicative of the then prevailing conditions was the fact that, while he was the bek (bey) of the Andijan vilayet (under his father’s authority: 1865-1875), Nasir al-din had to annually spend the whole administrative district’s income available in order to build several -otherwise useless- luxurious madrasahs and the magnificent Jami mosque only to appease and please the fancy of pathetic local sheikhs and tribal leaders, who could not make sense of the misery in which they found themselves.
The final outcome of the Andijan Incident (which was not a rebellion) involved few Russian casualties, namely 22 dead and 16 wounded soldiers. Most of the lawless and unruly elements of the Kokand Khanate were arrested (546 men), condemned to forced labor or exiled in Siberia (356); the leaders were executed (18 men) and the rest were allowed free (163). There were no Kazakhs involved in this incident, but the importance of the fact today lies rather in its misinterpretation, and as such it offers a model of historical falsification that biased Western scholars try to reproduce when writing about topics of ‘National History’ for all the nations of Central Asia. For this reason, I examined it closely. About:
XIII. Misinterpretation of the History of Central Asia by Local Academics-Victims of Western Embassies & US-UK Institutions
To reveal the entire spectrum of the historical event and to offer a better insight into the historical evolution, I have to herewith denounce the fallacious, ahistorical, and absolutely biased perspectives that several modern scholars try to suggest as regards the History of the Russian Conquest of Central Asia. I must add that, after 1991, the unnecessary presence of Western embassies, consulates, institutes and academics in all the Central Asiatic states is the main reason for the systematic and methodical historical revisionism, which has been undertaken in many countries of the region – not without serious damages caused to all these targeted states.
This forgery has been performed under concealed, malignant and disastrous Western guidance; as a matter of fact, this phenomenon usually takes the form of academic-educational exchanges involving an incredible number of invitations, scholarships, and other types of duplicitous and malicious cooperation by which gullible Central Asiatic scholars are being bought up by the criminal Western elites and their academic gangsters in order to accept the fallacious Western version of History and further reproduce it only for the sake of destruction of their own countries.
The misinterpretation of the History of Russia and Central Asia, undertaken by Western colonial institutions, pseudo-scholars-propagandists, and fake universities attained levels of extreme forgery and paroxysm, notably in the case of Kazakhs and the Cossacks, who are of exactly the same ethnic origin but are fallaciously portrayed as different. / From: https://www.altyn-orda.kz/kazaxi-i-kazaki-poteryannoe-proshloe/ and edq.kz/2020/05/02/казахи-предки-казаков/
The vicious historical revisionism, promoted by the Western diplomatic and academic criminals throughout Central Asia, causes detrimental destruction at the academic, intellectual, educational, and political levels. This is so because, within the context of the Western fallacy, which is projected onto the unsuspicious populations of those states, all wrong political ideas, concepts, thoughts and choices are founded on monstrous historical distortions, gross forgery, and unprecedented anti-Russian racism. Misperceiving their nations’ past (through the deceitful, evil schemes of the Western universities, institutes and publications), many Central Asiatic academics inevitably misinterpret their National History, thus ending up with a fake national identity, calamitously wrong political choices, and self-destructive foreign policy.
This situation leads to a catastrophic political trouble; whereas the establishment of all the Central Asiatic countries fully and clearly realizes the ne cessity for close cooperation and alliance with Russia, China and Iran, several gullible academicians, misguided due to the temptations advanced by Western embassies, universities and other institutions, produce fallacious literature (of divisive, anti-Russian, and anti-secular character) about the local national past. This literature is then duly and timely popularized by other local stooges of the Western embassies (i.e. journalists, NGOs, activists, sheikhs and intellectuals) and subsequently diffused among the uneducated masses that the Western gangsters want to fanaticize in order to manipulate against the local governments. This is the typical action plan of the criminal Western elites.
I will now offer two typical examples of fallacious and pernicious academic articles, which clearly mislead local Muslim Turanians, giving them the impression that the Czarist armies acted as foreign invaders, harmed the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Turkmen, the Tajiks, the Kirghiz, the Azeris and the other nations of the Caucasus region and Central Asia, and deprived the Muslims and the Turanians of their own homelands and stripped them of their independence. As I already explained in the case of the Andijan Incident, this assertion is entirely false, because during the 19th c. and until the unification with czarist Russia, all the Central Asiatic peoples were divided across tribal and sectarian lines, killing one another in a way that the criminal Western Anglo-Saxon gangsters passionately want to revive.
Two Tajik scholars, Prof. Nazirjon Ochilovich Tursunov (Назирджон Очилович Турсунов) and Buston Rahmonovich Tursunov (Бустон Рахмонович Турсунов), wrote, in the trilingual (Russian, Uzbek and English) abstract that they added at the beginning of their article Героическая борьба народов Северной Ферганы за свободу и упразднение кокандского ханства {The heroic struggle of the peoples of Northern Fergana for freedom and the abolition of the Kokand Khanate: УДК (Универсальная десятичная классификация) 93 ББК (Библиотечно-библиографическая классификация) 63.5(5Т)-3 (p. 11-14) / https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/geroicheskaya-borba-narodov-severnoy-fergany-za-svobodu-i-uprazdnenie-kokandskogo-hanstva}, that following the agreement signed (22 September 1875) between the Kokand Khanate (Nasir al-din Khan) and Russia, “the peoples of Fergana united and continued the struggle against the occupation of their homeland. From October to the end of December, the population of the entire territory of Namangan division waged a struggle against occupation“.
That’s absurd because the uprising was against the Khan, and not the Russians; even worse, the catastrophic event only precipitated the final annexation of the Kokand Khanate by Russia. In a rather non-academic language, the two scholars expand on the topic, inciting fanaticism and anti-Russian hatred, while totally misinterpreting the situation that led to the decomposition and the final collapse of the ill-fated khanate (“Particularly, strong resistance was the population of Namangan-city. November 23-27, 1875 the majority of the population of Oshoba organizedly defending their village showed unprecedented heroism. Skobelev’s punitive detachments brutally cracked down on civilians destroying the population, robbing and organizing arson of their houses – a sakley, as they themselves called them in the sources“). Quite dishonestly, the two professors offer no historical proof in support of their assertion that ‘the majority of the population’ resisted against the Russian forces; in fact, there is no such proof. The only problem that really existed in the said khanate was the weakening of khan’s authority, which was due to the gradual strengthening of the divisive and corrupt elements, i.e. the tribal leaders and the ignorant sheikhs.
Николай Николаевич Каразин, Тревога в крепостном редуте (Нападение кокандцев на казачий выселок Узун–Агач) / Nikolai Nikolaevich Karazin, Anxiety in the Fortress Redoubt (Attack of the Kokandians on the Cossack settlement of Uzun-Agach) / From: https://humus.livejournal.com/5894897.html
With such unfounded statements, which do not help scholars, students and average readership get an accurate understanding of the historical events but merely promote Western anti-Russian propaganda in Central Asia, one can easily understand why Prof. Nazirjon Ochilovich Tursunov was triumphantly included in the encyclopedic and otherwise propagandistic catalogue that an Iranian-American scholar, Prof. Iraj Bashiri (who is also known to have worked for the Tajik division of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty !!), elaborated a while back (in 2003) for English-speaking academics: Prominent Tajik Figures of the Twentieth Century (https://www.academia.edu/7858297/Prominent_Tajik_Figures_of_the_Twentieth_Century). About Prof. Nazirjon Ochilovich Tursunov:
ttps://tg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Назирҷон_Турсунов
The second example of misleading academic publication is offered by Prof. Buston Rahmonovich Tursunov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Fatherland History and Archeology {under the SEI “KhSU named after Acad. B. Gafurov” (Tajikistan, Khujand)}; in his article Героическая оборона крепости Махрам и ее значение в истории Кокандского ханства {Heroic Defence of Mahram Fortress and its Importance in the History of Kokand Khanate, УДК 930 ББК 63.3(543.0) / http://vestnik.tj/hum_dok/2020/n2/RU/Tursunov_B.R..pdf), he added a trilingual (Russian, Uzbek and English) abstract in which he wrote (about the Battle of the Mahram Fortress) the following: “one of the heroic and tragic pages of the history of the Tajik people which took place on August 22, 1875. It is shown how Tajik together with the representatives of other nations of Kokand khanate organized a heroic defense of the fortress“.
This is totally misleading; the term ‘Tajik’ was historically used as a designation of ‘settled Iranian villagers’ in contrast to the nomadic populations. There was no Tajik nation at the end of the 19th c.; this is a modern construction. At the time, all Tajiks identified themselves as Iranians. Indeed, either in Afghanistan or in Tajikistan, the Tajiks are Farsi-speaking Iranians, who can also be called ‘Eastern Iranians’, because of the geographic location of their homeland. The fabrication of Afghanistan was an English colonial trick providing for the division of Iran. Even worse, the Battle of the Mahram Fortress was engaged because unruly elements of the Kokand Khanate did not want to accept the peace with the Russians that their rightful leadership had already concluded.
As a matter of fact, it is extremely wrong to speak of ‘representatives of other nations of Kokand khanate’, because there were not many different nations in this khanate, but one: ‘Muslims’. The multilingual character of the said state was quite natural, and all the Muslims constituted (and believed that they constitute) one nation. At the time, no one identified himself as member of what we now call ‘an ethnic group’ throughout the Fergana Valley. Tribal divisions existed indeed, but not along ‘ethnic’ lines or on the basis of nationalist argumentation. Describing the defense of Mahram Fortress as ‘heroic’ consists in a vicious misinterpretation of this historical fact in which several lawless tribal leaders were proven idiotic enough to bring about the destruction of their khanate, as they had already fomented numerous revolts against their last khans. After all, one has to underscore the fact that hundreds of Kazakh cavalry units were also fighting along with the Russians, against the Kokand lawless rebels. There were no sectarian criteria involved in that event; this is the historical truth. It was neither a Christian-Muslim clash nor a Russian-Tajik/Uzbek war. About:
It would surely be mendacious to pretend that, in the late 19th and early 20th c., the situation across the czarist territories of Central Asia was pertinent and impeccable. There were certainly many problems; but they had nothing to do with all the ethnic, national and religious divides that today’s Western colonial academics intend to invent and fabricate (and constantly do so) in their disreputable institutions and publications, before exporting them at the local level.
The czarist authorities found it preferable to carry out a great deal of Turkification mainly in the territories of the former khanates of Samarqand and Bukhara, which correspond to the largest part of today’s Uzbekistan. Although Tajik (an eastern dialect of Farsi) was the predominant language in those areas, it receded significantly during the 20th c. This resulted in a strange phenomenon of discrepancy between official demographic data and average people claims about their ethnic origin in post-1991 Uzbekistan; as per the State Statistics Committee, Tajiks make 5% of the country’s total population; however, independent researchers persistently report that 20-25% of the population pretend to be ethnically Tajik, although the majority among them do not speak Tajik anymore.
Czarist rule in Central Asia was a matter of monumental failure, administrative incapability, and extensive corruption. The reasons for this situation lie in the very conservative, extremely confused, and utterly self-catastrophic nature of the czarist regime; the imperial administration first, was foolish enough to consider Russia as a ‘Western’ (or ‘European’) Empire; second, the imperial elite used to view all Muslims, Buddhists, Tengrists and Shamanists as barbarians (which was self-disastrous for Russia); and third, they did not want to cooperate with the numerous progressive elements among the Kazakhs and the other Muslim peoples of Central Asia. It appears bizarre, but it is true: the czarists preferred to deal with their worst enemies, i.e. the most reactionary elements of the Muslim societies, the sheikhs and the various tribal leaders, instead of embracing the evidently pro-Russian, progressive intellectuals and the enlightened mystics. This disastrous choice caused an explosion in the middle 1910s. No one can cooperate with untrustworthy elements without facing the consequences.
The briefly described situation became soon widely known among the ailing czarist administration. Konstantin Konstantinovich Pahlen (1861-1923; Константин Констанович Пален; known in German as Konstantin Johann Georg von der Pahlen), a leading Russian statesman and explorer, governor and senator (of German origin), was tasked by the czar (1908-1909) to chair a commission, examine the imperial administration in Central Asia, and report on the prevailing conditions. Pahlen uncovered detrimental abuses carried out by the czarist officials. His monumental and multi-voluminous report is the most important historical document for the History of Central Asia during the reign of Nikolai II. About:
Пален К. К., Всеподданнейшая записка, содержащая, главнейшие выводы отчета о произведенной в 1908–1909 гг. по Высочайшему повелению, Сенатором Гофмейстером графом К. К. Паленом ревизии Туркестанского края. Ч. 1–2. СПб., 1910. С. 3. (Po vysochaishemu poveleniyu Senatorom gofmeisterom gr. K. K.
Palenom, revizii Turkestanskogo kraya / Report to the Tsar, Comprising the Main Conclusions of the Inspection of the Turkestan Region Carried out in 1908-1909 on the Highest Authority by Senator Hofmeister Count K. K. Pahlen; Ch. 1–2. SPb., 1910. S. 3.)
With the hindsight that we now have, we can understand that the Russian conquest of Central Asia was an ill-conceived and erroneously implemented project, which would have been carried out with a remarkable success, had not the Russian monarchical, military, academic, educational and intellectual elite not been so blindly pro-Western and so disastrously unaware of their true ethnic and cultural identity. This was indeed confirmed in multiple cases, notably the (Prime Minister) Stolypin (Столыпин) reforms (Столыпинская аграрная реформа), which were introduced after the Russian peasants’ revolt (1905-1906) during the period 1906-1912, when around half a million households were offered the possibility to be transported to the wider region of Central Asia and possess land lots there. In the beginning, Russians and ‘natives’ were residing in different districts, despite the fact that many Jadid intellectuals were apparently pro-Russian.
Troublesome internal affairs and disastrous foreign policy brought about the end of czarist Russia. The dissatisfaction of Central Asiatic Turanian Muslim populations increased because of another calamitous choice that Nikolai II was gullible enough to make, namely to ally Christian Orthodox Russia with the malignant and duplicitous, colonial states of France and England, thus becoming the enemy of the Kaiser and the Sultan, who were ipso facto the Russian monarch’s natural allies. The early successes of the Russian Caucasus Army against the Ottoman Empire and the occupation of Van (17 May 1915), Erzerum (16 February 1916), Trabzon (15 April 1916), and Erzincan (2 July 1916) caused great resentment among the Turanian populations of Central Asia, even more so because the Constantinople sheikhulislam had declared Holy War (Jihad) in 1914.
The successive disastrous defeats of the Russian armies by the German army in the eastern front forced finally czar Nicholas II to issue (25 June 1916) a decree for the conscription of Central Asian men from the age of 19 to 43; they were necessary for the Brusilov Offensive (Брусиловский прорыв), i.e. against Austria-Hungary. This decree caused what is now called Central Asiatic rebellion of 1916 (Среднеазиатское восстание 1916 года); naming these events a ‘rebellion’ is certainly an exaggeration, because they consisted merely in a series of uncoordinated unrests and spontaneous protests.
The agitators were mobs controlled by tribal chieftains, small groups of peasants fanaticized by local backward sheikhs, and local young men who did not want to participate in WWI. The rebels carried out many atrocities, before being eliminated by Russian, Kazakh, Tatar and other officers of the czarist army. The incidents took place in July-September 1916 without involving a great number of protesters or casualties. It must be underscored that leading Kazakh political and intellectual figures, notably Alikhan Bukeikhanov and Akhmet Baitursynov (see above, part X, unit y), steadfastly opposed the extremist tactics of the obscurantist sheikhs and the fanaticized terrorists. The Alash Movement rejected all grounds for local opposition to the czarist decree.
Семён Афанасьевич Чуйков, Бегство киргизов в Китай / Symeon Chuykov, The flight of the Kirghizians to ChinaКазачий отряд в Туркестане – Cossack detachment in TurkestanTelegram about the beginning of the unrest: 8 August 1916Чон Уркун (“Большой Исход”). Исход киргизов в Китай в 1916 году; Киргизский государственный исторический музей / Chong Urkun (“Great Exodus”). Exodus of the Kirghiz to China in 1916; Kyrgyz State Historical MuseumВооруженные повстанцы Туркестана / Armed rebels of Turkestan
However, these events triggered an enormous, astounding ‘exodus’ of mainly Kirghiz (but also Kazakh and Uzbek) populations from Central Asia to China (Eastern Turkestan, today’s Xinjiang). It is true that this fact attributed a certain epic character to those events, as thousands of people moved through the cliffs, the narrow valleys, and the passes of the Tian Shan Mountains, walking at high elevation and in adverse weather conditions. The descendants of those populations still live in Eastern Turkestan today, being Chinese citizens. About:
The so-called Central Asiatic rebellion of 1916 became a most controversial issue in the modern historiography. The number of casualties has been systematically exaggerated by English and American propagandists and disreputable academics whose priorities are set by the mendacious and duplicitous diplomats, military, and intelligence of those criminal states. In fact, the event was only the prelude of the Basmachi Revolt.
What is called ‘Basmachi Revolt’ is rather the Central Asiatic version of the event, which is generally known as counter-revolution or White Army. The term is derived from a word common in many Turkic languages: basma (raid). The word basmacı is formed with the ending – cı (-ji or –chi); it means the ‘raider’, the ‘robber’ or the ‘bandit’. Another term was also used by local Turanian authorities: baskıncı; this word denotes the ‘raider’ or the ‘attacker’, and it also has a very pejorative meaning. The Russian-Soviet authorities used the term Басмачи and formed the term Басмачество (or басмаческое движение/Basmachi Movement) for the civil unrest that took place in the late 1910s and the early 1920s in parts of the Russian-Soviet Central Asia.
The Central Asiatic territories annexed by Imperial Russia and inherited by the Soviets, which are today divided among Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, can be geographically categorized as a) deserts (mainly in Turkmenistan), b) steppes (mainly in Kazakhstan), c) fertile plains (mainly in Uzbekistan) and d) mountains (the southern parts of all five states). Within this vast area that totals more than 4 million km2 (Kazakhstan 2725000 km2; Turkmenistan 488000 km2; Uzbekistan 447000 km2; Kyrgyzstan 200000 km2; Tajikistan 141000 km2), the mountains are located in the southern extremities.
This means that the easiest regions for people to wage a rebellion in were the frontier lands close to the borders of Iran, Afghanistan and China (in Eastern Turkestan / Xinjiang). Particularly Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are extremely mountainous territories, since Tian Shan Mountains cover ca. 80% of the former and Pamir Mountains cover almost the totality of the latter countries. The largest part of Tajikistan’s territory is higher than 3000 m above sea level. It is worthy saying that the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (bordering with Kyrgyzstan in the north, China in the east, and Afghanistan in the south), which makes almost half the land area of Tajikistan, is inhabited by only 3% of the country’s population because of difficulty of the precipitous terrain.
The Basmachi Revolt, as historical term, covers incidents that took place in Fergana (first and second phases), Chorasmia (Хорезм /خوارزم; Khwarazm or Khawarizm or Khorezm; the Western part of today’s Uzbekistan), Bukhara, and Samarqand. A fully particular aspect of the counter-revolution phenomenon concerns the so-called Trans-Caspian Government (in the area of today’s Turkmenistan) and the English colonial Malleson mission. In the central and northern parts of today’s Kazakhstan the Basmachi Revolt took the form of Alash Autonomy (see above, part X, unit y).
a- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (first phase)
The most striking geomorphological particularity across the entire region is the Fergana Valley (Ферганская долина или Фергана; Фарғона водийси; Фергана өрөөнү; водии Фарғона; وادی فرغانه; 費爾幹納盆地), which is today divided among Kyrgyzstan (the valley’s eastern part), Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan (the western confines). Protected by high mountains all around and crossed by two rivers that come together to form the famous Syr Darya River (known as Iaxartes to Ancient Greeks and Romans), Fergana Valley has an area of about 25000 km2 and was for more than two millennia a high point of culture, wisdom, spirituality, arts, sciences and trade.
Being a mythical land of many Iranian and Turanian legends, literatures, and folklore traditions, an outstanding spot in the Silk Road, and a melting pot of numerous Iranian, Turanian and other nations and civilizations, Fergana was also the land of great fighters, formidable heroes, luminous mystics, and erudite scholars. With all this in mind and knowing that, in the beginning of the 20th c., the remotest places were left to the hands of backward tribal leaders, we can easily understand why all those mountainous areas, which had scarce communication with Russia’s major urban centers, became the center of the opposition to the successive czarist, republican and soviet governments. The major centers of unrest were the cities of Kokand, Andijan and Namangan, i.e. Fergana Valley’s part that belongs today to Uzbekistan.
In early 1917, the Jadid Movement and the Bolsheviks had several points of common understanding, and more importantly, they agreed on the need for autonomous rule to be granted to every nation or ethnic-religious group. For the Bolsheviks, the strict adherence of the Jadidists to the Bolshevik socioeconomic program would function as a ‘guarantee’ for their autonomous government; but this reality was not accurately perceived by the majority of the Jadidists. Even worse, as I have already described, the divergence of opinions among them was vast.
For reasons particular to the conditions of social life among the Muslim societies of Central Asia, most of the Jadidists, who were members of the All-Russian Muslim Council, found it opportune to set up an Islamic Council (Shura-i Islam) and share power with other Muslims. The main target was to proclaim an autonomous state and to isolate tribal leaders, conservative and backward elements and sheikhs. These reactionary elements wanted to secede from Russia/Soviet Union and establish a religious state based on what they called ‘religious law’ (Sharia), which in fact was their own, erroneous and mean, interpretation of the Islamic Fiqh. These elements opposed the Jadid intellectuals and activists, but they represented only a marginal minority among the Muslims of Central Asia; they founded the Ulema Jamiyeti. However, the two organizations had to soon merge, because of the formation of the Tashkent Soviet on the 2th March 1917. The fact that only two Muslims participated in this organization was viewed negatively; it was considered as an intention to cause confrontation with, and isolation of, the Muslim societies of Central Asia.
The decision of the Tashkent Soviet (Ташкентский городской совет) to allow only a minimal representation of the Muslim population turned it, practically speaking, to an organization of Russian settlers in Central Asia, notably railway workers, and other labor unions. As reaction to what appeared to be a colonial approach against them, the Kokand Autonomy (also known as Turkestan Autonomy/ Кокандская автономия или Туркестанская автономия) was proclaimed on 27th November 1917. It was a secular state with five official languages, namely Uzbek, Kazakh, Russian, Kirghiz and Tajik. It was located south of the Kazakh Alash Autonomy, which was proclaimed in December 1917 with capital at Semey and with authority over central and northern parts of today’s Kazakhstan. The first president the Kokand Autonomy was the Kazakh historian, ethnographer, journalist and political activist Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev and the second (and last) president was Mustafa Shokay (Мустафа Шокай; Мұстафа Шоқайұлы; مصطفى شقاي), an extraordinary theoretician, intellectual, author, polyglot, political activist, and unprecedented international adventurer (he was probably the only person to have been in touch with Kerensky, leading French statesmen, and the circles of people around Lenin, Kemal Ataturk, and Hitler.
Initially, the Tashkent Soviet recognized the Kokand Autonomy, limiting however its authority to Muslim villages, towns, cities and sectors of cities (for instance, Tashkent comprised of two different districts at the time). In addition, all the decisions of the Kokand Autonomy would be subject to final approval by the local soviet. Quite unfortunately, the divisions among the Muslims were disastrous and, despite the presence of many Jadidists, the Kokand authorities, who were viewing their rule as the comeback of the Kokand Khanate (1709-1886), decided to align themselves with the White Army. This proved to be a self-destructive decision. After Shokaev rejected the ultimatum issued by the Soviets (January 1918), started the hostilities; the soviet government dispatched an army and Armenian Dashnak terrorists to put everything under control, and in about three months the Kokand Autonomy was entirely dismantled. Following this noxious development, started the Basmachi Revolt.
The precarious, sectarian and reactionary character of the events that we call Basmachi Revolt is highlighted by the fact that all types of incidents, riots and raids were totally uncoordinated and relevant to diverse tribal localisms. First to revolt against the Soviet army were two Fergana sheikhs known as Irgash (Эргаш). The first of them was also known as ‘Little Irgash’ (Кичик Эргаш/ Küçük Ergaş; 1885-1918); he was killed in the Battle of Bachkir in February 1918.
The second Irgash, Mullah Irgash or Irgash Bey (Эргаш бек / Ergaş Bey), was also known as ‘Great Irgash’ (Катта Эргаш – Большой Эргаш; 1882-1921); he was a sheikh from Kokand, known for having many followers. Standing against the Soviet rule, he gathered several criminals into a group that he called an ‘Islamic army’ and he was acclaimed as the ‘supreme military leader’ (amir ul musalmin) by many other backward sheikhs of the remotest locations. It was certainly easy to gain supporters at a time the nationalization projects, which were implemented by the soviets, had caused economic disaster.
Around 20000 bandits took then control of the very fertile Fergana Valley. Irgash Bey managed to defeat the Red Army in the Kokand and Namangan regions. Initially, the Tashkent Soviet was unable to maintain the order, because they did not have many soldiers available; that is why their control was limited mainly to plains and big cities. All the same, divisions among the Muslims were so deep and occurred so often that quite soon the Great Irgash was constrained to fight with Madamin Bey (see below) for the rebel leadership; around the end of 1918, Irgash was defeated and wounded. Few years later, the Red Army spotted him and killed him.
The Tashkent Soviet was thus forced to mobilize as many Russian settlers as possible in order to form an impromptu army of volunteers. This military body was named “the Peasant Army of Fergana” (Крестьянская армия Ферганы); it was commanded by the settler, contractor and landowner Constantine Ivanovich Monstrov (1874-1920; Константин Иванович Монстров), who was famous for his enormous moustache. As one can understand, in similar cases, the brutality is excessive from both sides. Due to the disparate forces involved in the insurrection, multiple divisions took place and, after several months, other tribal leaders and fighters challenged and killed Little Iragsh.
For many long months during 1918 and early 1919, the Uzbek kurbashi (leader of raiders and bandits; Курбаши / قورباشی) Madamin Bey (مدمنبيک / Мадамин-бек; his real name was Muhammad Amin Ahmad Bek / Мухаммад Амин Ахмадбек; 1893-1920) tried to impose among the Fergana Muslims the choices of less intransigent people. In May 1919, he allied with the Russian settlers and decided to work with them in order to establish a common state. However, their joined forces were repeatedly defeated by the Muslim Volga Tatar Red Brigade and, in March 1920, Madamin Bey concluded a peace treaty with the Soviet government; his fighters became part of the Soviet Army, but one of the defectors assassinated him. On 20th March 1920, a celebration and a parade took place in Fergana in presence of Michael Frunze, the commander of the Red Army in the Eastern Front. Only small nuclei of rebels were able to survive hiding for some years in quasi-inaccessible mountains.
In Chorasmia, a wealthy Turkmen tribal chieftain known as Junaid Khan (Джунаид-хан; his real name was Muhammad Kurban Serdar / Мухаммед-Курбан Сердар; 1857-1938) gathered ca. 1600 armed horsemen and managed easily to prevail in large swaths of land in January 1918. The decay and the advanced decomposition of the traditional Muslim Turkmen society in that region are underscored by the fact that he, although illiterate, had great authority, being the qadi (Islamic court judge) and the water manager of an entire region; this situation was solely due to the fact that he belonged to the dominant Turkmen tribe of Yomutlar (Yomut; Йомуды). And as in his otherwise meaningless life he did nothing virtuous, he was honorably called ‘serdar’ (which is a Persian military term meaning ‘commander’), only because after 1912 (at the age of 55), he customarily robbed caravans in the Karakum desert.
In early 1918, Junaid Khan captured first Khiva, a major historical city and capital of an important khanate. As he had an enduring duel with the khan of Khiva (who was under czarist authority) Asfandiyar Khan (Асфандияр хан), an Uzbek, he took revenge by killing him, because back in 1912, Asfandiyar Khan had undertaken a punitive campaign against the Turkmens of the Takhta region, with whom the lifelong bandit Junaid Khan had sided at the time. This event occurred despite the fact that Asfandiyar Khan had changed his attitude toward Junaid Khan in January 1918 and appointed him as ‘commander’ of the Khiva Khanate’s armed forces.
I expand on a few details of the historical background just to show that any post-Soviet effort of glorification or ‘rehabilitation’ of the Basmachi Revolt only distorts the historical facts, tarnishes the true identity of Islam, promotes Islamic extremism, and plays into the UK-US colonial game. Junaid Khan was certainly not a freedom fighter; even worse, he was a fake Muslim, who -with his miserable life- helped write a shameful page of History, namely that of the Islamic decadence. Furthermore, at the time, the Turkmen were tribally divided across sectarian lines to an extent that fully justifies the Russian annexation of the territories that formed later the SSR of Turkmenistan and in 1991 the Republic of Turkmenistan.
In fact, the undeserved rise of Junaid Khan was due to his opportunistic mentality, his canny attitude and the deal he closed with one of the most extraordinary figures of Modern Russian Military History, the Cossack Ivan Matveyevich Zaitsev (Иван Матвеевич Зайцев; 1879-1934), colonel of the Russian Imperial Army, commander of the Orenburg Cossack Army, major-general of the Orenburg Independent Army (Оренбургская отдельная армия; an anti-Bolshevik force in the eastern front), bold maverick, border crossing adventurer, and infiltrator of the Soviet Army (with the intention to overthrow the regime), who at the end committed suicide. In September 1917, Zaitsev was returning from Iran where he had participated in Russian military operations against the English infiltration; he needed to put some sort of public order across Russian Turkestan and use local forces and resources against the Bolsheviks whose seizure of power he overwhelmingly rejected. Along with many other czarist loyalists, he set up the Turkestan Military Organization (Туркестанская военная организация). He then met Junaid Khan and managed to align his modest forces with his troops.
In reality, the upsurge in Khiva and the entire Chorasmia was a tribal affair linked with aspects of the White Army program and military activities; Junaid Khan’s prevalence in Khiva was mainly due to his alliance with Zaitsev’s forces, as the anti-Communist major-general needed the Turkmen bandit there, because he intended to foment insurgence against the Soviet rule throughout Central Asia. Zaitsev contacted the second president of the Kokand Autonomy, Mustafa Shokay, in order to agree on the terms of the common anti-Bolshevik fight. From Khiva, he proceeded straight to Chardzhou (Чарджоу; چهارجوی; today’s Türkmenabat-Түркменабат), then further to Samarqand, and finally to Tashkent, while also mobilizing for his campaign the Ural Cossacks, the Siberian Cossacks, and the Aral Cossacks (аральские уральцы; these Cossacks were Christian Orthodox Old Believers/ старообрядцы казаки).
Zaitsev’s heteroclite forces managed to occupy Samarqand, but failed to conquer Tashkent; however, after several battles, they were forced out of Samarqand. Zaitsev had to flee, and later he was arrested and condemned, but managed to escape (July 1918). Junaid Khan’s control of Khiva was unstable, but it lasted for most of 1918 and 1919. In early 1920, the Red Army prevailed, Junaid Khan’s forces were dispersed and Sayid Abdullah (Саид Абдулла хан; سعید عبدالله خان; 1871-1933; Asfandiyar Khan’s brother who had only nominal authority, after being appointed by the usurper Junaid Khan) was compelled to abdicate.
the flag of the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic
Then, the short-lived Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic (Xorazm Xalq Sovet Jumhuriyati; Хорезмская Народная Советская Республика) was proclaimed (26 April 1920) on parts of the territories of today’s Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; this Soviet Republic was renamed in 1923 as Khorezm Socialist Soviet Republic (Хорезмская ССР) and finally abolished in 1924, after being divided among the Soviet Socialist Republics of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the Karakalpak Autonomous Oblast, which is nowadays named Republic of Karakalpakstan (in Russian: Каракалпакия / in Karakalpak: Қарақалпақстан Республикасы) and constitutes the northwestern part of Uzbekistan. Junaid Khan continued his raids, attacks and burglaries for some years, until he finally escaped in Iran and then Afghanistan where he died. Only in 1928, the Soviet state got rid of his nuisance, after a special military operation was undertaken in the Karakum desert.
c- Basmachi Revolt in Bukhara
In Bukhara, the Basmachi Revolt took the form of a swansong, namely that of the Manghud dynasty (Мангыты; 1756-1920). In fact, after 1868, the Khanate of Bukhara was merely a vassal state to Russia and therefore the venue of several Russian Imperial ambassadors. The emirs of Bukhara were predominantly pro-Russian, open to new technologies, modern sciences and academic knowledge, also having a friendly attitude toward the Jadid Movement. Following the death of his father, Sayyid Abd al-Ahad Khan (Сеид Абдулахад-хан; 1859-1910; ruling after 1885), Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan (Сеид Мир Мухаммед Алим-хан; سعید عالمخان; 1880-1944) ruled over the khanate. Like his father, he had been sent to Russian educational and academic institutions where he became acquainted with techniques of modern war and administration.
His rule was basically a matter of disappointment, disillusion and deception for him. Being initially close to concepts and principles of the Jadid Movement, he tried to eliminate the corruption brought about due to the collapse of the Islamic civilization and the prevalence of ignorant sheikhs and tribal mentality; however, after some early successes, he failed in his effort. To pull him to their reactionary and pseudo-religious ideas, the obscurantist sheikhs of Bukhara utilized the very old method of flattery. By inflating his ambitions and by convincing him to bear the then already meaningless title of caliph, they managed to drag the otherwise progressive emir of Bukhara to positions that could not match with those of the Bukharan Jadid activists, who progressively leaned toward the rising Bolsheviks. When the imperial authority was overthrown in Petrograd, Bukhara became a de facto self-ruled state. All the same, Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan had already been pulled to anti-Bolshevik positions, and because of this development, the Bukharan Jadidist organization of the Young Bukharans (Младобухарцы; Uzb. بوحارا یاشاری; Uzb. Yosh buxoroliklar; Farsi جوانبخارائیان; Genç Buharalılar / founded in 1909, it was totally unrelated to the Genç Türkler / Neo-Turks) contacted the Bolsheviks in March 1918 to announce that the city and the khanate were ready to accept the Red Army.
When the Red Army reached Bukhara, asking the emir to abdicate, the ill-tempered Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan killed the delegation and several hundreds of pro-Communist Bukharans and Russians. The ominous overlord was able to continue ruling during 1919, but Bukhara was twice attacked in 1920 (March and September) and in the second siege, Mikhail Frunze managed to destroy the formidable walls of the legendary Ark (: fortress) of Bukhara and squelch the rebellion. Innocuous but indescribable, the ill-starred emir escaped to Dushanbe (Tajikistan) and thence to Kabul (Afghanistan). From there and until he died (5/5/1944), he tried in vain to get back his lost treasures (27 million rubles in gold, 7 million rubles in private banks, 150 million rubles in French and English banks & 32 million rubles deposited in foreign banks). During his exile, he survived as karakul / astrakhan (fleece) trader, and even managed to finance the Basmachi bandits for some time.
d- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (second phase)
The second phase of the Basmachi Revolt in Fergana started in Bukhara in November 1921. It was then that Enver Pasha arrived there, after he failed to be accepted back in Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey. When the Young Turks’ most inconsistent and most ominous chief reached Bukhara, he had just crossed his life’s most tumultuous period. After being dismissed from the position of War Minister (4 October 1918), he had to flee, because the Sultan had been ordered by the English to declare defeat (Enver Pasha wanted to continue the fight against England and France); he therefore moved to Germany where he stayed for some months, contacting military officers and political activists, before traveling to Bolshevik Russia (April 1919).
In Moscow, Enver Pasha contacted all communist leaders (Lenin included) and tried to establish a German-Russian-Turanian-Oriental alliance against English-French colonialism and imperialism. From there, he also tried to help Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk (in spite of his earlier contempt for the Father of Modern Turkey); as he appeared quite useful to the new elite in Moscow, they welcomed him, and he participated in the famous Congress of the Peoples of the East (Съезд народов Востока), which was held in Baku in September 1920. There he delivered a fervent speech, proving that he could be beneficial at both, military and socio-political, levels. In July 1921, Enver Pasha reached Batumi, capital of Adjaria (Georgia), and attempted to enter Turkey (having the intention to contribute to the Turkish War of Independence, which was undertaken under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk), but was blocked at the border.
The endless topic of personal relations between Kemal Ataturk and Enver Pasha can be discussed in dozens of PhD dissertations, but in reality Ataturk’s overall negative assessment and ultimate rejection of Enver Pasha was due to the latter’s apparently unstable mood, temporary chimeras, erroneous perception of balance of power, and unrealistic evaluation of the consequences of his actions and of his opponents’ reactions to them. Enver Pasha returned to Moscow and soon afterwards (autumn 1921), he was sent by Lenin to Bukhara, then capital of the short-lived (1920-1924) Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (Бухарская Народная Советская Республика / Buxoro Xalq Shoʻro Jumhuriyati / جمهوری خلقی شوروی بخارا / Ҷумҳурии Халқии Шӯравии Бухоро) with the task to extinguish the Basmachi banditry. This proved to be one of Lenin’s worst mistakes.
Untrustworthy, chimeric and self-destructive as never before, Enver Pasha in fact defected to the rebel side and, instead of putting down the uprising, he attempted to regenerate it, organize the bandits into a military corps, and use them for the sole personal benefit of becoming the ruler of a delusional Central Asiatic Turanian state at the very antipodes of Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey. Contacting and cooperating with Junaid Khan and Shir Muhammad Bek ‘Gazi’ {basically known as Kurshirmat / Korşirmat / Курширмат and at times named Mahmud Bek (Mahmood-bek / Махмуд-бек); 1895-1970; Шир Мухаммед-бек ‘Гази’ (grandson of Khudoyar-Khan, who was one of the last rulers of Kokand – see above part XV unit a)}, Enver Pasha managed to establish a significant and sufficiently trained force (of ca. 20000 bandits turned soldiers) and appear as a serious challenge to the Soviet rule in Central Asia. In the early months of 1922, Soviet authority in the region was dwindling. Sizeable parts of the territories of today’s Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan went out of control. At the same time, the Soviet regime gained an unexpected and valuable supporter: the Dungan Muslims (of Chinese Hui origin) and their commander Magaza Masanchi (1886-1937; Магазы Лебузович Масанчи).
Шир Мухаммед-бек Гази (отмечен цифрой 1) с ближайшими сподвижниками: 2. Лашкарбаши Нурмуххамедбек (его брат) 3. Лашкарбаши мулла Хатам; 4. главный секретарь Назир Кабави. / Shir Muhammad-bek Gazi (marked with the number 1) with the closest associates: 2. Lashkarbashi Nurmukhamedbek (his brother); 3. Lashkarbashi mullah Khatam; 4. Chief Secretary Nazir Kabawi. From: https://topwar.ru/149794-kak-jenver-pasha-pytalsja-sozdat-vsemirnuju-tjurkskuju-imperiju.html
An eventual secession of Turkestan from Soviet Union in 1922 would certainly be an absurd and paradoxical phenomenon; this is so because the Soviet administration consciously implemented an overwhelming Korenizatsiya (Коренизация) policy in striking contrast with the imperial practices of the previous decades. The Soviet term originates from the Russian words ‘коренное население’ (korenoe naselenie), which mean ‘native population’; it encapsulates the Soviet concept of nation and the Soviet theory on the right of peoples to self-determination (as illustrated in Lenin’s The Right of Nations to Self-Determination and in Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question). This approach systematically promoted the use of the native mother tongue in the education and the administration of the various soviet republics, guaranteed the involvement of natives in the local government at all levels, and straightforwardly opposed the imperial policies of Russification. In addition, the Soviet authorities had made significant concessions as regards the validity of the Islamic Law, the existence of the medresas (Quranic schools), and the reinstatement of the Waqf (Vakıf) lands. For all these reasons, Enver Pasha’s unplanned and unprepared proposal of an otherwise ill-defined Turkestan did not offer much instead.
When Enver Pasha turned from asset to liability for the Soviet authorities, the Dungan Muslim regiment proved to be highly important; the Dungans (Дунгане; 东干族) were Chinese Hui (回族 – Hui-zu; Хуэй) Muslims, who migrated from China on different occasions during the 19th c. and settled in various territories of Central Asia, notably parts of today’s Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Today, there are ca. 15 million Hui in China (where they are recognized as an independent ethnic-religious group), but only ca. 200000 in Central Asia; totally unrelated (and rather rival) to Uighurs, the Hui are of Chinese Han ancestry.
Gradually, the Soviet authorities mobilized forces able to put down the upsurge, also utilizing military aircraft; they motivated most of the people in Central Asia, and particularly all those who supported Jadid intellectuals and Communist activists. Many volunteered to join the Red Army, and after a series of battles in April and May 1922, Enver Pasha’s forces were first defeated – to some extent due to airstrikes, which were undertaken by the Soviet air forces {the Soviet Air Forces (военно-воздушные силы) were the re-organized form of the Imperial Russian Air Service (Императорскій военно-воздушный флотъ) that was the world’s largest air fleet in 1914}. Enver Pasha was offered a peace proposal that he declined (May 1922) only to face further defeats in June and July. The capture of Dushanbe by the Red Army (14 July 1922) marked an irreversible step in the Soviet effort to put down the Basmachi banditry.
Despite his defeats in many battles and although the enemy was very close, Enver Pasha was still foolish enough to allow his remaining troops to enjoy the celebration of Kurban Bayramı (Eid al-Adha)! As his whereabouts were reported, the Bashkir cavalry brigade (so, an entirely Muslim force) under the Armenian commander Yakov Melkumov (Яков Аркадьевич Мелькумов; 1885-1962) attacked them, thus spreading chaos in the already disorganized force. Enver Pasha managed to escape with his guard; the pursuit lasted several days, but finally he was killed on 4th August 1922.
Enver Pasha’s subordinate, Selim Pasha, continued the struggle for some time until he finally escaped to Afghanistan in 1923. Several battles took place then in the upper flow of Zeravshan River, in Hissar Valley, in Darvaz region and other mountainous lands close to the borders of Afghanistan. Sporadic clashes used to occur throughout Soviet Central Asia in 1923-1925, because Ibrahim Bek (Ибрагим-бек; Иброҳимбек Чакабаев – Ibrohimbek Chaqaboev; 1889-1931) re-organized banditry and undertook several raids, until he too was forced to find shelter in Afghanistan. Subsequently, numerous, rather minor incursions were incessantly launched from the territory of Afghanistan against the Soviet rule in Central Asia; for this purpose, arms were regularly smuggled into the Soviet Union and bandits hidden there from village to village.
Иброҳимбек Чакабаев – Ibrohimbek Chaqaboev
Junaid Khan was able to also launch an attack against Khiva in 1926; it took two years for the Soviet forces to fully dismantle this group. Due to this situation, which could not lead anywhere, the bulk of Central Asiatic population of Soviet Union gradually embraced the Communist regime. Still, the Red Army was forced to carry out several operations inside Afghanistan, notably in 1929 and 1930, in order to make sure that no further attacks would originate from that land.
Korshimat was also defeated and escaped in Afghanistan too (in September 1922); moved by his acrimonious feelings, he set up an intelligence network, which later proved to be quite important for the Japanese, Turkish and German secret services. From Afghanistan, he organized an anti-Soviet guerilla during WWII, while working under the guidance of the German Abwehr (military intelligence). For this reason, Soviet historiographers used to date the end of the Basmachi movement in the early 1940s.
e- Basmachi Revolt in Samarqand
With the collapse of the imperial rule, Muslim rebels seized power in the wider Samarqand region and, in November 1918, they proclaimed the independence of all the lands up to the Matcha (or Mastcha) region (Матча или Мастча́; Мастчоҳ), which corresponds mainly to today’s Gorno-Matchinsky district of the Sughd vilayet of Tajikistan. In the autumn of 1919, Penjikent, Khujand, Ura-Tube, and Samarqand formed a self-ruled territory.
In 1921, the leading Bashkir Jadidist theoretician and explorer Ahmed Zaki Validov (see above: part X, unit r) arrived in Samarqand. He had already started criticizing and opposing the Bolsheviks, and therefore Samarqand was an ideal location for him to expand his multifaceted endeavors and activities. As he was accompanied by significant forces, he merged with the local rebels, who were fascinated with his ideological clarity and his undeniable eloquence. He soon became the undisputed leader of the Basmachi Movement; until 1923, he was the chairman of the ‘National Union of Turkistan’. However, the rebel troops were repeatedly defeated in 1922-1923, and then Validov escaped to Iran, taking with him the original manuscripts of Ahmad ibn Fadlan (see above: part V no 4) that he had found in the meantime. This valuable document consists in a major historical source for the History of Eastern Europe, as it details the diffusion of Islam in Volga Bulgaria – 70 years before Kievan Rus accepted Christianity. Despite their defeats, various dispersed local rebels kept launching attacks across this region until as late as 1935.
The Turkmen Basmachi revolt in the Trans-Caspian region (today’s Turkmenistan) reached significant proportions in 1918 and also (partly and briefly) in 1922, but by 1924, it was almost completely suppressed by the Red Army and various local pro-Soviet formations. It all started with the apparent desire for political autonomy that prevailed among the Turkmen around the end of 1917 and the subsequent formation of the Turkmen National Army in February 1918. The Ashgabat (Bolshevik) Soviet did not have sufficient forces to maintain control and that’s why it demanded help from the Tashkent Soviet. The opponents of the Bolshevik Soviet belonged to either the Menshevik Party (Russian Social Demorcratic Labour Party / Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия) or the Socialist Revolutionary Party (Партия социалистов-революционеров), and in their majority, they were workers of the Trans-Caspian Railway. The dispatched forces were not sufficient and, after several clashes, the rebels prevailed.
The tumultuous proclamation (11th-12th July 1918) of the Trans-Caspian Provisional Government (Закаспийское временное правительство) was the consequence the fact that the majority of the people did not accept the Ashgabat Soviet’s order for a census of armed men (which was issued in mid-June 1918). Fyodor Adrianovich Funtikov (Фёдор Адрианович Фунтиков; 1876-1926), who was a Russian Socialist Revolutionary railway worker and a significant opponent of the Bolshevik rule, led the uprising. This shows clearly that the incidents had no ethnic or religious but rather political motives. The dispatched forces under Fyodor Ivanovich Kalesov (Фёдор Иванович Колесов; 1891-1940), chairman (November 1917–November 1918) of the (Tashkent-based) Soviet (Совет Народных комиссаров: Council of People’s Commissars) of the Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, acted very violently and unwisely killing indiscriminately and persecuting the local population. The Bolshevik armed forces were therefore obliged to withdraw, after having many dead among them in the clashes.
The Trans-Caspian Provisional Government included Turkmen khans, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Dashnak Armenians, and even several individuals of the imperial administration. On 21st July 1918, almost the entire territory of the Trans-Caspian region (today’s Turkmenistan) was controlled by the anti-Bolshevik forces. Furthermore, they intended to soon convene a constituent assembly. General Uraz-Serdar (the son of the last Turkmen Khan Tykma-Serdar) and the officers Hadji Murat, Khan Yomudsky, and Ovozbaev (of the Russian army) were the Turkmen who took part in the government. As the meager armed forces of the government (less than 2000 men) were defeated by Bolshevik army on 28th July 1918 near Chardzhou (see above part VIII unit c), the Trans-Caspian Government turned to the English military detachment in Mashhad (NE Iran) for help.
Imperial Russian territories of the Trans-Caspian region (Территории Закаспийской области)
What follows constitutes an excellent demonstration of the criminal English colonial policies, and of England’s perfidious plans providing for divisions, destructions and bloodshed throughout Central Asia and the Eurasiatic landmass in general. At the same time, the numerous incidents, which occurred due to the ultimately failed English intervention in the Trans-Caspian region in 1918 (nowadays euphemistically baptized ‘Malleson mission’ by the disreputable center of worldwide disinformation named ‘Wikipedia’), constitute today an excellent historical lesson and a perfect reason for all the states of the wider region to resolutely close down forever all English, Australian, Canadian and US embassies, consulates, institutes and NGOs and to ban British Commonwealth and US citizens from entering their territories. As a matter of fact, the only reason for an English to be present in Central Asia is to foment discord and enmity, and to promote anti-Chinese, anti-Russian, and anti-Iranian hatred among all the indigenous Turkic nations in order to further trigger wars, destructions, ruins, and endless killings.
The English colonial plans against all the nations of Central Asia were immediately set in motion as soon as the Russian imperial government collapsed in early 1917. As a matter of fact, London’s colonial interference in Central Asia is the continuation of England’s destructive involvement and unprecedented evildoing first in the Mughal Empire’s territories and later in Iran. Gradual, methodic and sophisticated colonial infiltration is at the origin of the gradual collapse of the Qajar dynasty of Iran (1789-1925). The truly last Qajar Shah, who reigned in Iran, was Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar (مظفرالدین شاه قاجار; 1853-1907; he reigned after 1896).
Due to English, French, Russian and Ottoman infiltration and owed to incessant propagation of viciously anti-Iranian, lowly, villainous and barbarian concepts, such as democracy, parliament, civil rights, and politics, Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar was forced to open the first Iranian parliament in 1906; after making this disastrous and calamitous concession to the criminal colonial powers, he died due to an unexpected and mysterious heart attack. His son Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar (محمدعلی شاه قاجار; 1872-1925) reigned only for 2.5 years (1907-1909). Perfidious, heinous and criminal English diplomats duplicitously exhorted him to close the parliament down; supporting both sides, the English colonials strongly encouraged and guided the parliamentarians and parts of the Iranian army as to how to depose the shah.
Thus, soon after he bombarded the parliament, he was held captive by his rebellious officers and deputies, who -inflicting a national disaster on their own country- forced the shah to abdicate and to flee to exile. His son, Ahmad Shah Qajar (احمد شاه قاجار; 1898-1930), the boy king, was merely a symbolic figurehead, who could not avoid serving his criminal colonial masters; they used to fool him on daily basis in order to continue England’s incessant evildoing in Iran. Finally, he was marginalized after the 1921 military coup, sent to exile in 1923, deposed in 1925, and finally buried in 1930. The shameful story of the last three decades of Qajar rule was ludicrously named ‘Persian Constitutional Revolution’ (انقلاب مشروطه), and its last phase was called ‘Jungle Movement of Gilan’.
Ahmad Shah Qajar
For the aforementioned reasons, the English colonials were able to dispatch forces from their colonies in India through Iran to Central Asia. Their criminal colonial deeds were euphemistically named ‘Persian Campaign during WWI’, whereas in Farsi they are called ‘ اشغال ایران در جنگ جهانی اول’ (Occupation of Iran during WWI). The mere presence of the heinous colonial gansgters triggered famine, cholera, typhoid and plague in which no less than 7-8 million people perished. However, in today’s rotten world, no one speaks about the Iranian genocide, which was deliberately carried out by the English barbarians.
The so-called ‘British military mission in Turkestan’ was established immediately after the abdication of Czar Nikolai II. It was led by Major General Wilfrid Malleson (1866-1946) and it also included the notorious gangster Reginald Teague-Jones (1889-1988), an intelligence officer, who carried out so heinous, inhuman and beastly deeds that he was forced to change name in 1922 and live afterwards secluded as ‘Ronald Sinclair’ somewhere in England for no less than 66 years! The English military force encamped in the outskirts of Mashhad as early as August 1917. They immediately established contacts with various tribal leaders, ignorant and uneducated sheikhs, and small merchants in several cities across the southern territories of Central Asia whereby confusion and chaos started prevailing after the collapse of the imperial administration.
In general, the English infiltration in Central Asia can be divided into three periods:
a) January to July 1918: this was the period of early contacts and covert interference in the local affairs; it involved minimal financial assistance and limited technical help (at the military level) offered to the Trans-Caspian Provisional Government.
b) August 1918 to March 1919: during this period the English attempted to invade the territory of Turkmenistan (then rather named ‘Trans-Caspian region’).
c) April 1919 to 2020: during this period, the bulk of the English forces withdrew, because they realized that they did not have sufficient forces to be further involved in the region and that they had failed to turn the local nations against the Soviet rule up to a point that would create serious trouble to the Soviet government. All the same, they maintained their contacts, kept monitoring the developments closely, and offered limited technical help and instructions.
After the Trans-Caspian Government first contacted the English in Mashhad, a small group of officers were dispatched to Ashgabat. As they assessed the local forces’ capacity as nil, they trained them and led them in skirmishes against the equally small forces that the Bolshevik government could avail in that remote region. Soon afterwards, W. Malleson sent another small force of ca. 500 fighters (Indians in their majority), who managed to oppose further Communist attacks. On 12th August 1918, a supplementary force (ca. 500 Indian soldiers of the 19th Punjabi Regiment) crossed the border and merged with the Turkmen Trans-Caspian force. On 19th August 1918, the Ashgabat authorities under Funtikov signed an agreement with General Malleson. This was how thoughtless and fanatic opposition to the Bolsheviks turned out to be a form of high treason.
At the same time, the English dispatched another mission directly to Tashkent; few men under Colonel F. Bailey (Frederick Marshman Bailey; 1882-1967) crossed through Kashgar (Eastern Turkestan / Xinjiang, China) and the Fergana Valley (Osh in today’s Kyrgyzstan and Andijan in today’s Uzbekistan) and reached Tashkent on 10th August 1918. The mission included Captain L. V. S. Blacker (who is known for his report ‘From India to Russia in 1914’ that was published by Royal Geographical Society, London, 1917) and four Hindu servants. Only few days later, Sir George Macartney (馬繼業; 1867-1945; he was half-Chinese and also the godchild of the Chinese general Li Hongzhang), the former British consul in Kashgar (at the end of a 28-year tenure there), arrived in Tashkent; he introduced Colonel F. Bailey and Captain L. V. S. Blacker to the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the Turkestan Republic (народный комиссариат иностранных дел Туркестанской республики) as English diplomats.
Andijan and the entire Fergana Valley lived in turmoil for almost 30 years because of the British colonial interference. Above: a rare picture of the Andijan events in 1898. From: https://kghistory.akipress.org/unews/un_post:7665What is true for Andijan is also valid for Osh, another distinct center of civilization in the Fergana Valley; the people accepted happily the two successive revolutions in 1917. All the troubles started later, with the English infiltration, which took the same form as today, namely incitation of uneducated, ignorant and silly sheikhs against the central government. From: https://www.open.kg/about-kyrgyzstan/cities/osh-city/32984-osh-sobytiya-na-yuge-kirgizii-v-fevrale-1917-g.htmlWhat occurred in the Fergana Valley was repeated in the Caucasus region with the colonial English infiltration and intervention being the main reason for all the inter-ethnic killings and the religious hatred that cost the life to many. Dunsterforce trains people in the streets of Baku.English colonial gangsters Major-General Lionel Charles Dunsterville (right) and Commodore David Thomas Norris (left) sailing on the Caspian Sea in 1918 on a confiscated boat and only to further spread chaos and perpetrate atrocious killings. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunsterforce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Dunsterville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Persia_Rifles
As it is understood, the arrival of the English diplomats in Tashkent coincided with the first clashes between the Malleson Mission forces and the Red Army around Ashgabat. This complicated the Tashkent mission of the English diplomats whose tasks included every type of evildoing involving bribery, contacts with all sorts of local anti-Bolshevik elements, and instigation of disorder, criminality and rebellion. Even worse for them, a Russian employee of the Russian-Asiatic Bank (Русско-Азиатский банк) Kashgar branch duly informed the members of the Central Executive Committee (центральный исполнительный комитет) of Turkestan as regards the real nature and the hostile targets of the English mission, sharing with them his experience on Colonel F. Bailey’s contacts with anti-Bolshevik Russian employees of the bank branch in Kashgar. The evil English diplomats, who established ties with various elements of the anti-Bolshevik forces in Tashkent, pretended that their criminal deeds were merely German rumors! Of course, the Soviet authorities did not believe a word said by those gangsters. The mission ended when Sir George Macartney and Captain L. V. S. Blacker left back for Kashgar (28th September 1918), after they realized that the English did not have any chance to duly destabilize Soviet Central Asia.
Only Colonel F. Bailey and his Indian servant stayed further in Tashkent only to be soon placed under house arrest and then ordered to leave. However, thanks to the illegal network of informers that he had already established, he was timely informed about the permission that the local Soviet had asked from Moscow in order to arrest them, and then he disappeared being disguised as an Austrian prisoner of war (1st November 1918). After staying out of Tashkent for some weeks, he returned as a pro-Bolshevik Austrian prisoner of war, and with the help of a real Austrian prisoner of war, he got a job position in the 2nd department of the Military Control. From that position, he was sent to conduct counterintelligence operations against the English officers, who were around the Emir of Bukhara; however, he used this opportunity to form a small detachment of White Army officers, escape with them, and finally reach General W. Mallison in Mashhad (NE Iran), at a distance of ca. 570 km. While he was crossing the deserts Kyzylkum (Кызылкум) and Karakum (Каракум), among the people, who joined his small group, was the Russian prince Alexandre Nikolaïevitch Iskander (after 1925 Romanovski-Iskander; Александр Николаевич Искандер; 1887-1957), who later returned to Tashkent and participated in several uprisings there (1919) and in Crimea (1920), before moving to exile first in Greece (following an invitation extended to him by his aunt and godmother, the then Queen Regent Olga of Greece) and then in France.
The sort of the Malleson Mission was bloodier; the combined Turkmen-Czarist-anti-Bolshevik Communist-Hindu forces under English commandment engaged in many battles, notably on 28th August, 11th and 18th September, 9th–11th October (the battle of Arman Sagad / Арман-Сагад), and 14th October (the battle of Dushak / Душак). They repeatedly prevailed over the Bolshevik forces, but due to the limited number of forces on both sides, no conclusive victory was possible for either side. All the same, the English dispatched further reinforcements, notably the 28th Light Cavalry (after 1935 it was known as 7th Light Cavalry) from India. As a consequence of these victories, the combined forces occupied Tejen (Теджен), more than 200 km SE of Ashagabat, and Mery (or Marv; Мары/ Мерв; مرو), ca. 180 km NE of Tejen.
In September 1918, a heinous crime was committed in Krasnovodsk (Красноводск; currently known as Turkmenbashi / Türkmenbaşy / Түркменбашы); the English political and intelligence officer Reginald Teague-Jones bears the entire responsibility for the crime. After the fall of the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (22 April – 28 May 1918; led by the ‘Council’ or ‘Sejm’ in which Azeris, Georgians and Armenians co-existed peacefully, but Bolsheviks did not participate), the Azerbaijani National Council founded the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in Tiflis on 28 May 1918. This was the first secular republic throughout the Islamic world in modern times. Ganja was declared provisory capital, because Baku was already occupied by the Bolsheviks. In fact, the Commune of Baku did not include only Bolsheviks, but practically speaking all the anti-Muslim and anti-Azeri forces of the wider region (namely Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and even the anti-Bolshevik Kadets, and Armenian Dashnaks). This was the conseuquence of the earlier clashes between Armenians and Azeris and the deliberate genocide of Azeris perpetrated by the heinous Dashnak party members. On the 5th June, they managed with difficulty to oppose an Azeri-German-Ottoman attack.
The fact that the Baku government consisted of so diverse (ethnically and ideologically) elements did not bode well. When the Bolsheviks rejected the treacherous idea of asking English help against the victorious Azeri-German-Ottoman army, the Armenian Dashnaks conspired with the Social Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, kicked the Bolsheviks out, imprisoned them, and proclaimed the so-called Centro-Caspian Dictatorship (Sentrokaspi Diktaturası / Диктатура Центрокаспия), an ephemerous tyranny that lasted from the 26th July until the 15th September 1918. The 26 Commissars of the Baku Commune {under the gangster Stepan Shahumyan (or Shaumian / Степан Георгиевич Шаумян; 1878-1918), who was also known as the ‘Caucasian Lenin’} tried to escape to Astrakhan, but were intercepted by the Imperial Russian Caspian fleet, arrested and delivered back to Baku where they were imprisoned for about 45 days and then liberated by few Red Army soldiers under Anastas Mikoyan (Анастас Иванович Микоян; 1895-1978; the renowned Soviet statesman) at the very time of the Ottoman-German-Azeri final attack, invasion and liberation of Baku. The English army {a 1,000-strong elite force under Major General Lionel Dunsterville (which hd arrived after sailing in the Caspian Sea from the Iranian harbor of Bandar-e Anzali/Бендер-Энзели / بندرانزلی)} was then evacuated. The 26 Baku Commissars intended to sail to Astrakhan, the only Caspian harbor under Bolshevik control at the time, but due to the presence of two English officers onboard, the captain was forced to navigate to Krasnovodsk where the commissars were arrested again, this time by the Turkmen-English forces under Reginald Teague-Jones.
As soon as the Ashgabat Committee and Fyodor Funtikov came to know about the identity of the newly arrived statesmen and activists, they decided to execute them; as they evidently depended on the English officers, they had to discuss the topic with Captain Teague-Jones and get his approval for the execution. Without the consent of the top English military, no deliberate massacre of Bolshevik officials would take place. In an article published in Izvestia few months only after the event (no 85, 23rd April 1919), Stalin denounced Captain Teague-Jones for the ‘savage murder’, further accusing him for “intending to circulate false testimony to the effect that the Baku Bolsheviks had died a ‘natural’ death in prison or hospital”. The article titled ‘The Shooting of the Twenty-Six Baku Comrades by Agents of British Imperialism’ makes state of evil English efforts to put the blame on others and to attribute their inhuman deeds to third persons or groups of people. Stalin wrote the following:
“The second document recounts a conversation that the author of the first document, Chaikin, had with the British General Thomson towards the close of March 1919. General Thomson demanded that Chaikin should name the eye-witnesses of the savage murder of the 26 Baku Bolsheviks by Captain Teague-Jones. Chaikin was prepared to present the documents and to name the witnesses on condition that a commission of inquiry were set up composed of representatives of the British command, the population of Baku and the Turkestan Bolsheviks. Chaikin furthermore demanded a guarantee that the Turkestan witnesses would not be assassinated by British agents. Since Thomson refused to agree to the appointment of a commission of inquiry and would give no guarantee of the personal safety of the witnesses, the conversation was broken off and Chaikin left. The document is interesting because it indirectly confirms the barbarity of the British imperialists, and not merely testifies but cries out against the impunity and savagery of the British agents who vent their ferocity on Baku and Transcaspian “natives” just as they do on Negroes in Central Africa“.
In fact, the Soviet authorities extensively investigated the terrible massacre that occurred on the 20th September 1918 in Turkmenistan, and for this purpose, a special commission (under Vadim Chaikin / already mentioned in Stalin’s article as per above) was established. The fact was widely discussed, and a renowned Soviet painter Isaak Brodsky (Исаак Израилевич Бродский; 1883-1939) immortalized the ‘Execution of the 26 Baku Commissars’ (‘Расстрел 26 бакинских комиссаров’) in his painting (1925; currently in the Museum Mashkova in Volgograd). Quite contrarily, English authors tried to present diametrically opposite versions and narratives in order to effectively portray the English officers as innocent. All the same, the fact that Captain Teague-Jones had to change his name and live in seclusion and anonymity for no less than 66 years of his life after this heinous crime is quite telling. And until as late as 1956, General Wilfrid Malleson kept boringly denying any English involvement and responsibility.
The executed and dismembered (not just ‘decapitated’) 26 Baku commissioners belonged to many different ethnicities, namely Azeri (notably Meshadi Azizbekov, Deputy People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs and gubernial commissar for Baku), Armenian (more particularly Stepan Shahumian, the Chairman of the Baku Council of the People’s Commissars and Commissar Extraordinary for the Caucasus), Georgian, Russian, Latvian, Jewish and Greek (Heracles Metaxas / Irakly Metaksa; Ираклий Панаитович Метакса; Ηρακλής Μεταξάς του Παναγιώτη; 1889-1918; he was born in Batumi and served as Shahumian’s bodyguard). Several memorials were built in the USSR to honor the memory of the 26 Commissars and to underscore the atrocities committed by the colonial powers. When Azerbaijan decided in 2009 to demolish the Baku Memorial (in an effort to erase the Soviet past from the collective historical memory), the decision caused a certain reaction from Armenia, but it was implemented promptly.
Stepan ShahumianAnastas Mikoyan / 01.01.1965 Председатель Президиума Верховного Совета СССР Анастас Иванович Микоян. Рыков / РИА Новости
One of the most obscure parts and undecipherable points of this story is how Anastas Mikoyan, then a subordinate of Stepan Shahumyan, managed to survive and then escape from this massacre. Plausible interpretations vary, and the most common explanation is that his name was not found on the list of Commissars’ names that the Ashgabat Committee managed to get; still this is highly hypothetical and ostensibly too convenient for an immovable member of the Soviet nomenklatura, i.e. someone who stayed invariably in power for almost half a century under all (Lenin, Stalin, Khushchev and Brezhnev)!
The Ashgabat Committee was an unstable and disparate formation and, to the eyes of the English colonial officers, this fact could jeopardize their interests and prevent them from achieving their targets. As there were continually many disputes and conflicting opinions about the continuation of the anti-Bolshevik fight among the very diverse elements of this governmental body, the English intervened brusquely in Ashgabat in December 1918, using the popular protests as an excuse, dissolving the government, and establishing (1st January 1919) an arbitrary “Committee of Public Salvation” entirely manned by Turkmen traitors-puppets of the English officers, who were under the orders of the gangster Teague-Jones. This meant that, in fact, there was an English dictatorship in that part of the Russian territory.
On 16th January 1919, the Indian, English and Turkmen (Trans-Caspian) forces repelled an attack launched by the Red Army at Annenkovo, between Merv and Chardzhou (Türkmenabat); the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the railway line and thus eliminate their enemies’ escape route, but despite their numerical superiority, they failed to materialize their targets. However, the very limited resources that the English could avail and the number of casualties that they had convinced them that it would be better to allow the White Army military leadership to take control of the situation. The English decided then to merely coordinate the anti-Bolshevik efforts undertaken by local forces in the Terek, Dagestan and Trans-Caspian regions and to offer minimal financial support and adequate training to Anton Denikin’s henchmen.
The developments in Tashkent (the anti-Bolshevik uprising of 19th January 1919 and its subsequent suppression two days later) convinced Lieutenant-General Denikin that he had urgent tasks to complete in Turkmenistan (Trans-Caspian region) as well, and by order of the supreme commandment of the ‘Armed Forces of South Russia’ (Вооружённые силы Юга России; AFSR) on the 22nd January 1919, the Turkestan Army was formed as an integral part of the AFSR forces. While the anti-Bolshevik forces were able to garner support among the Turkmen and within few months they could avail 7000 infantry men and 2000 cavalry men, the successes of the central government were far more determinant. The liberation of Orenburg (22nd January 1919) and the restoration of railway communication with Turkestan constituted the beginning of the end for all types of rebels in Turkestan.
By April 1919, the English had already evacuated their forces, leaving only a small garrison at Krasnovodosk by the Caspian Sea side; this unit returned to Iran in August 1919. In fact, the plans of the anti-Bolshevik military commandment for an advance of the Turkestan Army to Tashkent and Almaty (Verny) were impossible to materialize, despite the the support extended by Junaid Khan, the dictator of the Khiva Khanate. After many successive battles (in Baýramaly, Merv, Serhetabat, and Tejen) during the period May – July 1919, the Red Army sieged and took Ashgabat (9 July). The Turkestan Army was gradually dispersed and could not further resist the Bolshevik advance. Until December 1919, the Soviet forces prevailed throughout the region and reached the Caspian seashore where the last battles were fought before the reunification of the Russian imperial territory under Soviet rule. The very last remnants of the AFSR were rescued by English ships and evacuated in Iran in early 1920.
After the English colonial intruders moved back to Iran, they continued dispatching military aid and equipment to anti-Bolshevik forces in Turkestan for some time; in 1919, they sent two caravans of 600 and 200 camels with weapons, ammunition and other military equipment to Bukhara. In January 1920, they dispatched 1200 rifles, 12 machine guns, 4 guns and a large number of cartridges and shells. Even after the dismantlement of Denikin’s troops in the Transcaspian region (February 1920) and in the Emirate of Bukhara (September 1920), the English still kept providing assistance (weapons and money) to isolated Basmachi groups. Later on, they continued forming Basmachi armed detachments on the territory of Afghanistan and Iran; they used them in various sabotage activities. The Soviet army intervened twice in Afghanistan (1929 and 1930), during and after the Afghan Civil War (1928-1929) in order to fully destroy the Basmachi forces there. Only then, the Eglish efforts to foment unrest throughout Soviet Turkestan ended. About:
XVI. The Formative Years of Soviet Rule in Central Asia
Whereas the imperial administration viewed the different peoples of Central Asia as one unit or entity mainly defined by the locally prevailing religion, i.e. Islam, the Bolshevik government pursued a totally different approach, promoting the gradual but steadfast formation of nations, national identities, and national identification mechanisms. Bolsheviks emphatically discouraged the assimilation of other nations into Russians. This was quit normal for activists and revolutionaries, who viewed their revolution as the first among many forthcoming, which would eventually re-organize the mankind into an international community organized in independent Communist states.
The theoretical foundations of these policies can be retraced in Stalin’s essay ‘Marxism and the National Question’ (1913) and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia (Декларация прав народов России), which was one of the earliest documents signed by the revolutionary government only on the 15th November 1917, just 8 days after the October Revolution (7th November or 25th October 1917, according to the Old Calendar). The historical document called for equality among the peoples of Russia and for free development of all national minorities and ethnographical groups; it also recognized the right of every people to free self-determination, national sovereignty, and even secession and formation of a separate state; it also abolished all national and religious privileges and restrictions.
On the basis of this document, numerous lands declared independence in the period November 1917 – November 1918, irrespective of the sovereignty (Russian, German or Austrian-Hungarian) at the time: Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus, Estonia, Poland and Latvia. Furthermore, several other republics declared their independence in 1918, although most of them did not last for long: Tuvan People’s Republic (Тувинская Народная Республика), Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (закавказская демократическая федеративная республика), Kuban People’s Republic (Кубанская Народная Республика), Idel-Ural State (mainly a Tatar state named Ural-Volga state in Tatar; Урало-Волжский штат), Kaluga Soviet Republic (Калужская советская республика), North Ingria or Republic of Kirjasalo (Республика Северная Ингрия или Кирьясало), etc.
Tuvan People’s Republic’s flagIf the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic survived, there would be no killings and no wars between the Azeris and the Armenians.Kuban People’s Republic’s flagThe precarious existence of the Kuban People’s Republic (Кубанская Народная Республика) in 1918 fully demonstrates that the historical forgery, which is currently promoted as dogma by the pseudo-state of Ukraine and their criminal Western masters, is a series of unspeakable lies. The Kuban People’s Republic was an entirely different state totally unrelated to the Ukrainian People’s Republic and the West Ukrainian People’s Republic. This map, which was published in 1918 by various Zionist press outfits in Imperial Germany, shows that there was already support not only for the secession of the territory of the so-called Ukraine, but also for the progressive inducement of the Kuban Cossacks to unite with ‘Ukraine’. Probably, the crypto-Ashkenazi Khazarian fake Jewish Zionist minority of the Western Russian territories (i.e. ‘Ukraine’) needed to hire a warrior people for their protection and defense.Kuban Cossacks are highly valued among the anti-Russian crypto-Ashkenazi Khazarian Zionist minority of the so-called ‘Ukraine’ for their unmatched manliness.The Idel-Ural State of the Tatars The flag of the Idel-Ural State of the Tatars Kaluga Soviet Republic; Kaluzhskaya region in Russia 1914 (150 km west of Moscow)North Ingria or Republic of KirjasaloNorth Ingria or Republic of Kirjasalo, and war activities carried out there in 1919Kirjasalo flag
a- Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic
In Central Asia, the first autonomous republic to be formed (30th April 1918) was ‘Turkestan’, initially named ‘Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic’ (Туркестанская Советская Федеративная Республика) with Tashkent as capital; in the midst of the Basmachi uprising, the state introduced its Constitution (15th October 1918). Within Turkestan’s territories were included the southern part of today’s Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and parts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. With a new Constitution promulgated on 24th September 1920, the country was renamed as ‘Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic’ (Туркестанская Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика). The vast state (its surface covered an area of about 1.5 million km2) was in reality a multi-ethnic structure that could not last long, taken into consideration the aforementioned principles, practices and perspectives of the Bolshevik government. In 1920, the total population amounted to 5.2 million people; the main ethnic groups were Uzbeks (39%), Kazakhs (21%), Kirghiz (10%), Tajik (8%), Turkmen (5%) and others. Turkestan was dissolved on 27th October 1924 and I will soon explain why.
Turkestan ASSR flag
b- Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic
In February 1920, as continuation of the Khiva Khanate, the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic (Хорезмская Социалистическая Советская Республика / Xorazm Xalq Sovet Respublikasi) was proclaimed in Khiva (today in Uzbekistan), following the abdication of the local khan. The development took place during the First Khorezm Kurultay (General Assembly), a time-honored Turanian (Turkic) tradition. Khorezm (Chorasmia) was a small state with an area of ca. 62000 km2, a population of ca. 1 million people (mainly Uzbeks, but also Kazakhs, Turkmen, Karakalpak, etc), and as currency the Khorezm Ruble (Хорезмский рубль). On the 20th October 1923, the tiny state was renamed ‘Khorezm Socialist Soviet Republic’ (Хорезмская Социалистическая Советская Республика), only to be dissolved on the 27th October 1924 for reasons that I will soon describe.
A banknote of 750 rubles, printed by the Khorezm People’s Soviet RepublicThe flag of the Khorezm People’s Soviet RepublicKhorezm SSR’s flag
c- Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic
After the chaos caused because of the clashes between the Bolsheviks and the Basmachi movement in different locations throughout Central Asia, on the 26th August 1920, the proclamation of the Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (Киргизская Автономная Социалистическая Советская Республика) took place in Orenburg, which was the initial capital of the new state. As part of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика), the new entity controlled the northern half of today’s Kazakhstan. Two official languages were recognized: Russian and Kazakh.
Today’s, most people -even in Russia- are astounded when they come to know that the first modern Kazakh state was named ‘Kirghiz’, but I already expanded on the topic (see above: part X, unit w). Here, I merely repeat that, until the middle 1920s, Russians -for several centuries- used to name the Kazakhs as ‘Kirghiz-Kazaks’ (киргизы-казахи or also Киргиз-кайсаки) and the Kirghiz as ‘Kara-Kirghiz’ (кара-киргизы/Black Kirghiz); it is the great Kazakh Jadidist intellectual Saken Seifullin, who is credited with the clarification of the confusion. It is therefore understood that, at the time the Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic was launched mainly for the Kazakhs, the Kirghiz (then known as ‘Kara-Kirghiz’) did not have any problem with, or objection to, the development, as they were included in the already launched ‘Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic’.
The Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (in red) in 1922; parts added in 1924 (green) and 1925 (light brown); red line: modern borders of KazakhstanFlag of the Kazak ASSR
On 19th April 1925, at the Fifth All-Kyrgyz (: Kazakh) Congress of Soviets (Пятый Всекиргизский съезд Советов), the decision for the change of name and the transfer of capital was taken. The decision was implemented on 15th July 1925. The state was named ‘Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic’ (Казахская Автономная Социалистическая Советская Республика / Qazaq Aptonom Sotsijalistik Sovettik Respublikasь). Two days later, on 17th July 1925, the capital was transferred from Orenburg to Ak Mechet (Ак-Мечеть: ‘White Mosque’; earlier known as Fort-Perovsky/ Форт-Перовский; currently known as Kyzylorda / Кзыл-Орда / Қызылорда, i.e. ‘Red Horde’ or also ‘Red City’ in modern context). Two years later, in May 1927, the capital was again transferred to Almaty (Алматы), one of the very few cities in the world that had so many different names (in Islamic times: Almatu/ Алмату́; 1854: Zailiyskoye/ Заили́йское and soon afterwards Vernoye / Ве́рное; 1867: Almatinskoe/ Алмати́нское; 1867-1921: Vernyi (Ве́рный: ‘Faithful’); since 1921: Alma-Ata/ Алма́-Ата́ in Russian and Almaty/ Алматы in Kazakh). This state was the largest of all four Central Asiatic soviet republics; its surface covered an area of ca. 3 million km2 and the population amounted to ca. 6.5 million people (1926), after the national delimitation that took place in 1924-1925.
d- Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic
On 8th October 1920, in Bukhara, as continuation of the Bukhara Emirate, the Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (Бухарская Народная Советская Республика; Бухоро Халқ Совет Республикаси / بخارا خلق شورالر جمھوریتی / Buxoro Xalq Sovet Respublikasi; Ҷумҳурии Халқии Шӯравии Бухоро / جمهوری خلق شوروی بخارا) was proclaimed by Fayzulla Khodzhayev (see above: part X, unit c). With three official languages (Russian, Uzbek and Tajik), with the Soviet Ruble (советский рубль) as currency, with ca. 2.5 million people as population, and with an area of about 182000 km2, this state was a rather small entity among the then four Central Asiatic republics. Only the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic was smaller. The short-lived Republic came to an end on 17th February 1924, when borders were demarcated in Soviet Central Asia on the basis of ethno-linguistic criteria and national identity.
Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic and its flag
e- Opposite theoretical approaches to the formation of soviet republics in Central Asia
It is clear that the above described border delineation in Soviet Central Asia had nothing to do with the concepts and the principles declared by the Bolshevik government. This is not strange because the modern Western European concept of nation is worthless and absurd for any other part of the world. It was an obscene, barbaric invention that caused terrible oppression first against subjugated and persecuted nations in France, England and the US, and then in the colonies of these countries where this concept was forcefully ‘exported’. The Bolshevik concept of nation reflects a better understanding of History, but it was still meaningless for Asiatic, African and European Muslims. And the new rulers had limited knowledge of the true situation on the ground.
At the same time, different ideas and conflicting approaches were diffused among Turkic speaking Muslims throughout Central Asia; one side of Jadidist intellectuals suggested the establishment of a unified Turkestan within the USSR. People like the Kazakh revolutionary Turar Ryskulov (Турар Рыскулович Рыскулов) viewed all the Turanian nations of Central Asia as one entity, and proposed the establishment of one Communist Party for all of them. Modern Western historians tend to interpret this fact as an indication of Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism, but this is wrong.
This approach reflects a traditional nomadic Turanian understanding of the world, which is entirely due to Tengrism and its fundamental beliefs; Islam does not differ from Tengrism in this regard, and that is why the concept of the Muslim Ummah was easily accepted by Turanians only to be extensively reflected in their lives. Among Turanians, it was the sedentarization processes that brought divisions, rivalries, enmities and hostilities, but this embarrassing truth was never easy for colonial historians to admit. But Ryskulov and many others, who supported this concept, like Tursun Khojaev, Commissar for Health and National Affairs of the Soviet Government of Turkestan, had nothing in common with the ideas and the mindset of Enver Pasha and the other members of the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti), who became known as Genç Türkler (Jeunes Turcs) and truly promoted Pan-Turkic / Pan-Turanian concepts. Ryskulov never met Enver Pasha in Central Asia, but he was sent against him – which makes the case very clear.
Another side of Jadidist intellectuals supported the concept of independent national life for each nation. This approach had however two serious disadvantages: first, never ever did Turkic / Turanian people live in clearly demarcated territories except for the period each group of them lived as nomads. In the early 1920s, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Turkmens, and Kirghiz lived together (and without discord or problems) in many parts of their present territories, along with newcomers: Russians, Germans, Tatars, Bashkirs, and others. This reality compromised any true effort of border delineation. The recently (2020-2022) aggravated troubles between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan show very well that this disadvantage persists one century after the Soviet authorities thought that they solved the problem; problems start only when otherwise meaningless borders separate people into various nations.
Second, by accepting the five Central Asiatic nations as such, the soviet government disrespected other nations with smaller populations, like the Karakalpak. In this manner, when the national territorial delimitation took place, the Turkmen had their own state, namely the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, but the Karakalpaks had to be content with an autonomous area within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which represented a lower level of federal functionality. The position in favor of the formation of a distinct soviet socialist republic for every major nation in Central Asia was overwhelmingly accepted, because it appeared to be closer to the announcements of the Soviet government, and more specifically the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia. The majority of the Jadid intellectuals and activists supported it, like Sadriddin Ayni, Fayzulla Khodzhayev, and others.
Even worse, this approach was quite unrealistic and ahistorical; the Jadidist intellectuals, who intentionally wanted to view well-defined nations everywhere, failed to duly assess the field situation, which was multi-dimensional indeed. First, the modern Western European concept of nation has no place in History; second, the historical concept of nation is not yet correctly, deeply and conclusively studied; third, the transformational moment in which a group of people ‘becomes’ a nation -as per their own terms- has not yet been properly identified; fourth, there have been groups of people, like the Sarts (Сарты), for whom neither language nor religion was a criterion for the definition of their nationhood, but rather their social status of sedentary people dwelling in towns and cities.
As such, the Sarts were Tajik-speaking Turanians with a strong tendency for bilingualism, and they were viewed as such by many other historical nations. The Soviet policy intended to eliminate or abolish them because their reality contradicted the unbearable Soviet ideological rigidity. The authorities attempted therefore to officially ‘identify’ some of them as Tajiks and the rest as Uzbeks! All the same, this nonsensical attempt failed, and the Sarts survived. Actually, one must admit that because of this policy, many ‘Uzbeks’ today in Uzbekistan identify themselves as Tajiks, although they acknowledge that they forgot their language.
It is easy to understand who the Sarts were; suffice it that we reject the false and distorting model of History that colonial Western pseudo-academic propagandists imposed worldwide. What was the purpose of this evil model of History? The above five statements fully clarify it. The fallacious and revisionist, bogus-historical model turned the rulers of the world into slaves, by fully utilizing ignorant, idiotic and naïve people, elites and rulers. This is how:
ИзбогатовокочевогоКазахавбедногожатака
From a rich, nomadic Kazakh to a poor Zhatak (derisive term: ‘immovable settler’)
After repeated deliberations, the Soviet authorities took a decision on 25th February 1924 in favor of the Национально-территориальное размежевание (national-territorial demarcation) as they defined it. Immediately afterwards, a special committee and three sub-committees (Kazakh, Uzbek, and Turkmen) were duly established. Finally, in April 1924, despite strong local opposition, the ‘delimitation’ process took place. The Turkestan ASSR was abolished and split mainly into Uzbek SSR and Turkmen SSR, which roughly corresponded to the territories of today’s Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Subsequently, the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic and the Bukhara People’s Soviet Republic were also abolished and then incorporated in the Uzbek SSR, with minor parts of their territories attributed to the Turkmen SSR. The new soviet socialist republics were proclaimed in October 1924. By special decree of the 3rd Congress of Soviets of the USSR (issued 13th May 1925), the treaty on the formation of the USSR was extended to both new entities.
The Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) was also created in October 1924 with capital at Dushanbe (which was later named Stalinabad from 1929 until 1961); it was included in the Uzbek SSR. Similarly, in October 1924, out of parts of the Turkestan ASSR where Kirghiz (then known as Kara-Kirghiz) was the main native language, the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast was established with capital at Bishkek (then spelled Pishpek/Пишпек), which was renamed as Frunze between 1929 and 1991; it was part of the Russian SFSR.
Following the rectification of the name of the ‘Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic’ into ‘Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic’, the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast was renamed as Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast, on 15th May 1925. Few months later, in February 1926, it was upgraded to Kirghiz ASSR. Due to the initiative of the Tajik activist and Communist statesman Shirinsho Shotemur (Шириншо Шотемор; 1899-1937), the Tajik ASSR was upgraded to Tajik SSR in October 1929.
This means that by the end of the 1920s, in Central Asia, there were three soviet socialist republics: Turkmen, Uzbek and Tajik. Whereas the Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic was enlarged with the addition of territories from the dissolved Turkestan ASSR in 1924, Almaty was the capital of an ASSR until 1936. It is only then (on the occasion of the proclamation of the second constitution of the USSR) that the Kazak ASSR and the Kirghiz ASSR were upgraded to Kazakh SSR and Kirghiz SSR (5th December 1936). About:
Following the aforementioned developments, the Karakalpak Autonomous Oblast (Кара-Калпакская автономная область), which was established in February 1925, at the time of the dissolution of Turkestan ASSR, was integral part of the Kirghiz (later: Kazak) Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic until July 1930. Then, it was transferred to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In 1932, it was upgraded to Karakalpak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Каракалпакская Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика), and as such, it was transferred to the Uzbek SSR in December 1936.
After the dissolution of the USSR, in 1992, the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan was proclaimed as integral part of Uzbekistan, and one year later, the local parliament adopted the constitution. With Nukus as capital, Islam as religion, and two official languages (Karakalpak and Uzbek), with a population of about 2 million people, and an area of ca. 165000 km2, Karakalpakstan is inhabited by three ethnic groups, namely Uzbeks, Karakalpaks, and Kazakhs (each of them totaling about one third of the entire population). Speaking a language closer to Kazakh than to Uzbek, the Karakalpaks are today by far the most pro-Russian Muslim nation and, in their majority, they would favor a merge with Russia; if this occurs in the future, Karakalpakstan would be a Russian exclave, like Kaliningrad.
XVII. Kazakhstan and Central Asia under the Communists
Modern national life started in Kazakhstan under totally inauspicious conditions. Along with the Civil War, a terrible famine devastated the country for three years, namely 1919-1922. To some extent, this was the consequence of WW I and all the emsuing developments; the collection of grain for the needs of the army (развёрстка: apportionment) that the Minister of Agriculture Aleksandr Rittikh (Александр Александрович Риттих; 1868-1937) introduced triggered a serious food crisis in parts of Russia. Two years later, when the Bolshevik government -facing the counter-revolution (which involved also extensive sabotage)- was cut off from Russia’s main wheat-producing regions, Lenin found no other solution than the продразвёрстка (prodrazvyorstka: confiscation of agricultural products from the peasants at fixed prices, which did not reflect at all the market value), which was a calamitous measure for the peasants.
It must be added that the famine was also due to drought, which has always been a periodical circumstance in Russia and Central Asia; but this time, it was -of course- greatly aggravated due to the aforementioned developments. Kazakhstan was not however the only region to be affected; North Caucasus, South Ural, the Volga basin, South Siberia faced ruination and were plagued with death too. In total, 5 million people lost their lives throughout the country. The situation would be far worse, if the American and Western European relief did not come abundantly and timely. An International Committee for Russian Relief was set up, but also many other funds and organizations participated actively and for several years.
In Kazakhstan, the worst hit areas were the northern half of today’s territory, because the populations of steppes always depend on others. Various contaminations and diseases spread also at the time. On the contrary, the southern regions were spared to some extent, because the population relied on cultivated lands in regions crossed by rivers and on the Fergana Valley. In this regard, it is safe to claim that the various rebellions, which occurred in those lands at the time, helped the populations escape central control and thus survive. The estimates about the casualties vary between 20%and 33% of the total Kazakh population.
b- The Malefic Role of Filipp Goloshchyokin in Kazakhstan
The Soviet administration of Kazakhstan starts with a very bizarre coincidence; due to the relative scarcity or the ideological instability of Kazakh and other Central Asiatic Bolsheviks at the time, Russians were regularly dispatched to securely fill the top positions and to fully implement the centralized government directives. It was the continuation of an imperial practice, but it was viewed by the central government only as temporary, because an overwhelming korenizatsiya (see above: part XV unit e) was already in the plans. The Kazakhs were definitely not lucky in the beginning; the abominable person appointed as First Secretary of the Communist Party in the Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic was none other than the notorious paranoid gangster Filipp Goloshchyokin (1876-1941; Филипп Голощёкин; born Shaya Itsikovich / Шая Ицикович), the Jewish murderer of the Romanov royal family.
A dental technician, with apparently no other experience in anything else except homosexuality, Goloshchyokin was one of the founding members of the Bolsheviks; he participated in the 1905 Revolution, only to be later exiled, then deported, and finally released after the February 1917 Revolution. After the October Revolution, he was appointed as Military Commissar of the Urals. Using his authority, he tried to have Prince Georgy Lvov (1861-1925 / Георгий Львов; Chairman of the Provisional Government after the February Revolution) executed, but he failed, because of the imminent interference of Isaac Nachman Steinberg (1888-1957; Исаак Нахман Штейнберг), the then People’s Commissar for Justice. However, using as argument the then rapid advance of the White Army toward Ekaterinburg (Yekaterinburg / Екатеринбург), he managed to have the Romanov royal family executed (17th July 1918). This filthy rascal was dispatched to Kazakhstan in 1925 and he ruled the vast ASSR for eight years (until 1933) as a really excruciating tyrant, taken into account the fact that there was no central government interference in his work and that, practically speaking, he was not held accountable to anyone.
Filipp Goloshchyokin carried out extensive infrastructure work in Kazakhstan, notably in the construction of the Turkestan-Siberia railway (туркестано сибирская магистраль; Turksib/ Турксиб), therefore making possible the exploitation of Kazakhstan’s enormous mineral resources by the central soviet government. With a total length of ca. 2375 km, the Turksib rail network links Orenburg and Tashkent with Semey and Novosibirsk. Implementing collectivization and dekulakization (elimination of the social class of kulaks, i. e. the wealthy farmers), the indoctrinated soviet government triggered an enormous socio-economic crisis of disproportionate dimensions; people were not allowed to possess even their gardens. In lands with a strong agricultural tradition, livestock property, and millennia-long heritage in animal husbandry, the resistance to such plans would be thunderous. Finally, the confiscation campaign turned one Kazakh against the other (pitching the poor against the rich), because these were the governmental intentions.
The Imperial Russian Okhrana (Охранное отделение: ‘Guard Department’) paper, pictures and fingerprints of the homosexual, Ashkenazi Khazarian, fake-Jewish, Zionist, Communist, paranoid monster Filipp Goloshchyokin.
The vicious homosexual gangster, who executed the Saint Czar Nicholas II and the Russian Imperial family; lovely verses in Russian decry Goloshchyokin’s anomaly:
c- Famine, Exodus, Deportations, Demographic Change in 1930s Kazakhstan
It all resulted in detrimental reduction of livestock numbers; within 3-5 years (1928-1933), from 22 million sheep less than 2 million were left alive, whereas from 7 million cattle only about 1.5 million remained in life. More than 10000 wealthy Kazakh farmers were deported. To survive, an enormous number of Kazakhs attempted a dramatic exodus to Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, then known as Xinjiang Province/新疆省, in the Republic of China). Despite the long way to walk (at times more than 500 km) and the evidently difficult crossing of Semirechye (Семиречье/ Жетісу- Zhetysu; ‘Seven Rivers’ Land’), a mountainous region, this was certainly preferable as an effort to survive.
About 1.3 million ethnic Kazakhs died in Kazakhstan during that period in what is now remembered as a horrible period of atrocious hatred and unprecedented persecution. The total number of Kazakhs in Soviet Union fell from ca. 4 million in 1926 to 2.8 million in 1937; the casualties amounted to 38% of all Kazakhs (and this is the higher number among all ethnic groups in the USSR). One has however to admit that Russians and non Russians were persecuted indiscriminately; they all suffered to the same extent during that period and throughout the entire USSR, around 11-12 million people died for the sake of the collectivization. The governmental policy that involved intentional deflation of prices killed them all.
One can surely describe the tragic event as an involuntary manslaughter of millions of people and as an unprecedented killing in negligence, but it is not correct, accurate and reasonable to define the brutish, yet nonsensical and vain, collectivization of the USSR as ‘genocide’. There was no specific malice, except for the Communist delusion itself. Contrarily, the Great Purge (Ежовщина/ Yezhovshchina; 1936-1939) was a deliberate genocide envisioned and carried out by Stalin, Yezhov, and many others.
In parallel with the aforementioned, an enormous project of population transfer started taking place in the 1930s throughout Soviet Union; these forcible deportations were due to various reasons: ethnic inadaptability to the overwhelming changes, socio-economic disobedience (incorrigible kulaks who did not cope with the soviet norm) or simply anti-Soviet attitude of any sort. It goes without saying that an extra number of casualties was due to these measures. As the land of Kazakhstan was viewed as a sparsely populated territory, many populations were deported and settled there. This triggered a severe demographic change; from 1939 until the middle 1980s, there were more Russians than Kazakhs in Kazakh SSR.
More specifically, whereas in 1926, there were ca. 4 million Kazakhs and slightly above 1 million Russians in the Kazak ASSR, in 1939, both ethnic groups totaled around 2.5 million people. For the subsequent five decades, the Kazakhs represented 30% to 40% of the total population of the Kazakh SSR, whereas the Russians were steadily above 40%. Only in 1989, the Kazakhs outnumbered again the Russians on the territory of the Kazakh SSR (40.1% to 37.4%); this was due to the then tendency of the Russians to relocate to major Russian cities, and it was accentuated after the events of December 1986 (known as Jeltoqsan), which attempted to trigger enmity between Kazakhs and Russians.
Staying mostly in his office, being guarded by police, dogs and vehicles, dodging the average people, and avoiding movements in provinces and villages, Goloshchyokin ran the state as a scared psychopath and a deranged paranoid. Issuing absurd orders and schizophrenic dictates, he was asking subordinates to enforce them, keeping himself hidden for most of the time. His manners, which seriously damaged the communist cause and endangered the diffusion of soviet ideas, became gradually known to many across the USSR. Kazakhs and Russians alike started realizing in 1932 that something extremely abnormal, miserable and catastrophic was taking place in the Kazakh ASSR.
Panicked like rats, the indigenous populations were fleeing the place with whatever luggage they could manage to take with; this situation was already causing serious problems to various local adminsitrators in Siberia; furthermore, an unprecedented and dramatic exodus of numerous local populations to China’s Xinjiang could irreparably damage Soviet Union’s image as the best possible choice for the world’s proletariat. In January 1933, Goloshchyokin was terminated thanks to the steadfast efforts of Uraz Isayev (1899-1938; Ураз Джанзакович Исаев), a leading Kazakh Communist who served as prime minister of the Kazak ASSR and the Kazakh SSR from 1929 until 1937, and following the complains expressed by several other patriotic Kazakh Communists.
Isayev was executed in the Great Purge, but few months later, when the leading Communist and People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs (lit. Minister of Interior), Nikolai Yezhov (1895-1940; Николай Иванович Ежов), the chief executioner during the Great Purge, was arrested, he confessed that he had a homosexual relationship with the notorious Goloshchyokin; this development led to the arrest, incarceration, and execution of the ‘Butcher of Kazakhstan”.
d- The Koreans of Kazakhstan
The deportation of 172000 Soviet Koreans from Eastern Siberia (currently Far Eastern Federal District / Дальневосточный федеральный округ) to the Kazakh SSR in 1937 was another issue of embarrassment for the local population. It was actually the first forced relocation to be decided by the Soviet authorities for an entire ethnic group/nationality. According to estimates, ca. 30000 Koreans died in the process, because of various reasons. Their integration in the new, different geomorphological environment proved also to be very difficult; it is only with the rise of Khrushchev, after Stalin’s death in 1953, that the harsh life of Koreans in the steppes of Kazakhstan started improving. The principal reason for their deportation was the fact that the soviet leadership suspected them to be spies for the Japanese, who were USSR’s main rival in East Asia.
It is only after 1936 and the establishment of the Kazakh SSR that modern national life started being normalized, education widely implemented, industrialization accentuated, and better integration achieved within the USSR. Despite the extreme adversities that the entire country underwent during WW II, there was a remarkable stability in the Kazakh SSR; this can be attested in the leadership of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan; from 1936 until 1989 (53 years), eleven persons only preceded Nursultan Nazarbayev in the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party.
e- Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (1924-1991)
Similar stability was experienced in all the other Central Asiatic SSR. Notably, in the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (Туркменская Советская Социалистическая Республика), just thirteen (13) persons succeeded one another (starting from 1924) before Saparmurat Niyazov (Сапармурат Атаевич Ниязов; 1940-2006) was appointed (21 December 1985) as the First Secretary of the Communist Party (partly due to his strong Soviet credentials and also because of his Jewish wife) by M. Gorbachev (whose mother’s Jewish ancestry is well-known), only to rule the country during the transition period and until his death.
It is interesting that until 1947, only two ethnic Turkmen held the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party (only for about one year each), namely Shaymardan Ibragimov (Шаймардан Ибрагимов; 1899-1957) and Anna Mukhamedov (Анна Мухамедов; 1900-1938). All the same, after 1947, only ethnic Turkmen held this position, which is quite telling about the time needed for the central Soviet government to form local generations of Soviet leaders, i.e. the nomenklatura.
Shaymardan IbragimovSaparmurat Niyazov
f- Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (1925-1991)
Similarly, between 1925 and 1989, in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (Узбекская Советская Социалистическая Республика), only 13 persons preceded Islam Karimov (Ислам Каримов; 1938-2016), who was appointed (23 June 1989) as the First Secretary of the Communist Party to squelch the Islamist revolt, which had already been fomented in the Fergana Valley by Afghani Taliban, who were guided by the UK, US and Saudi Arabian secret services.
His predecessors, Inomjon Usmonxoʻjayev (Инамжон Бузрукович Усманходжаев; 1930-2017) and Rafiq Nishonov (Рафик Нишанович Нишанов; born in 1926, 96 years old today), who ruled for 5 and 2 years respectively (1983-1988/1988-1989) were proven untrustworthy, the former for being involved in the notorious ‘Cotton Scandal’ and the latter for failing to put the clandestine activities of the Islamists under full control. Like Niyazov in Turkmenistan, Islam Karimov was able to effectively rule during the transition period in Uzbeksitan and to eliminate the Wahhabi contamination – to the great chagrin of the perfidious UK, US and other Western diplomats and statesmen who are ceaselessly talking nonsense about ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, etc. only to use this idiotic literature as a smokescreen for their subversive activities against numerous targeted countries.
Quite interestingly, none of the four persons, who held the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Uzbekistan between 1925 and 1929, was ethnic Uzbek: they were (in chronological order) Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian and Jew. The first ethnic Uzbek to be appointed in this position was Akmal Ikramov (1898-1938; Акмаль Икрамович Икрамов), who was known for his strong anti-religious convictions. He ruled for 8 years (1929-1937), but he was accused of Trotskyism, Pan-Turkism, nationalism and Anglophilia and he was subsequently condemned to death and executed, only to be rehabilitated in 1957 by the Khrushchev administration. After a brief passage of Pavel Nikitovich Yakovlev (Павел Никитович Яковлев) from that position (1937), only ethnic Uzbeks were appointed atop the local Communist Party.
Contrarily with the turmoil experienced in the transition period after 1991, the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (Таджикская Советская Социалистическая Республика) had sustained a remarkable stability, and this is shown in the number of persons who held the position of First Secretary of the Communist Party in Tajikistan. With the ASSR period included, just 14 persons held this position from 1924 until 1991; they were not all ethnic Tajiks. Although during the period of the Tajik ASSR, there were ethnic Tajiks in the top position of the Communist Party, and despite the fact that the Tajik ASSR was upgraded due to the persistent efforts of the great Tajik intellectual and pioneering activist Shirinsho Shotemur (see above part XVI unit f), until 1946 mainly non Tajiks were atop the Communist Party of Tajikistan, namely involving (in chronological order) an Azeri, a Russian Jew, an Armenian, an Uzbek, and a Russian.
However, following the appointment of the great historian, academic and Orientalist Bobojon Ghafurov (1908-1977; Бободжан Гафурович Гафуров) as First Secretary of the Communist Party (his tenure lasted 10 years: 1946-1956), only ethnic Tajiks held this position. Known for his outstanding thesis {published in 1941; История секты исмаилитов с начала XIX в. до первой империалистической войны/The history of the Ismaili sect from the beginning of the 19th century until the first imperialist war (WW I)}, Ghafurov is also remembered for his great presentation of the cultural Oriental–Macedonian synthesis which resulted from Alexander the Great’s invasion of Iran (Александр Македонский и Восток/ Alexander the Great and the East – in collaboration with the Soviet historian D. Tsibukidis/ Димитриос Цибукидис).
The last First Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan who ruled the SSR was Qahhor Mahkamovich Mahkamov (1932-2016; Кахар Махкамович Махкамов); he was appointed by M. Gorbachev in December 1985, mainly because his predecessor, Rahmon Nabiyev (1930-1993; Рахмон Набиевич Набиев), was involved in many corruption scandals. Qahhor Mahkamov’s tenure was a tormented period, due to the rise of Tajik nationalism, Islamic radicalism, anti-Russian and anti-Soviet extremism. To appease some of his opponents and at the same time to divide them, Mahkamov introduced a law designating Tajik as the sole official language of the SSR. In February 1990, the Dushanbe riots, which were due to the resettlement of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan, caused many casualties and a rift among the ethnic groups of the country, particularly because most of the troops deployed against the protesters were Russian. Mahkamov was able to put the Islamists under control, arresting many, and he was subsequently appointed as President of Tajikistan by Gorbachev, but his catastrophic support for the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev triggered his fall. In Turkmenistan, Niyazov supported the coup too for a brief period, but he did not face an opposition like the embattled Tajik president.
Qahhor MahkamovQadriddin AslonovRahmon Nabiyev
Following massive protestations, Mahkamov resigned and was ousted from power on 31st August 1991 in what proved to be the prelude to the Tajik Civil War. In his stead, Qadriddin Aslonov was elected as temporary successor, but his effort to please the protesters and his announcement of the dissolution of the Communist Party of Soviet Union triggered another coup (23rd September 1991) during which Aslonov disappeared only to perish one year later. Then, Mahkamov’s predecessor as First Secretary, Rahmon Nabiyev, was appointed as Second President of Tajikistan and announced elections in which he presented himself as the leading candidate. On 6th October 1991, due to strong opposition, Nabiyev resigned and was replaced by Akbarsho Iskandrov; however, Nabiyev won the elections of 2nd December 1991, thus becoming the first elected President of Tajikistan.
Few months later, in May 1992, the Tajik Civil War started; it plunged the country in absolute chaos. On 7th September 1992, Nabiyev was ambushed by opposition rebels and he resigned immediately only to die one year later under obscure circumstances. He was replaced again by Akbarsho Iskandrov, who in turn resigned two months later (20th November 1992), when the Supreme Soviet of Tajikistan, in its 16th session (held in Khujand), abolished the position of the president, proclaimed the country as a parliamentary republic, and chose Emomali Rahmon as chairman of the Supreme Soviet. Acting as the head of the government and being acknowledged as the ‘Founder of Peace and National Unity’ and the ‘Leader of the Nation’, the former Soviet apparatchik (chairman of sovkhoz in 1987) was elected and re-elected in his position in 1994, 1999, 2006, 2013 and 2020. In fact, the Civil War in Tajikistan ended only in 1997.
The post-USSR transition period in Tajikistan was markedly different from the situation that Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan experienced. This difference may look bizarre to various naïve specialists, who think they can study History and Political Science in Western universities, libraries and institutes. It appears so particularly because all these three countries share common borders with Afghanistan. However, those, who study such topics by visiting these countries, exploring their provinces, and examining the situation from closely, know very well that, although the borders of Afghanistan with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are easy to guard effectively, this does not and actually cannot happen with the mountainous area through which the Afghanistan – Tajikistan borderline passes. These borders are very porous, involving high elevation areas, steep peaks, precipitous cliffs, difficult passes, and many long months with fog, snow and ground frost.
h- Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic(1924-1991, incl. Autonomous Oblast & ASSR)
Similarly with the three aforementioned cases, the Kirghiz Soviet Socalist Republic (Киргизская Советская Социалистическая Республика) experienced a period of stability under the Soviet rule; as already mentioned, it started as Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast in 1924, was renamed as Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast in 1925, was upgraded to ASSR in 1926, and became a SSR in 1936. On 21st October 1924, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee approved 17 people, who formed a Revolutionary Committee geared to manage the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Region. Among them, Imanaly Aidarbekov (1884-1938; Иманалы Айдарбеков), a pioneering Kirghiz jurist, judge and statesman, played a leading role, and soon afterwards, he was elected chairman of the committee. In 1925, he was seconded to the Central Asian Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, but later he was reprimanded for what was viewed as ‘nationalist’ ideological deviation {namely his participation in the ‘group of 30’ and his support for another Kirghiz Communist intellectual with ‘nationalist’ tendencies, i.e. Yusup Abdrakhmanov (1901-1938; Юсуп Абдрахманович Абдрахманов)}.
To ensure dogmatic uniformity and to prevent ideological aberration, all the persons, who held the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan, were not Kirghiz, but predominantly Russians; this was typical for the periods of the Autonomous Oblast and the ASSR, and also for the early years of the SSR. From 1925 until 1950, eight (8) people held this position. Only after 1950, ethnic Kirghiz were appointed in the top position in their country. However, there was an overwhelming majority of Kirghiz in both, the position of the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the Kirghiz SSR (1936-1938; before the implementation of the 1936 Soviet Constitution) and the position of the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kirghiz SSR (1938-1990).
Kyrgyzstan experienced great stability in the period 1950-1991, and during that period, only four persons held the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party, starting with Ishkak Razzakov (1910-1979; Исхак Раззакович Раззаков). The last to substantially hold this position was Absamat Masaliyev (1933-2004; Абсамат Масалиевич Масалиев), who was appointed in November 1985; this appointment was engineered by Gorbachev and it was merely the consequence of the ‘necessary’ replacement of Masaliyev’s notorious predecessor, Turdakun Usubaliyev (1919-2015; Турдакун Усубалиевич Усубалиев), a typical Brezhnev era apparatchik, who had stayed 24 years in power.
Masaliyev’s tenure was tarnished because of the violent Osh riots (4-7 June 1990), which were triggered mainly by teenagers fanaticized by agents of Western embassies, which were acting uncontrolled bribing as many agitators as they could, due to Gorbachev’s apparent, total inability to govern the country while changing it. The establishment of so-called ‘free’ groups and ‘cultural associations’ {like the Uzbek organization Adolat/Адолат (‘Justice’) and the Kirghiz band Osh Aymaghi/ Ош аймагы (‘region of Osh’)} produced the necessary venues where local infiltrators and agitators could carry out directives received from foreign embassies and consulates. Similar events had already started to happen to minor extent in Uzbekistan (June 1989: against the Meshketian Turks who had been deported there in … 1944 !!) and Tajikistan (early: against the recently transported Armenians). But the special forces dispatched by Gorbachev to Osh in order to squelch the riots killed more than 1000 demonstrators; all the same, the local mob had already performed more than 5000 crimes, pillaging and killing as many Uzbeks as they could. It is to the credit of the local political establishment that, as early as 1991, the related judicial investigation had duly taken place and fair trials had been properly conducted.
Although being for some months (April to December 1990) also the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, Absamat Masaliyev failed to be voted (opposite Apas Jumagulov/ Апас Джумагулович Джумагулов; born in 1934) as President of the Republic; due to both candidates’ failure, the electors (: the Supreme Soviet) appointed Askar Akayev as president. In April 1991, Jumgalbek Amanbayev (1946-2005; Джумгалбек Бексултанович Аманбаев) was appointed at the top position of the Communist Party only to be terminated in August 1991, when the party was dissolved. Askar Akayev (Аскар Акаевич Акаев; born in 1994), who immediately condemened the failed Soviet coup, proved to be an ideal person for the critical transition period in Kyrgyzstan; that’s why the country at the time did not undergo a civil war like neighboring Tajikistan, which experienced a great turmoil in the 1990s and a long period of calmness and stability afterwards. In fact, Kyrgyzstan followed a reverse path.
Akaev’s ability to effectively introduce privatization, promote Neo-Tengrism (in order to avoid the Wahhabi cholera), and restructure the local administration was remarkable. He won the elections of October 1991, December 1995, and October 2000. Unfortunately, Kyrgyzstan experienced in the 2000s what its leadership was able to prevent in the 1990s. Demonstartions started as early as 2002, only to turn worse in 2005. Akayev fled on 24th March 2005, reached Moscow and officially resigned from there; he still lives in Russia, working on scientific projects of his field. The so-called First Kirghiz (or ‘Tulip’) Revolution (March-April 2005) was orchestrated by the US-UK embassies, which supported several leaders of the opposition. After the interim presidency of Ishenbai Kadyrbekov, Kurmanbek Bakiyev was first appointed by the Legislative Assembly (25th March 2005) and then elected in a rigged election. Fully supported by Western diplomats, Bakiyev ran Kyrgyzstan as a disgrace; in April 2010, the Kyrgyz Revolution (Апрельская революция/April Revolution) forced Bakiyev to resign and leave the country, only to settle in Belarus. Meanwhile, he was sentenced in absentia to life in prison for the killings of demonstrators that he calmly and coldly ordered. His departure did not help much, and the riots ended up in many deaths, during the intense ethnic clashes, which took place between the Kirghiz and the Uzbek minority.
The ethnic clashes in Osh and other locations in South Kyrgyzstan ended up with many dead. Neither Roza Otunbayeva (chosen by the US and supported by the Kirghiz ‘opposition’), who ruled as ‘president’ from July 2010 until December 2011, nor Almazbek Atambayev (prime minister after the 2010 parliamentary elections and president after the October 2011 presidential elections), nor Sooronbay Jeenbekov (prime minister for the period April 2016 – August 2017, and president after October 2017) managed to bring peace, calm, and concord to the Kirghiz nation. That’s why, after the rigged parliamentary elections of October, riots broke out and Jeenbekov resigned on 15th October 2020, only to later settle in Saudi Arabia. Ruling the country first as prime minister and interim president, and then as elected president after the 10th January 2021, Sadyr Japarov has indeed a difficult task to carry out.
Kurmanbek Bakiyev (born 1949; Курманбек Салиевич Бакиев)Sadyr Japarov (born 1968; Садыр Жапаров) with Kassym-Jomart Tokayev Sadyr Japarov (born 1968; Садыр Жапаров) with Vladimir Putin
i- The Foundation of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republicand the Birth of the Modern Kazakh Nation
The administration of most of today’s Kazakhstan’s territory was the topic for which Lenin, Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich, and Lidiya Fotiyeva from the Council of People’s Commissars (i.e. the Soviet government) signed the decree “On the Revolutionary Committee for the Administration of the Kirghiz Territory” on 10th July 1919. The Revolutionary Committee would organize the ‘Kirghiz’ lands and prepare the local infrastructure. On 30th April 1920, the Central Committee of the RCP created the Kirghiz Regional Bureau of the RCP, which included A. Avdeev (А. Авдеев), A. Aitiev (А. Айтиев), A. Alibekov (А. Алибеков), S. Argancheev (С. Арганчеев), A. Dzhangildin (А. Джангильдин), M. Murzagaliev (М. Мурзагалиев) and Stanislav Pestkovsky (Станислав Пестковский).
Consequently, for the period Kazakhstan (‘Kirghiz lands’) was still a ‘krai’ (region) of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика), there were Secretaries of the Kirghiz Regional Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (RCP – 1920-1921). The third and last person to hold this position was an early Kazakh Communist intellectual, party activist and leader, Muhammad Hafii Murzagaliev (1887-1938; Мухамедхафий Мурзагалиев / Мұхамед-Хафиз Мырзағалиев). The First Kirghiz (‘Kazakh’) Regional Party Conference took place in Orenburg (11th to 18th June 1921) and elected the regional party committee. In April 1922, the Kirghiz Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP was created.
At the end of 1920, Murzagaliev became also the deputy chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Kirghiz ASSR, and in January 1921, he was appointed as Secretary of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) Regional Committee of the RCP. As he was later asked to focus on his activities in the government, he was relieved from his duties in the party. Three other persons succeeded him in his post, two Russians and one Georgian (Victor Ivanovich Naneishvili/ Виктор Иванович Нанейшвили; 1878-1940). After February 1925, the local party leaders were styled ‘Secretaries of the Kazakhstan Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union’. Naneishvili was the first to hold this position, and he supervised the change of name, only to be soon succeeded by Filipp Goloshchyokin (whose malefic role for the period 1925-1933 was already described; see above: part XVII unit b) and Levon Mirzoyan (1897-1939; Левон Исаевич Мирзоян). It is only after the proclamation of the Kazakh SSR (5 December 1936) that the Communist Party of Kazakhstan was founded (23 April 1937).
Until 1921, there was not one single Bolshevik party center throughout the territory of modern Kazakhstan; on the contrary, there had already been since 1918 a center in Tashkent, but due to the then existing borders, this belonged to the Communist Party of Turkestan, which was dissolved in 1924 in order to allow the communist parties of Tukrmenistan and Uzbekistan to be established following the completion of the delimitation process. The Tashkent office created party organizations in the regions: Syrdarya, Semirechensk, Turgai and Ural. In the early 1920s, there were very few ethnic Kazakhs (less than 1500 persons) to belong to the local RCP organization (they were less than 10% of the total number of members).
However, following the early implementation of Korenizatsiya and Kazakhization (Казахизация) policies, many ethnic Kazakhs realized that the Soviet government was very different from the imperial practices, and they therefore showed an interest to become members; more than 8000 people were then accepted, involving 6000 workers and peasants (‘farm laborers’ as per the soviet jargon). Illiteracy proved then to be a major problem, because 4 out of 10 Kazakh members of the RCP were indeed absolutely illiterate. A great pedagogical effort was subsequently deployed and the situation improved dramatically. In 1926, the Russians outnumbered the Kazakhs in the local party organization, but in 1937, the Kazakhs constituted almost half of the local party members (and except the Russians, there were also Ukrainians and others).
The establishment of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) ASSR was the subject of a special decree signed on 26th August 1920 by Lenin and Michael I. Kalinin (1875-1946; Михаил Иванович Калинин) on behalf of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR; the title was “On the Formation of the Autonomous Kirghiz Socialist Soviet Republic”. One must bear in mind that the above mentioned developments of 1919-1920 took place just in the aftermath of a troublesome situation, namely the short-lived state ‘Alash Autonomy’ (see above: part X units f, u, v, x and y; part XI and part XIV). The ‘Alash Orda’ (party) was still strong and its members could undertake clandestine activities. There were indeed many Alash leaders, who wanted still to defend their lands against the Soviet rule. Lenin desired to solve the issue peacefully, because in spite of all the differences that they had about national issues, the Jadidist members of the ‘Alash Orda’ and the Bolsheviks were ideologically close to one another.
Consequently, a meeting with Kazakh Jadidists was arranged, including also young associates of the ‘Alash Orda’ party leader Alikhan Bukeikhanov, and the topic of the discussion was: ‘On the situation of the Kirghiz region in general, and on the issue of borders, in particular’. In that meeting, the young Kazakh activist and intellectual Alimkhan Ermekov (Алимхан Ермеков; 1891-1970) convincingly presented the need to include Akmola, Semipalatinsk, and also Guryev (currently Atyrau) in the newly established ‘Kirghiz’ region. The demands of the great Kazakh scholar, academic and linguist Akhmet Baitursynov, who was the reformer of the Kazakh alphqabet, were also accepted, and thus Kostanay became part of the ‘Kirghiz’ region. In this manner, the bulk of Kazakh Jadidist intellectuals and activists, including the leader Alikhan Bukeikhanov, accepted finally the Soviet government and integrated well into the USSR.
The Constituent Congress of workers, peasants, Cossacks, Kirghiz and Red Army deputies of the Kirghiz ASSR took place in Orenburg on 4th October 1920; V. A. Radus-Zenkovich, chairman of the Kirghiz Revolutionary Committee (Kirrevkom), welcomed the 273 delegates (128 Kazakhs, 127 Russians, 18 representatives of other nationalities) from all regions of Kazakhstan (‘Kirghiz’ region) and also 6 delegates from the Kazakh population of the Altai province (southern Siberia). The congress adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Workers of the Kirghiz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic’.
On 12th October 1920, the Constituent Congress of Soviets elected the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the Kirghiz ASSR, which consisted of 76 members and 25 probationer members. The CEC Presidium included 10 members and 5 probationer members; among them were several leading Kazakh Jadidists, namely S. Mendeshev (chairman), V. A. Radus-Zenkovich, A. Dzhangildin, S. Seifullin, I. F. Kiselev and others. Then, the Kirghiz Revolutionary Committee, which was a temporary body, transferred all its powers to the government of the Kirghiz ASSR.
On 13th July 1921, the First Congress of the Communist Youth Union of Kyrgyzstan started in Orenburg. In October 1921, the First Kazakhstan Conference of Trade Unions took place; the participants defined their tasks in restoring the national economy, increasing labor productivity, and ameliorating the educational, cultural and living conditions of workers and employees. The CEC of the Kirghiz ASSR developed and approved the ‘Regulations on the People’s Commissariats’ of Justice, Education, Agriculture, the Kirpromburo and other executive bodies. The Council of People’s Commissars of the Kirghiz ASSR adopted a decree on the use of Kazakh and Russian as official languages in state institutions, whereas in areas with predominant Kazakh population it was allowed to conduct office work and correspondence in the native language. Between 4th and 10th October 1921, the Second Congress of Soviets of the Kirghiz ASSR was held to mainly pay special attention to the questions of local Soviets. Then, the same norms of representation and the same electoral processes as in the central regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic were approved in the congress: “Regulations on the procedure for the election of city, rural (aul) Soviets, volost, district (county), provincial executive committees, the All-Kyrgyz Central Executive Committee and on the procedure for convening congresses of Soviets”.
The “Regulations” allowed elections to be held at meetings of citizens of each aul, if they could not participate in the general meeting of the population of several auls that elected one aul Council; this was very important, because due to the still existing nomadic nature of the Kazakh society and the immensity of the Kazakh steppe, one aul (fortified village, typical in the Caucasus region and in Central Asia / Russian: аул; Kazakh: Ауыл) could be very far from the next.
Typical aulTypical aul
On the basis of Lenin’s decree on the nationalization of land, the Central Executive Committee of the Kyrgyz ASSR adopted a decree (2nd February 1921) on the return to Kazakh peasants of all lands alienated by the czarist government for landowners, as well as lands of the colonization fund and monasteries. Furthermore, in April 1921, another decree was issued to specify the details of the return to the Kazakh workers of all the lands transferred by the imperial government to the ownership of the Ural and Siberian Cossack troops. Sedentary life was highly encouraged, and those willing to change their walk of life were supplied with building materials, agricultural implements, and seeds. Extensive and groundbreaking land and water reforms (collectivization) were implemented in 1921-1922, involving also mistakes (notably the confiscation of the property of the middle peasants). On 26th August 1922, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the “Basic Law on labor land use in the Kirghiz Republic”, after which the reform was completed throughout the territory.
Life in early Soviet Kazakhstan involved a great deal of partisan agitation and propaganda. In April 1922, Alibey Dzhangildin (1884-1953; Алиби Тогжанович Джангильдин / Әліби Тоғжанұлы Жангелдин), an outstanding Kazakh author, intellectual, revolutionary and traveler, started implementing what he envisioned as Red Caravan and Yurt (: tent). The sociocultural event involved representatives of the Kirobkom of the RCP, Komsomol organizations, people’s commissariats for education, health care, agriculture, trade, and the CEC department for work among women; it helped bring together simple people from many parts of the country (wherever the Red Caravan moved to as per the schedule) and people from the middle and higher levels of the soviet administration, so that they come ti know one another and discuss all topics of common interest. The Red Caravan helped with the construction of collective farms, and assisted the starving, the poor, and the sick. From 20th May until 9th August, they traveled to numerous cities, towns, auls and villages, notably Orenburg, Semipalatinsk, Orsk, Turgai, Atbasar, Akmolinsk, Petropavlovsk, Pavlodar, etc. In addition, they stayed in 37 auls, visited the then few existing industrial centers (Spassky and Ekibastuz), and held no less than 126 meetings and 420 talks in order to extensively explain the governmental policy and the partisan ideology.
This was just the beginning of an enormous work that was later undertaken by provinces, which created their own Red Caravans and Yurts, while agitation and propaganda departments (APO) were subsequently developed under the Kirghiz regional committee and provincial party committees. The emancipation of Kazakh women was accelerated with similar events in which prominent figures of the local and federal women’s movement helped poor and illiterate women living in remote areas fully learn and understand the rights that the new state offered them, thus terminating the extremely immoral and pseudo-religious use of Islam by ignorant and uncouth, sadomasochist sheikhs and imams.
The 3rd Congress of Soviets of the Kirghiz ASSR was held 6th to 13th October 1922. The various reports emphasized “the steady implementation by the Soviet government of the principles of national equality and self-government of the working masses of various nationalities”. Among many other decisions made, the congress led to the creation of the ‘Society for the Study of the Kirghiz Territory’ (: Kirghiz ASSR / Общество изучения Киргизского края). Bringing Russian and Kazakh scientists together, this institution functioned as the cradle of the Kazakh academic class.
The 4th Congress of Soviets of the Kirghiz ASSR was held 5th to 10th January 1924. The focus was evidently focused on the agriculture and that’s why the resolution “On measures to restore and strengthen agriculture” detailed the local needs, notably the development of demonstration plots, breeding nurseries, the creation of state reserve seed funds, the training of agricultural specialists from Kazakhs (for which a special scholarship fund was provided), the reduction of prices for agricultural implements, the organization of hay forage bases, the reward of farms for improving livestock productivity, etc. Amongst others, the congress discussed the draft Constitution of the Kirghiz ASSR, which consisted of 7 sections and 18 chapters, and instructed the Central Executive Committee to finalize the text. About:
As already mentioned (part XVII unit b), the Kazakh ASSR had the very bad luck to experience the tenure of the paranoid gangster Filipp Goloshchyokin for 8 years (1925-1933). So evil this person was that he wanted to launch, a second, ‘small’, October (Малый Октябрь) with the intention to suppress and eliminate the local tribal elites of the Kazakhs in an unnecessarily overwhelming manner. The term was amply used in the sense that the October 1917 Revolution had not yet properly ‘come’ to Kazakhstan. It is true that, despite all the decisions made and measures taken until 1925, the central government had only minimal leverage over the nomadic population – in great contrast with what was happening with the workers and the populations of the country’s central regions. This is so because the main supporters of the Bolsheviks among the Kazakhs were the youth, the workers, and the intellectuals, who also had little contact with, and knowledge about, the nomads. When it comes to the aul households, which was still the nucleus of the Kazakh social life, as per the data of the 1926 census, only 23% of them were fully settled (sedentary).
For these reasons and because of personal vanity, Filipp Goloshchyokin wanted to ‘start from scratch’ and implement absurdly and inhumanly radical measures; that’s why he rejected the methodic work done by his predecessors (as it had not brought forth spectacular results) and he started fighting with all the local Communists. Long before Stalin decimated all those, who disagreed with him, throughout Soviet Union during the Great Purge, Goloshchyokin persecuted the Kazakh intellectuals in the period 1926-1930, removing most of them from their positions, arresting them, and accusing them of ‘national deviationism’. He even wrote a theatrical letter to Stalin to ask permission to launch his ‘Small October’! The brutal, prompt and forceful shift from nomadism to sedentary life caused the terrible famine, which has already been briefly described (part XVII unit c); it is noteworthy that only in the period 1926-1927, for the redistribution of arable and pasture land, about 1.360.000 acres of hayfields and 1.250.000 acres of arable land were taken from wealthy households and transferred to the poor and middle peasants.
Stalin expressed great indignation when he came to learn about the population decline in Kazakhstan, but unfortunately, it was too late. The fact that it took too long for Kazakh Bolsheviks like Uraz Isayev and others to protest is due to several reasons; first, there was an enormous improvement in terms of infrastructure; second, it was clear to the Kazakh intellectuals that the entire socioeconomic restructuring would be beneficial to most in the long run and that the overall progress would bring about a fair, just and right order among Kazakhs; third, the extensive implementation of korenizatsiya, after many decades of Russification and czarist imperialism, was enthusiastically accepted by all the nations and ethnic groups throughout the USSR. In fact, there was a certain crescendo in the realization of korenizatsiya concepts from the early 1920s until 1936, when the new constitution (effective: 5th December 1936) was adopted; within the context of every nation, korenizatsiya signified a complete and proper nation building – the building of a soviet nation of course. It covered all aspects of the nations under formation: socio-behavioral, educational, academic, scientific, cultural, ideological, artistic, economic, administrative and governmental.
Korenizatsiya was very ostensible in Soviet artists’ achievements & on official posters
It was in the early 1930s and thanks to korenizatsiya that the illustrious Kazakh author, playwright and intellectual Gabit Musirepov (1902-1985; Габит Махмутович Мусрепов) wrote the libretto to the first Kazakh opera Kyz-Zhibek (Кыз-Жибек), which was based on a 16th c. traditional folk legend that narrated the terrible troubles that were caused to the Kazakhs by the feudal oligarchs (music: Yevgeny Brusilovsky). Similar paradigms existed within every other Soviet nation. And according to the new constitution, throughout the USSR, there were 11 socialist republics, 22 autonomous republics, 9 autonomous regions, and 9 national territories; this means that, due to korenizatsiya, no less than 50 different nation building processes were undertaken within the vast country, whereas at the same time, the administration was greatly centralised. An incredible achievement indeed!
Gabit MusrepovBrochure of the Opera Kyz-ZhibekMain characters in the popular imagination
Gradually, after 1936, korenizatsiya started dwindling and finally, it faded away; many historians view in this development a certain comeback of the Russification, but this is wrong. Simply, as process, korenizatsiya was completed. It was actually never canceled or repealed; but the young Communist nations were already consolidated, and what was needed at the time was a stronger bond among the already built, established, and strengthened nations of the USSR. By the 1930s, in the Kazakh ASSR, there were already more than ten pioneering linguists, grammarians and lexicographers, who had already extensively published about practically speaking anything – from manuals of Kazakh language to academic articles and scholarly researches. Indicatively: Khalil Dosmukhamedov (1883-1939; Халел Досмухамедович Досмухамедов), Koshmuhambet Kemengerov (1896-1937; Кошмухамбет Кеменгеров), Saken Seifullin (1894-1938; Сакен Сейфуллин), Beimbet Mailin (1894-1938; Беимбет Жармагамбетович Майлин), Mirzhakip Dulatov (1885-1935; Миржакип Дулатов), Magzhan Zhumabaev (1893-1938; Магжан Жумабаев), Telzhan Shonanov (1894-1938; Телжан Шонанов), Eldes Omarov (1892-1937; Елдес Омаров), Ahmet Baitursynov (1872-1937; Ахмет Байтурсынов), Kudaibergen Zhubanov (1899-1938; Кудайберген Куанович Жубанов), Nazir Turekulov (1892-1937; Назир Тюрякулович Тюрякулов), Jusibek Aimautov (1889-1930; Джусупбек Аймаутов), T. Zhurgenov (1898=1938; Темирбек Караевич Жургенов), etc. About:
When Levon Mirzoyan (1897-1939; Левон Исаевич Мирзоян) was moved from Perm (where he was Secretary of the Perm Regional Committee and 2nd Secretary of the Ural Regional Committee of the Communist Party) to Kazakhstan to replace Goloshchyokin, he did not know that Kazakhstan would soon be upgraded to SSR. In fact, on 5th December 1936, the Kazakh ASSR was removed from the Russian SFSR and was given the status of a union republic: the Kazakh SSR (Казахская ССР). Following this development, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks upgraded (on 23th April 1937) the regional party organization, thus establishing the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. In June 1937, the First Congress of Communists of the Republic completed the formalization of the CPK. Kazakhs remember with some nostalgia the period of Mirzoyan’s tenure. This happens not without some reason.
Mirzoyan was a passionate human and a caring person; all the troubles that he encountered in Kazakhstan strongly motivated him to outperform himself and to do all that it took to improve the conditions of life and to ensure a humane treatment of all the inhabitants of the vast state. In a letter sent to Lazar Kaganovich (a Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Khazarian from Ukraine, who was one of the closest associates of Stalin: 1893-1991; Лазарь Моисеевич Каганович), Mirzoyan wrote the following: “I left Moscow being sure that the situation in Kazakhstan was difficult, but what I saw here exceeded all my expectations”. As he arrived in January 1933, he deployed a great effort in the first months, thus ensuring an excellent harvest in the summer; he ordered to stop the mass slaughter of livestock and to distribute more than 1 million 100 thousand heads of cattle to collective farmers over the span of the next three years.
Among Mirzoyan’s major achievements, one can enumerate the following: the beginning of the construction of the Ulba hydroelectric power station, the building of the Chimkent lead plant, the construction of the Ridder plant, the fast development of the Karaganda coal basin, the expansion of the explorations in the Emba region, the commissioning of new oil fields, and the establishment of industrial zones. At the end of 1935, the construction of the Guriev-Orsk oil pipeline with a length of about 800 km was completed. In an astounding change from the earlier socioprofessional conditions, already in the second half of the 1930s, 46.5% of the local population worked in the industrial sector. The industrialization of Kazakhstan was a fact.
Mirzoyan showed a great interest for the arts and the sciences in Kazakhstan. He supervised the establishment of the Kazakh Musical Theater, the Kazakh State Philharmonic Society, and the Kazakh base of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (with the following sectors: the botanical, zoological, geographical, Field Research Commission, Historical and Archaeological Commission, and Commission for the Kazakh dictionary). Furthermore, the First Congress of Writers of Kazakhstan was duly prepared and successfully held; in addition, the great national Kazakh poet Abai Kunanbaev (rather known in English bibliography as brahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly: 1845-1904; Абай Кунанбаев) was fully ‘rehabilitated’.
Living in a cruel era, Mirzoyan was perilously humane; at times, he warned Kazakh intellectuals and partisan activists about their forthcoming arrest, trying to convince them to leave the country. Worse, he entered in personal dispute with Stalin and others in order to save ‘nationalist’ elements that they wanted to arrest and execute. When he opposed the decision to further deport the Koreans (see above: part XVII unit d) from South Kazakhstan to North Kazakhstan, because this eventuality would expose these populations to further adversities, he created doubts about his fidelity and trustworthiness. At a time, when the human life had absolutely no value, this attitude proved to be lethal; he was arrested in 1938 and executed in February 1939, only to be rehabilitated in 1958.
Mirzoyan was replaced first by the Russian Nikolai Skvortsov (1899-1974; Николай Александрович Скворцов) for the period May 1938 – May 1945, and later by the Russian Gennady Borkov (1905-1983; Геннадий Андреевич Борков) for the period May 1945 – June 1946. Before his appointment, Skvortsov was the deputy head of the department of leading party bodies of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party. Before being appointed at the top partisan position in Kazakhstan, Borkov was the First Secretary of the Khabarovsk Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party, in Eastern Siberia, very close to the borders of China.
Nikolai SkvortsovNikolai SkvortsovNikolai SkvortsovGennady BorkovGennady Borkov as the main speaker
It is only in 1946 that the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan was first held by an ethnic Kazakh, i.e. Dzhumabay Shayahmetov (1902-1966; Жумабай Шаяхметович Шаяхметов), a well-known apparatchik and Stalinist propagandist, who had held many key positions in the Soviet administration. In a way, he was promoted through the ranks, because as early as June 1938, he was appointed as 3rd Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR. From his position, he supervised the people’s commissariats of the Finance, Utilities, Food Industry, Health Care, and the Komsomol; he also widely popularized the Stalinist version of Marxist-Leninist ideology, and -with others- contributed to the process of effectively providing proper support to China in the war against Japan.
One year later, in June 1939, Shayahmetov was appointed as 2nd Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR. The promotion was timely, because it coincided with the preparation of the celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the Kazakh ASSR, the commissioning of the Akmolinsk-Kartaly railway, and the transition to an eight-hour working day and a six-day working week. Shayahmetov achieved a remarkable improvement in the development of agriculture and he was awarded for this. In 1941, he was appointed as authorized member of the State Defense Committee (Государственный комитет обороны) for the Kazakh SSR.
In fact, during the critical days of the Great Patriotic War (WW II), Shayahmetov was the top person who supervised the arrival and the temporary integration in the Kazakh SSR of many people and enterprises evacuated from the western regions of the USSR. Only in 1941, ca. 360000 evacuated people arrived in Kazakhstan, and until the middle of 1943, the number rose to 530000 people. In addition, the Kazakh authorities were asked to accommodate thousands of cattle, sheep and horses, plus other types of property belonging to collective and state farms of the western regions.
Solving issues of accommodation and addressing sociobehavioral problems of the deported peoples, Shayahmetov proved to be a highly effective bureaucrat and a fully trustworthy subordinate. During WW II, with a population of 6 million people and with 1.2 million people drafted into the army, the Kazakh SSR experienced a shortage of personnel. Shayahmetov tried to solve the problem by inviting Kazakhs, who were living in other parts of Soviet Union, to return and work in Kazakhstan. When the inflow of wounded and sick people increased tremendously, a department for the coordination of medical institutions was launched, and military hospitals increased exponentially (from just 2 before the war to 78 in 1942). At a certain moment during the war, it was possible to treat simultaneously 24000 patients in Kazakhstan’s military hospitals. Similarly, in diverse sectors of the economy, like agriculture and industry, the Kazakh SSR proved able increase the productivity considerably to meet the nationwide needs.
Last, after the end of the war, the Kazakh SSR provided assistance to the regions of the country, which were liberated from the invaders. In 1945, following the festivities for the 25th anniversary of the formation of Kazakhstan, Dzhumabay Shayakhmetov was awarded the First Order of Lenin for services to the development of agriculture. It was therefore only normal that, in the first months of 1946, he was promoted to First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR. Actually, to be accurate, it was more than just a promotion; it was an exceptional praise expressed by Stalin in favor of Shayahmetov; in fact, it occurred several times, notably in the air parade in Tushino, when Stalin introduced Shayahmetov to Soviet Union’s top officials with the following words: “Comrades, this is Dzhumabay Shayahmetov, the first national secretary of Kazakhstan”.
It was then (summer 1946) that Stalin called the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR “Eagle of the East”. There was a good reason for Stalin to laud the Kazakh nation’s contribution to the Soviet victory. Actually, the first Soviet officer to raise the Soviet Flag at the Reichstag in Berlin was an ethnic Kazakh, namely Lieutenant Rakhimzhan Qoshqarbaev (1924-1988; Рахимжан Кошкарбаевич Кошкарбаев / Рақымжан Қошқарбаев) of the 674th Infantry Regiment; he is not the person shown on the world-famous photo (which immortalized an event occurred on the 2nd May 1945). The brave officer managed to sneak into the building on April 30th in the afternoon and to raise the flag in the early hours of 1st May; as it was dark, no picture could be taken; however, all the participants in the brave act were proclaimed heroes of the Soviet Union. The flag was brought down after the dawn, and therefore the flag shown on the illustrious picture is merely the second Soviet Flag raised over the Reichstag.
Among other illustrious Kazakh heroes of the Great Patriotic War, one can mention Khiuaz Dospanova (1922-2008; Хиуаз Каировна Доспанова), the famous Kazakh pilot, who was the first Kazakh aviatrice and served in the 588th Night Bomber Regiment {which was also called ‘Night Witches’ (ночные ведьмы)}, and Bauyrzhan Momyshuly (1910-1982; Бауыржан Момышулы), author and military officer (colonel), who commanded the 9th Guards Rifle Division and took part in many battles.
Dzhumabay Shayahmetov did not have an easy job in Kazakhstan after the end of WW II either; although not a single battle was fought on the territory of the Kazakh SSR, there were heavy casualties among the inhabitants: 600000 dead and many thousands of soldiers wounded at the battlefield. Consequently, the labor shortage created a serious problem, and collective farms and state farms could not maintain their production levels. The living conditions deteriorated, because due to lower production, people could not get the necessary amount of food. There was shortage in almost everything, and the situation turned worse because of the presence of immigrants and deportees. Shayahmetov made a breakthrough by training and re-training former front-line soldiers and young graduates of schools and vocational schools. After great effort, positive results in the development of agriculture were achieved in 1947 and the number of livestock increased up to a point that the card system was not anymore necessary in the Kazakh SSR.
Shayahmetov’s tenure is also remembered because of the following achievements: the intensification of the industrialization, the mass electrification of auls and villages of the republic, the creation of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR (1946), the creation, growth and improvement of national cadres, the official translation of the collected works of Lenin into the Kazakh language, and the increased participation of Kazakhs in the higher education; there were only 1400 university students in 1944, but already 3500 students in 1946. And in the period from 1950 to 1955, about 700 industrial enterprises were built in the Kazakh SSR. The increased number of Kazakh candidates and members of the Communist Party testified to public support and acceptance of the governmental policies; from 113000 partisans in 1943, there were 203000 partisans in 1947. Despite the fact that at the time Russians outnumbered the Kazakhs throughout the Kazakh SSR, among the partisan cadres (secretaries of city and district party committees, secretaries of the regional committees, chairmen of the regional executive committees, etc) the Kazakhs formed the majority.
The personal success of Shayahmetov’s commitment to incessant improvement became widely known across the Soviet Union; in 1950, at the first session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, he was elected chairman of the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which was a great distinction at the personal and the national levels. Soon afterwards, the very influential Marshal Nikolai Bulganin (1895-1975; Николай Александрович Булганин), who had already been Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union (1947-1950), proposed Shayakhmetov’s candidacy for the post of minister in the Government of the USSR, but Stalin rejected the idea mainly because he believed that there was no proper replacement for Shayakhmetov in the Kazakh SSR at the time.
When Khrushchev rose to power after Stalin’s death, Shayahmetov fully disagreed with the new leader’s ideas and plans for further, faster agricultural development in the Kazakh SSR. The visioner and paragon of de-Stalinization mistrusted the Kazakh leader as Stalinist and, consequently, at the IX plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, which was held on 5th-6th February 1954, Shayakhmetov was removed from the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR.
In the period between February 1954 and January 1960, four persons succeeded one another in the top partisan position of Kazakhstan; the first was Belarussian and the other three Russians. The first three spent one year each at the top position of the local Communist Party, and the fourth stayed in the position for slightly more than two years. Among them, the first to be appointed was Panteleimon Ponomarenko (1902-1984; Пантелеймон Кондратьевич Пономаренко), a high rank Soviet official, who had just served for two years as Minister of Procurement and for one year as Minister of Culture of the USSR, before being appointed in the Kazakh SSR. Outstanding Belarussian partisan (like Andrei Gromyko, the illustrious Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs), Ponomarenko had served as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Belarussian SSR from 1938 until 1947. His credentials testify to the importance that the Supreme Soviet attributed to the Kazakh SSR.
And the liberation of the arrested and imprisoned (in 1951, for reasons of ‘bourgeois nationalism’) Kazakh historian and professor of university Ermukhan Bekmakhanov (1915-1966; Ермухан Бекмаханович Бекмаханов) bears witness to the importance that Ponomarenko gave to the Kazakhs; he even condemned the arrest of the Kazakh academic – a very rare act in the USSR. At this point, it is noteworthy to underscore that Ermukhan Bekmakhanov’s comprehensive, convincing and very remarkable contribution “Присоединение Казахстана к России” (the Accession of Kazakhstan to Russia; Almaty 1957) totally demolishes all the viciously odious and absolutely erroneous pretensions, assumptions, arguments and presentations of the perfidious and disreputable Western forgerers and pseudo-academics, who customarily publish bogus research only to diffuse historical distortions and divisive propaganda that serves only the anti-Kazakh, anti-Russian, and anti-Turkic interests of NATO, UK, US and other Western countries.
a- The Baikonur Cosmodrome, the Virgin Lands Campaign, and the Temirtau Riots
When Panteleimon Ponomarenko was sent as ambassador to Poland (in 1955, before being subsequently dispatched to India, the Netherlands, and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna), Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982; Леонид Ильич Брежнев) was dispatched to the Kazakh SSR to replace him. Of course, no one at the time could imagine the meteoric rise that this Major General of the Red Army (in 1946) would have in the 1960s (backed by the so-called “Dnipropetrovsk Mafia” / Днепропетровский клан), but already Brezhnev was a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union (1950) and the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Moldovan SSR (1951-1952; where he first encountered Konstantin Chernenko, the last Secretry General of the Communist Party of Soviet Union before M. Gorbachev).
Beyond the support of the aforementioned ‘clan’ or group, Brezhnev had two key moments in his partisan life that later proved to be quite instrumental in propelling him to the very top: first, a personal meeting with Stalin at the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (5 to 14 October 1952), after which he was elected a member of the Central Committee and soon afterwards secretary of the Central Committee and candidate member of the Presidium of the Central Committee (at the age of 46), and second, the support that he offered to Khrushchev against Malenkov in the post-Stalin era (which was due to Brezhnev’s correct evaluation of the dynamics of the party balance). This is how he was boosted to the top.
So, as it happened with Ponomarenko, Brezhnev’s appointment in Kazakhstan fully demonstrates the great importance that the Moscow’s top attributed to the Kazakh SSR. One year before moving to Almaty (Alma-Ata), Brezhnev was appointed as Deputy Head of the Main Political Directorate of the USSR Ministry of Defense with the rank of Lieutenant General. On 26th June 1953, Brezhnev was among the ten armed generals summoned to the Kremlin to arrest Lavrentiy Beria (1899-1953; Лаврентий Берия), one of Stalin’s closest allies and one of the most dominant Soviet potentates of all times.
In Kazakhstan (7th May 1955 to 6th March 1956), Brezhnev made his careerist manners and attitude well known; he did not care much about people, but about projects – notably those that would be counting to his credit. He supervised the development of the virgin lands, for which he was later (1957) awarded a medal by the Supreme Military Council of the Kazakh SSR, and he dedicated his attention almost entirely to the preparation of the construction of the “Research Test Site No. 5” of the USSR Ministry of Defense in the southern part of Kazakhstan, which is what is nowadays widely known as the Baikonur Cosmodrome. However, his interest in Baikonur antedates his appointment in Kazakhstan, because Brezhnev oversaw the issues of the military-industrial complex, including the development of space technology, already when he was the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. As a matter of fact, if the Soviet Cosmodrome is located in Kazakhstan, and not elsewhere, this is due to Brezhnev; he wrote in his memories the following:
“Experts understood well: it would be faster, easier, cheaper to settle in the Black Lands. Here, there is a railway, a highway, water, and electricity, the whole area is inhabited, and the climate is not as harsh as in Kazakhstan. So the Caucasian version had many supporters. At that time, I had to study a lot of documents, projects, certificates, discuss all this with scientists, business executives, engineers, specialists who in the future were to launch rocket technology into space. Gradually, a well-grounded decision took shape in my own mind. The Central Committee of the Party came out in favor of the first option – the Kazakh one. … Life has confirmed the expediency and correctness of such a decision: the lands of the North Caucasus are preserved for agriculture, and Baikonur has transformed another region of the country. The missile range needed to be put into operation quickly, the deadlines were tight, and the scale of the work was huge“.
However, in his Virgin Lands Campaign, Brezhnev failed and the food crisis that Soviet Union experienced at the time lasted for some years. Had he stayed longer in Almaty, his career would have been ruined, but in March 1956 he was back in Moscow as candidate member of the Politburo in charge of the heavy industry, the space program including the Baykonur Cosmodrome, and the defence industry.
In replacement of Brezhnev, Ivan Yakovlev (1910-1999; Иван Дмитриевич Яковлев) was dispatched to Almaty; prior to his appointment, he had served as the First Secretary of the Novosibirsk Regional Committee of the CPSU for 6 years (1949-1955 and as the Second Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan for one year under Brezhnev. His tenure lasted about 20 months (6th March 1956 – 13th December 1957), and then he was replaced by Nikolai Belyaev (1903-1966; Николай Ильич Беляев). The fact that for many years several Russians succeeded one another in the top position of the Kazakh SSR should not take anyone by surprise, because we have to always take into consideration the fact that for many decades -as it is already said- the Russians outnumbered the Kazakhs on the territory of the SSR.
Belyaev had served as the First Secretary of the Regional Committee of the Communist Party in the Altai Region (1943-1946) where he led the local effort for economic restoration and development; in 1946, he was elected in the Supreme Soviet, and he was a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU (since 1952). In his position in Kazakhstan (13th December 1957–19th January 1960), he failed terribly first, because he did not manage to stop the decline in agriculture, and second, due to his low performance in the Temirtau riots; that’s why he was fully dismissed in 1960. Subsequently, he was sent to the Stavropol Territory as the First Secretary the local committee of the Communist Party; by coincidence, the First Secretary of the Stavropol city’s Komsomol was a 29-years old young man named Mikhail Gorbachev (a native from the area).
The Temirtau riots ended up with 10 people dead, dozens of wounded and hundreds of arrested and imprisoned. The events started as a strike and they lasted four days (1st– 4th August 1959); they were related to the construction of a metallurgical plant named Kazakhstan Magnitka. No less than 25000 people had arrived earlier in 1959 to work there, although the housing, working and living conditions were extremely rudimentary and harsh. Temirtau is located ca. 200 km south of Nursultan; in the scorching Kazakh steppe climate, the workers were accommodated in tents (an entire tent city), whereas the water and food supply was inadequate and untimely. As it was a common practice in the Soviet Union and other countries of the Eastern Bloc, a group of Bulgarian workers arrived to also work there at the middle of July 1959, but they were treated differently; the corporate authorities insisted that the foreign guests could not be accommodated in tents. This produced an overwhelming reaction among the local workforce; the situation deteriorated on 1st August, when the guards forced the Kazakhs and the Russians to wait out, until the guest workers complete their breakfast in the canteen.
Temirtau riotsThe location of Temirtau south of Astana
Then, the local workers decided not to work, but to destroy whatever they found around them, starting with the canteen, the nearby shops, and a department store that they looted. There were several hundreds of rebels; that’s why the Temirtau municipal authorities sent soldiers against them. This was all in vain, because the troops heard the story details from the insurgents and rejected to shoot unarmed workers. A chaotic situation lasted for 2-3 days, and then other troops (including cadets) were dispatched; they opened fire at the workers, and soon the insurgence was suppressed. Many insurgents escaped driving looted cars, which were later found abandoned in the steppe. It is noteworthy that almost half of the arrested were members of the local Komsomol; and there were more than 100 soldiers and officers wounded. On 4th August everything seemed to be calm again, but the news had spread and there was an overwhelming indignation throughout the Kazakh SSR.
On 5th August 1959, Leonid Brezhnev, due to his previous experience, arrived from Moscow to Temirtau; having executive powers and the intention to prevent further escalation, he took measures to effectively satisfy the local people. He immediately eliminated several apparatchiks, partisans, corporate managers, and economic activists; he expelled several people from the party and fired many policemen and municipal officials. Normal housing, working and living conditions were granted to all the workers, the Bulgarian team was sent back to Bulgaria, and within a week time, the damages were repaired and the workers returned to their posts. There was also a promise that top people would inevitably pay for their laxity; consequently, on 22nd October 1959, the First Secretary of the Karaganda Regional Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Pavel Isaev (1911-1974; Павел Николаевич Исаев), was removed from his post and even expelled from the ranks of the CPSU; and on 19th January 1960, Nikolai Belyaev was transferred to Stavropol with a demotion.
Belyaev was replaced by an ethnic Kazakh, but during the last three decades of the Kazakh SSR (1960-1991), there was still one more ethnic Russian to hold the post of the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR. Actually, during these 30 years, only four persons (in five different assignments) succeeded one another atop the local Communist Party. What happened, in brief, was this: Dinmukhamed Kunaev (1912-1993; Динмухамед Ахмедович Кунаев), a Brezhnev-protégé, was appointed to replace Belyaev in 1960, at a time Brezhnev had still good relations with Khrushchev. After almost three years, Kunaev disagreed with Khrushchev’s plans to transfer parts of South Kazakhstan’s territory to Uzbekistan, and he was replaced in December 1962 by Ismail Yusupov (1914-2005; Исмаил Абдурасулович Юсупов), an ethnic Uighur and member of the Uighur minority in Kazakhstan, who held the top position in the Kazakh SSR for two years, until December 1964. By that time, Khrushchev had been overthrown by Brezhnev (13th October 1964); it took Brezhnev little time to bring his protégé back to the position that he had had. Kunaev stayed there for 22 years, until the end of 1986, thus being himself an outstanding example of the -often deliberately misinterpreted ‘era of stagnation’ (Период застоя: 1964-1985)- Brezhnev period.
Kunaev in 1937 Kunaev in 1942Kazakhstan in the 1930s: the construction of Balkhash cityKunaev with Khrushchev Kunaev with BrezhnevKunaev with Brezhnev and the Indian President Varahagiri Venkata Giri in 1973
When Gorbachev was elected as the successor of Kostantin Chernenko (11th March 1985), it was clear that young technocrats and dynamic apparatchiks would be favored over the ‘old guard’, i.e. Brezhnev’s team (or ‘Mafia’). Gorbachev would apparently support young men who stood against the nomeklatura corruption and the stagnant bureaucracy. Meanwhile, on 22nd March 1984 (a little bit more than a month after Chernenko succeeded Andropov as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union), Kunaev appointed a 44-year old apparatchik as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR (which was the equivalent of a prime minister/ Председатель Совета министров Казахской ССР): Nursultan Nazarbayev. He was the youngest person ever to be appointed in that position throughout Soviet Union. Nazarbayev proved to be one of the earliest supporters of Gorbachev in 1985; one year later (1986), as prime minister, Nazarbayev criticized institutions, which had not yet taken steps in the direction of perestroika; his stance and approch was a general position with no personal motives. When the issue reached the Kazakh Academy of Sciences (then presided by Kunaev’s brother), there was a certain turmoil, because Askar Kunaev was an influential person.
By that time, Dinmukhamed Kunaev flıed to Moscow and met Gorbachev to express his wish to retire for health reasons; this was true and it is well known that he died few years later, after having had very poor health for that period. His demand was accepted and, soon afterwards, Kunaev was replaced by Gennady Kolbin, a decision that was due to the ill-tempered and disastrous advisers of Gorbachev. Of course, Nazarbayev was too young at the time to be appointed as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR, but there were certainly other potential candidates, except the person that Kunaev suggested personally to Gorbachev.
Western forgers have relentlessly tried to propagate the idea that the appointment (16th December 1986) of Gennady Kolbin (1927-1998; Геннадий Васильевич Колбин), an ethnic Russian from Western Siberia, who had never been in Kazakhstan before, was the reason that triggered the protests. However, this is a terrible distortion of the historical reality. The events became known as Jeltoqsan (Желтоқсан), which is the Kazakh name for December. In fact, most of the protesters were students, who decried Gorbachev’s rejection of the candidate designated by Kunaev himself as his own successor. There was no ethnic character in the events. From the 16th to the 19th December 1986, many cities of the Kazakh SSR were in real chaos. It took three days for the troops, cadets, policemen, KGB staffers, and partisan volunteers to put the riots under control; but Kolbin stayed, only to be replaced later, on the 22nd June 1989, by Nursultan Nazarbayev. There were only two dead and hundreds of wounded protesters. Some dozens of students were expelled from the universities and few prosecuted. About:
b- The Patriotic Stance of Dinmukhamed Kunaev and the Shymkent Riots(1967)
As a matter of fact, what happened in Tajikistan in the 1990s and in Kyrgyzstan in the 2000s, occurred in Kazakhstan in the 1980s. The real reasons of the turmoil may have been different from one country to the other, and the duration of the ordeal may have hinged on the dexterity and the ability of the local rulers, but at the end of the 20th century, all the nations of Central Asia were left with the impression that the visions of their Jadidist intellectuals and activists before 100 years were never materialized; this was true and accurate indeed. That’s why there have been much nostalgia and many references to them, plus numerous acts of rehabilitation of their memory.
At this point, a clarification must be made as regards the ethnic origin of the ruling elite of the Kazakh SSR; although from 1920 to 1991, the top partisan position was mainly occupied by non-ethnic Kazakhs (involving following positions: Secretaries of the Kyrgyz Regional Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP / Секретари Киргизского областного бюро ЦК РКП from 1920 to 1921; Secretaries of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) Regional Committee of the RCP / Секретари Киргизского (Казахского) обкома РКП from 1921 to 1925; Secretaries of the Kazakhstan Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union / Секретари Казахстанского крайкома ВКП from 1925 to 1937; and First Secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan / Первые секретари ЦК Компартии Казахстана; from 1937 to 1991), this situation did not occur in other top posts in Kazakhstan. For the aforementioned positions, (3+3+2+11) 19 persons succeeded one another {in (3+4+3+13) 23 assignments}, but only 5 among them (in 7 assignments) were ethnic Kazakhs.
As I have already stated, this situation was partly justified, because the Russians outnumbered the Kazakhs within the territory of the Kazakh SSR for many decades. All the same, this state of affairs was not repeated in other important positions of the local administration (involving following positions: Chairmen of the Central Executive Committee of the Kazakh SSR / Председатели Центрального исполнительного комитета Казахской ССР from 1933 to 1938; Chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR / Председатели Президиума Верховного Совета Казахской ССР from 1938 to 1990; Chairmen of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Kazakh SSR / Председатели Совета народных комиссаров Казахской ССР from 1929 to 1946; and Chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR / Председатели Совета министров Казахской ССР from 1946 to 1991). Almost all the persons, who succeeded one another in these positions, were ethnic Kazakhs.
Many specialists and insiders are convinced that, if Khrushchev remained in power another 5-7 years and managed to eliminate the increasing influence of Brezhnev and his gang (or team or ‘Mafia’), the Soviet Union would not disintegrate, but efficiently transform into a mixed economic model, eventually similar to Deng Xiaoping’s China in the 1980s and 1990s, with Khrushchev having then been successful where Gorbachev apparently failed. This remains hypothetical, but there was indeed a time when all the paragons of the stagnation were well-performing administrators, energetic partisans, and burgeoning executives”. This was particularly ostensible in post-WW II Kazakhstan.
Dinmukhamed Kunaev, who is also well-known for his famous book ‘From Stalin to Gorbachev’ (От Сталина до Горбачева; published posthumously in 1994), had already risen to important positions before his encounter with Brezhnev; in 1952, at the age of 40, he was President of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, and three years later, he was appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR. Beyond his strong commitment to the improvement of the agricultural production, the expansion of the industrial development, and the enhancement of the natural resources’ exploitation, Kunaev was a paragon of the Kazakhization and to some extent he consolidated the foundations of the Kazakh nationalism. He fervently supported Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands’ campaign in Kazakhstan (Освоение целины в Казахстане), which is also another indication of the consciousness that the Soviet rulers had about the importance of Kazakhstan for the entire Soviet Union.
Kunaev asserted his authority over the Kazakh SSR mainly after his comeback in 1964, when Brezhnev appointed him again, after having overthrown Khrushchev. His early dynamism soon subsided, after he faced the Shymkent riots in the hot summer of 1967. He preferred to secure stability and order than to achieve growth and development while angering the population.
The events that took place in Kazakhstan’s southern city of Shymkent {Шымкент (spelled Chimkent/Чимкент at the time); ca. 130 km north of Uzbekistan’s capital Tashkent} on the 13th June 1967 remain a mystery until now. Known in Russian as Чимкентский бунт (Chimkent riot), the precipitous and unforeseen events clearly shed light on the exasperation of local prople and professional categories (notably the drivers) with the policemen and their brutal manners. It all started with a funny but unlucky personal story of a driver, who died out of an accident late in the evening of the 12th June; early in the morning of the 13th June, due to various rumors, the colleagues of the deceased driver attributed his death to policemen (which was not true), because such was the height of the indignation.
Many other drivers joined the crowd that walked up to the local police station, passing by the city market first to garner supporters. Other drivers drove their cars, thus generating great confusion to the average people and unprecedented panic to the local authorities. Police officers began firing at the crowd only to get stones and Molotov cocktails in response. Many attributed, already at the time, the riots to the British Intelligence and their local agents, pinpointing that, although the event started spontaneously, it soon turned out to be a matter of coordinated action. The rebels invaded the police station and advanced to the pre-trial detention center to ‘liberate’ the arrested people (there were about 400 prisoners there). The protesters failed to invade the center, but the ensued chaos was only resolved on the next day, after the arrival of the paratroopers (1,150 servicemen of the Turkestan military district from Tashkent, and troops of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR). The military forces killed many rioters and arrested hundreds of them. The public transport resumed immediately, but it took some days for full normal life to return to Shymkent, because people were afraid to walk in the streets and more particularly in the area where the events took place.
With the police buildings burned, the documents lost, the local forces panicked, the rumors spread, and the grudge against the policemen overwhelming, it is normal that the authorities made an effort to appease the people. Until now, the archival materials are classified, whereas the various participants, who may eventually speak, give highly divergent versions of the events, which were -quite typically- dubbed ‘anti-police’. But it is certain that, at certain moment, there were ca. 3000 protesters shouting against the police in the streets of the city, although it is also true that many other people were present there only out of curiosity. There is one point on which all sources seem to agree: all the public order officers were scared to oppose the protesters, and all the inhabitants of the city were shocked seeing the glow of the blazing fire, which was visible from all parts of the city.
The party and police leadership urgently flocked to the city from Alma-Ata and Moscow. Who has not been to Shymkent after the riots: member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU Andrei Kirilenko, Minister of Public Order (as the Ministry of Internal Affairs was then called) Colonel-General Nikolai Shchelokov, his deputy Boris Shumilin, head of the Main Police Department Alexei Kudryavtsev, Minister of Public Order Order of Kazakhstan Shrakbek Kabylbaev! Then, many officials were removed from work and others were forced to retire.
This may sound strange to those having the very wrong impression (which was deliberately and scrupulously cultivated throughout the Western countries at the time) that there were no unrests, protests and riots in Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, only on the basis of hitherto declassified reports of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, from 1953 to 1964, 416 cases of mass riots occurred in the Soviet Union. The most famous was the execution of striking workers in Novocherkassk in 1962 (which was known as Novocherkassk massacre / Новочеркасский расстрел). A lot has been written about these tragic events and in sufficient detail, so it makes sense to talk about similar performances in other parts of the USSR.
c- Ismail Yusupov, theUighur leader of Kazakhstan, and Nikita Khrushchev’s Unrestrainable Disregard of Borders
Yusupov, who was Khrushchev’s favorite for the top position in the Kazakh SSR, did not leave good memories among most of the Kazakhs, first because he belonged to the Uighur minority, second for having been too docile to Nikita Khrushchev, and third due to the fact that he accepted the transfer of several southern parts of the Kazakh SSR’s territory to the Uzbek SSR. It goes without saying that Yusupov met strong resistance even from his close subordinates for this reason and his 2-year long tenure was almost a ‘mission impossible’. That’s why all were happy in Kazakhstan, when Kunaev came back to power in 1964 thanks to Brezhnev (only 2.5 months after the removal of Khrushchev and the coming to power of the ‘troika’ or triumvirate Brezhnev, Kosygin, and Podgorny).
Of course, the real problem was not the docile attitude of Uighur Yusupov, but some of Khrushchev’s ideas, and more specifically his tendency to ceaselessly play with borders. If we see things from the viewpoint of Communist Internationalism, we can eventually reach the conclusion that, if all the lands between the Atlantic, the Indian, the Pacific and the Arctic oceans are ruled by communist establishments, it does not really matter whether Tibet is part of India, Kashmir belongs to Pakistan, and Siberia is Chinese territory. But this approach, which may look attractive at a general level, is never accepted at the specific local level – and for very good reason.
Over the past ten years, there has been an endless and passionate discussion about the terrible consequences that Khrushchev’s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine has had (Передача Крымской области из состава РСФСР в состав УССР; 1954); this is due to the situation that prevailed in the fake state of Ukraine after 2014. But in this field, one has to admit that Khrushchev’s unrestrainable Communist Internationalism, which most probably was a latent form of late Trotzkyism, did indeed cause a lot of damages in many other parts of the USSR too.
To be succinct and correct, the problem with the borders between the Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek SSR truly antedated the rise of Nikita Khrushchev to power. Yet, these borders for good reason were considered as one of the best regulated lines within the USSR. In fact, there was a border demarcation problem only in a section of about 200 km long; this was due to the existence of densely populated lands on both sides, namely in Kazakhstan (Saryagach/Сарыагаш and Maktaaral/ Мактаараль; in the Turkestan region / Туркестанская область, which is today known as South Kazakhstan Province / Южно-Казахстанская область) and in Uzbekistan (Tashkent and Jizzakh/Джизак/ جىززﻩخ regions).
However, in the first 3-4 decades of Soviet rule in the region, the practice of transferring territories for pastures to other republics became very common. This measure was adopted for temporary use and only for the purpose to increase the overall productivity of animal husbandry. However, in all of these cases, the land was viewed as ‘foreign’ and the users did not pay due attention; the ensuing negative result was that gradually these lands lost their fertility. At the same time, similar small territories started being very easily and very often transferred from one soviet republic to another and vice versa.
Within the aforementioned context, the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR issued a resolution on 21st January 1956 in order to apply to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with a request to transfer the Bostandyk (Бостандык) region with a total area of almost 5000 km2 from the Kazakh SSR to the Uzbek SSR, except for certain territories, namely
– pastures used by collective farms of the Dzhambul (Жамбыл/Джамбул; currently Taras/Тараз) region,
– lands depending on the Southern Golodnostepsky canal (южно-голодностепский канал) and the Central Golodnostepsky canal, and
– various lands that had been transferred to the Uzbek SSR in 1936–1937 for temporary use.
The Bostandyk region transfer had the strong support of N. Khrushchev, but not that of the experts. More specifically, a special commission had been created in 1954 to study the question of the validity of the transfer of these territories to the Uzbek SSR. Having carefully examined the issue, the commission decided that these territories were of particular importance for the economic activity of Kazakhstan and, therefore, their transfer to Uzbekistan would be inappropriate. Immediately, Zhumabek Tashenev (pronounced: Tasheniov; Жумабек Ахметович Ташенев), who was the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR, and Leonid Brezhnev, who was the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR, approved the conclusion of the commission. Contrarily to them, Khrushchev did not accept any of the objections of the commission. Taking into consideration the realities of the Soviet governance, as well as the structure and the function of the administrative hierarchy, Tashenev and Brezhnev understood that they had to accept the transfer, because as Brezhnev said at the time, “if we refuse, then others will fulfill this decision”.
Subsequently, the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR voted to include the Bostandyk region into the Uzbek SSR’s territory, and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued an order on 13th February 1956 to reconfirm the “partial change in the border between the Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek SSR”. In spite of this development, further seizure of Kazakh pasturelands continued being carried out by Uzbeks. Collective farms and state farms in the Bukhara region (i.e. in a region far from the Kazakh-Uzbek border) used arbitrarily more than 3500 km2 of Kazakh territory as pastureland; in total, an area almost the size of Sardinia (more than 20000 km2) was captured by Uzbeks for pasture purposes. The directorates of the Kazakh Kyzylkum (Кызылкум) and the Chardara (Чардара; Kazakh: Шардара) state farms issued then an alarming warning.
The institution which we can now conventionally call ‘Soviet Ministry of Agriculture’ (Государственный комитет СМ СССР по хлебопродуктам/’USSR Council of Ministers State Committee for Grain Products’) issued a statement ordering the immediate abandonment of transhumance areas that were parts of Kazakhstan. A proposal involved also the early return of the Keles (Келес) territory (1500 km2) to Kazakhstan. But in 1961-1962, the leadership of the Uzbek SSR submitted a request for an extra permission to use 3500 km2 in South Kazakhstan and 6000 km2 in the Kyzyl-Orda regions as pasturelands; the Kazakh SSR rejected the demand. It is on this background that Khrushchev’s deeply anti-Kazakh feeling started being expressed, amd his personal involvement commenced to take shape.
Even nowadays, many people firmly believe that Khrushchev intended to effectively dismantle Kazakhstan and purposefully create an entirely new SSR in the process; this idea had much to do with the project of Virgin Lands (Освоение целины) that was geared to turn Kazakhstan into the granary of the entire Soviet Union. All the same, if this ambitious enterprise were successfully materialized, in Khrushchev’s mind, the ‘granary’ could be elevated to a higher status and become an independent SSR. Actually, it is well known that he spoke in favor of revising the borders between some SSRs in a closed meeting of the highest state and party bodies that took place on 24th January 1959.
In spite of the fact that the economy of Kazakhstan developed at a very fast pace, Khrushchev came up with the absurd argument that Kazakhstan was not capable of independently developing both agriculture and industry; to take things seriously, if this could be stated about Kazakhstan, it could also be said about any other SSR. To enlarge the Virgin Lands, he wanted to single out five regions of Kazakhstan and, in this manner, to attempt later to disaggregate the SSR; according to his words, the main goal of creating a new territorial unit was to stimulate the development of non-arable lands in the northern parts of the Kazakh SSR. In the future, Khrushchev would detach the enlarged Virgin Territory into a Soviet Socialist Republic separate from Kazakhstan, giving it the status of a union or resubordination of the region to the RSFSR. At this point, it is necessary to pinpoint that formally, throughout its existence, the Virgin Territory was part of Kazakhstan, but the real control was carried out from Moscow.
To advance with his plans, Khrushchev called to Moscow the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Dinmukhamed Kunaev, and Zhumabek Tashenev, who headed the local government; there he announced his plans to them (September 1960). Both, Kunaev and Tashenev, rejected Khrushchev’s concepts, but in the aftermath of the meeting, Khrushchev lied, when announcing that the Kazakh authorities agreed with his positions; actually, he was never really interested in their opinions on the topic, and the meeting was merely procedural. There is much literature about this event and, due to the existence of numerous rumors, no one can conclude on how far Khrushchev’s interlocutors went in their reactions. As it appears, Kunaev was well-tempered and moderate, but Tashenev reacted overwhelmingly and even threatened to take the case to international bodies, which would be tantamount to dissolution of the USSR.
Many assumptions about the two Kazakh patriotic leaders’ reactions against Khrushchev in that meeting draw on ulterior developments; both, Kunaev and Tashenev, were fired, but the latter fell in disgrace. Tashenev was indeed accused of ‘special intolerance’ and even marginalized. On Khrushchev’s ‘recommendation’, he was removed from all highest posts of the Kazakh SSR. From 1961 until 1975 (date of his retirement), he was the Deputy Chairman of the Executive Committee of the South Kazakhstan – Chimkent Regional Council. However, after 1999, many streets in numerous cities of Kazakhstan were named in his honor. In 2012, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth, the voluminous research ‘Zhumabek Tashenev’ was published due to contributions by scholars from the Institute of State History of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan; it was a full rehabilitation and a great tribute to his memory. In 2019, a mosque was built in his honor in Topar (Karaganda region), whereas in August 2021, a monument to him was unveiled in Nur-Sultan.
After the aforementioned thunderous meeting and until Nikita Khrushchev’s demise, Kazakhstan’s fate was in jeopardy. The fact that, despite the great investments made and the dispatch of Soviet Union’s best specialists, the Virgin Lands project did not bring forth the fabulous results that the Soviet leader expected made him very nervous. Even worse, the crop yield was rather falling every year. This situation angered Khrushchev enormously; it was then that he turned his eyes to the southern borders of the Kazakh SSR where new oil reserves had just been explored.
At a certain point, distrusting even the docile Ismail Yusupov, Khrushchev proposed the transfer of the oil-rich Mangyshlak peninsula (Полуостров Мангышлак) to Azerbaijan or the division of the region between the Azerbaijan SSR and the Turkmen SSR. If implemented, this absurdity would constitute a unique and unprecedented moment in the History of the Caspian Sea region, because never did a kingdom or any other state based on the Caspian Sea’s western coast control the eastern coastlands or a part of them. In other words, there was never a Caucasian kingdom or any other type of state (having its capital in the Caucasus region) that controlled any part of Central Asia, even the Caspian Sea’s eastern coastlands. Several inconsistent theories and silly arguments always accompanied Khrushchev’s unconditional biases against the Kazakhs; he was purportedly ‘sure’ that the leadership of the Kazakh SSR would not be able to engage in oil production and harvesting because, “historically, the Kazakhs are the nation that is best at animal husbandry”, which is of course nonsensical. With so childish ‘explanations’, he insisted on the need to transfer many industries to other republics. Finally, Khrushchev’s anti-Kazakh paroxysm generated significant reaction within the Politburo.
Mangyshlak peninsula
Many people believe that Alexei Nikolaevich Kosygin (1904-1980; Алексей Николаевич Косыгин), a discreet, highly intelligent, and greatly influential Soviet statesman {who may/might have been Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov (1904-1918; Алексей Николаевич Романов), the last czarevich of the Russian Empire, i.e. the only son of St. Nicholas II, according to some speculative theories} really saved the territorial integrity of the Kazakh SSR, because he was the only capable to lead the opposition to Khrushchev’s plans, supporting the Kazakh authorities and describing as unconvincing the arguments of the supporters of the transfer of the Mangyshlak peninsula to neighboring republics. Following a reaction of this scale, Khrushchev did not go ahead with this anti-Kazakh plan until October 1964, when he was removed from power.
Nevertheless, due to Ismail Yusupov’s docile attitude, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR decided (on 26th January 1963) to transfer to the Uzbek SSR
a- the Kirov (Кировский район) and Pakhta-Aral (Пахта-Аральский район, currently known as Maktaaral District/Мактааральский район) regions and the Kyzylkum and Chimkurgan (Чимкурган) village councils of the Kyzylkum district of the Chimkent (Чимкент) region with a total area of 9560 km2,
b- pasture lands in the Chimkent region with a total area of 15440 km2, and
c- pasture lands of the Kyzyl-Orda region with a total area of 11500 km2 (these lands were in long-term use of the Uzbek SSR).
Subsequently, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR issued an order “On the partial change of the border with the Kazakh SSR” (25th May 1963). Last, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued an order “On a partial change and an updated description of the republican borders between the Uzbek SSR and the Kazakh SSR” (19th September 1963). This meant that an area of 36630 km2 (i.e. larger than Belgium) was detached from the Kazakh SSR and assigned to the Uzbek SSR.
It is therefore easy to understand why everyone in Kazakhstan was happy with Nikita Khrushchev’s removal; actually, many different parts of the Kazakh Soviet establishment, from security forces to business executives, were cheerful. With Leonid Brezhnev in power, a better assessment of Kazakhstan’s prospects and opportunities was made, because he knew personally the Kazakh SSR as a whole quite well. As I have already said, he returned Dinmukhamed Kunaev to the top post of the SSR, canceled the Virgin lands project, and demonstrated a real interest in the Kazakh economy’s continued growth.
Kunaev with his brother Askar
However, it took years to return the grabbed territory back to the Kazakhs; on 11th May 1971, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR issued an order “On the transfer of part of the territory of the Samarkand region of the Uzbek SSR to the Kazakh SSR”; and on the next day, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR promulgated an order “On the inclusion of part of the territory of the Syrdarya region of the Uzbek SSR into the Kazakh SSR”. On 28th June 1971, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR proclaimed a decree “On a partial change in the border between the Uzbek SSR and the Kazakh SSR”, irrevocably returning the territories of the Kirov and Pakhta-Aral regions to the Kazakh SSR. According to Kunaev’s memoirs, he managed to return all three districts that were abducted back in 1963, with the exception of two state farms.
Kunaev with his brother Askar and Nursultan Nazarbayev (second from right)
d- The Jeltoqsan riots (1986): conspiracy theories and historical distortions diffused by Western academics and mass media
After his comeback to the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan in December 1964, Dinmukhamed Kunaev ruled for 22 consecutive years, thus becoming the longest ruling Kazakh lord in centuries; his record was later surpassed by the founder of post-Soviet Kazakhstan, former president Nursultan Nazarbayev. The Kazakhs owe much to Kunaev, because he contributed greatly to the stabilization of the country, the development of the economy, the modernization of the Kazakh society, and the remarkable improvement of the Kazakh SSR in every sense – socio-cultural, academic, educational, intellectual, economic, and scientific.
With the implementation of the Kosygin reforms in the 1960s, the agrarian sector of the economy of Kazakhstan began to develop rapidly, and the Kazakh SSR turned out to be a vital territory for the Soviet production of industrial crops, such as sugar beet, cotton, and tobacco. It is during the Kunaev years that Kazakhstan became one of the three largest economies in the USSR, along with Russia and Ukraine. From 1970 to 1985, the volume of Mechanical Engineering and Chemical Industry tripled, and thanks to the discovery of new oil fields in the western part of the country, the republic became one of the major oil production centers in the USSR. According to the statistics of the Information and Analytical Center of Moscow State University, during Kunaev’s tenure, the productive potential of the Kazakh SSR grew by more than 700%; the volume of industry grew 9 times, of agriculture 6 times, and of capital construction 8 times.
The infrastructure of Kazakhstan and of the capital Almaty (Alma-Ata) developed rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s; the Central Republican Museum, the building of the National Library, the Koktobe TV tower, the House of Friendship, the Medeo sports complex, the House of Political Education, the new buildings of the Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Казахский национальный университет имени аль-Фараби), the Monument of Glory in the park of 28 Panfilov guardsmen, several microdistricts, many other cultural and residential facilities, as well as a number of outstanding sanatoriums and big hotels were all built at the time of Kunaev.
For 22 years, Kunaev did much and could actually do everything; but he could never escape the absurd, unsystematic and catastrophic de-Brezhnevization, which was pursued as a panacea by the hopeless and confused M. Gorbachev, who thought that, by firing Brezhnev’s acolytes, he would rectify the various troubles that Soviet bureaucracy had generated and accumulated over the years. In fact, treacherous advisers led Gorbachev from mistake to mistake, and this situation ended up in the deliberately engineered collapse of Soviet Union without Gorbachev even understanding what he was doing. Many people today speak about the chaos of the Yeltsin years (1991-1999), which is surely correct, but at the same time, this narrative helps conceal the even worse havoc, namely that of the Gorbachev years (1985-1991). In today’s untrustworthy, irrelevant, and deeply fallacious, Western bibliography, Gorbachev’s ‘beatification’ is complemented with terrible historical distortions and numerous conspiracy theories that are incessantly reproduced by the Wikipedia, the Western mass media, and the nonsensical propagandists of the Western countries’ bogus-universities.
Brezhnev and Kunaev in 1976Kunaev in his last yearsKunaev’s book: From Stalin to GorbachevBrezhnev and Gorbachev
In this regard, about the end of Kunaev’s tenure, the Gennady Kolbin’s appointment (as Kunaev’s replacement), and the Jeltoqsan riots of 1986, an incredible conspiracy theory has been fabricated and diffused by the corrupt and shameless Western academics only to facilitate the task of the criminal Western diplomats, scandalous pseudo-intellectuals, and the mainstream media bogus-journalists to present the Jeltoqsan events as an inter-ethnic conflict and as an expression of anti-Russian, Kazakh national feelings. This preposterous story is entirely false, but at this point, it is worthwhile to examine closely how such vicious and insidious lies are being produced and diffused.
Dinmukhamed Kunaev’s heritage guaranteed a triumphant posterity for all times. Among today’s Kazakhs, more than 75% of the people have a positive opinion about him.
The Western conspiracy theory about Jeltoqsan involves the following four major points of a most disreputable narrative:
a) Kunaev’s prime minister (‘Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR’) Nursultan Nazarbayev criticized personally the President of the Academy of Sciences Askar Kunaev (Dinmukhamed Kunaev’s brother) for “his inertia and anti-reformist credentials”;
b) this criticism caused the reaction of Dinmukhamed Kunaev, who -having appointed Nazarbayev as prime minister in 1984- felt betrayed and thus flied to Moscow in order to demand Nazarbayev’s dismissal personally from Gorbachev;
c) Gorbachev pressurized the Kazakh Communist leadership in order to dismiss Dinmukhamed Kunaev and his brother Askar Kunaev from their respective positions;
d) Gorbachev appointed Gennady Kolbin as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR, and because he was not a Kazakh ethnic, the supposedly inter-ethnic conflict of Jeltoqsan erupted.
This conspiracy theory can be found in the English Wikipedia, but it is absent from the Russian Wikipedia and the Kazakh Wikipedia, because Russians and Kazakhs would not believe a word of these ludicrous lies and they would consequently demand from their governments to permanently block the evil, perfidious and criminal site of Wikipedia. Where does the forgery diffused by the English Wikipedia come from?
In support of the aforementioned 4-point claim (and narrative), the English Wikipedia (in the entries about Dinmukhamed Kunaev and Nursultan Nazarbayev, but not in the entry concerning the Jeltoqsan riots) presents as reference (and bibliography) the fake PhD dissertation of an obscure and otherwise unknown ‘historian’ named Sally (Nikoline) Cummings. Who this person is we can learn in the site below: “Educator, editor, and author- Keele University, Staffordshire, England; temporary lecturer, 1995- University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland; temporary lecturer in politics, 1998-1999 & lecturer in politics, 1999-2003- St. Andrews University, St. Andrews, Scotland; lecturer in politics, 2003; held research posts with NATO and the European Union” https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/cummings-sally-nikoline
There was never a problem between Dinmukhamed Kunaev and Nursultan Nazarbayev.
In other words, this is a disreputable MI6 agent masqueraded as academic, who {instead of planning to kill statesmen like Slobodan Milosevic (which is the case of Nicholas Fishwick who was masqueraded as a ‘diplomat’)}, works systematically to kill the Truth, which is the essence of academic research, in order to diffuse the sick, paranoid and inhuman lies of the world’s most pathetic, most illegal, and most criminal state, i.e. England.
It is therefore high time to unveil the filthy lies of the morally defective, mentally incapacitated, and academically execrable, NATO staff member Sally (Nikoline) Cummings; going through her nonsensical diatribe, which was comfortably accepted as ‘PhD dissertation’ by England’s falsehood machines that are euphemistically called ‘universities’, one can easily realize the nature of this text. The ‘author’ merely collected diplomatic rumors, unreliable hearsay from various agents of NATO countries’ secret services, confessions made by duly bribed Kazakhs, undocumented claims, unsubstantiated arguments, wishful thinking, and irrelevantly collected bibliography to compose her fake PhD dissertation. What is even worse is the extreme dishonesty with which she shamelessly presents her forgery.
On p.75 of her trashy dissertation {“The Political Elite in Kazakhstan since Independence (1991-1998): Origins, Structure and Policies”}, the notorious forger Sally (Nikoline) Cummings writes:
“In his memoirs, Kunaev describes his role in the original appointment of Nazarbaev and his feeling of betrayal: “Igor Ligachev and I, we decided a number of cadre questions in the republic, in particular the promotion of Nursultan Nazarbaev to the post of Chairman of the Kazakh SSR Council of Ministers”.5 Shortly after this appointment, Kunaev flew to Moscow and demanded the removal of Nazarbaev. Meanwhile, supporters of Nazarbaev lobbied for Kunaev’s removal and his replacement by the young Chairman. Gorbachev, often preferring compromise, opted for neither, and instead parachuted in from Moscow an ethnic Russian, Gennadii Kolbin. The decision set off three days of rioting in Alma-Ata, between 16 and 18 December, 1986. These riots at the imposition of an outsider are often interpreted as the first major nationalist crack in the supranational Soviet edifice”.
Note 5 can be found on p. 115; it reads: “Dinmukhamed Kunaev, O Moem Vremeni (Alma-Ata: Deyir, 1992), p. 9”.
This is entirely inconsistent; Nazarbayev’s appointment as Chairman of Kazakh SSR Council of Ministers dates back to the time of Konstantin Chernenko; it had nothing to do with Gorbachev (22 March 1984: see above: part XVIII unit a). Even worse, in December 1986, Dinmukhamed Kunaev did not fly to Moscow in order to demand “the removal of Nazarbayev”, but to get Gorbachev’s agreement and approval of his resignation because of poor health. What is really embarrassing is the fact that the dishonest Sally (Nikoline) Cummings refers to Dinmukhamed Kunaev’s book that was published posthumously (‘О моем времени. От Сталина до Горбачева’ / ‘a mayom vremeni: at Stalina da Gorbachova’ / ‘About my time: From Stalin to Gorbachev’) only to misquote the book and cheat her readers who do not happen to read Russian. Kunaev did not write in his memoirs that he “demanded the removal of Nazarbaev”. This is a lie.
In his book, Kunaev states the following (the link is below, at the end of the unit):
“Выполняя поручения ЦК и Президиума Верховного Совета, выезжал в ряд социалистических и капиталистических стран, возглавлял партийные и парламентские делегации. Мне выпало большое счастье работать, встречаться, слушать видных деятелей нашей партии и государства, международного рабочего и коммунистического движения. Приходилось беседовать с крупными государственными и партийными деятелями капиталистических стран.
Хочу сразу сказать, что о масштабных изменениях в экономической, культурной жизни республики за указанный период невозможно рассказать в пределах данной книги.
Поэтому своей целью я поставил постараться рассказать о главных событиях, происшедших в жизни республики и страны в общей форме, не вдаваясь в описание отдельных подробностей. Еще хочу сказать, что я не писатель и не историк и моя работа не претендует на какое-то художественное повествование или историческую хронику.
Я решил систематизировать и обобщить свой более чем пятидесятилетний опыт партийной, государственной, хозяйственной и научной деятельности. Надеюсь, что мои записки напомнят моим товарищам и друзьям о нашей совместной работе, о незабываемом времени социалистического строительства в Казахстане. Память бережно хранит те переломные моменты, происшедшие в истории республики, которые определили и явились решающей базой ее дальнейшего развития.
У каждого политического деятеля наступает в жизни момент, когда он должен принять самое ответственное и, не скрою, очень трудное для себя решение: пора уходить в отставку.
Я не сомневался, что мое заявление об уходе на пенсию будет принято, и порукой тому было много разных и веских причин. О нюансах я расскажу, наверное, позже, но тогда, в декабре, мой Опыт подсказывал мне: нужно лететь в Москву и встретиться с М. С. Горбачевым.
И вот я в Москве. Остановился в гостинице «Казахстан», которая была, кстати, построена силами нашей республики рядом с Казахским представительством на Чистых прудах, напротив памятника Грибоедову и станции метро «Кировская». На следующее утро в Кунцевской больнице я проведал жену, Зухру Шариповну. Из больницы приехал на Старую площадь в ЦК и поднялся на пятый этаж, где находился кабинет Генерального секретаря ЦК КПСС. Я шел по знакомому коридору в хорошо известный мне кабинет Генсека. Здесь в свое время работал Хрущев, Брежнев, Андропов, Черненко. Было время, когда в этом кабинете Хрущев и Брежнев с моим участием принимали немало решений о помощи Казахстану, касающихся развития его экономики, культуры и науки. Вспомнилось, как в начале 1955 года Н. С. Хрущев благословлял меня здесь на должность Председателя Совета Министров Казахской ССР.
Но на этот раз я шел к Генсеку с личным вопросом. Горбачев встал из-за стола, как всегда во время наших встреч, тепло поздоровался. Затем мы сели за длинный стол, где обычно сидят присутствующие на совещаниях. После взаимных приветствий, не растягивая разговор, я положил ему на стол свое заявление. В заявлении было сказано, что ЦК КПСС вот уже несколько десятков лет оказывал Мне большое доверие, поручая весьма ответственную и почетную работу. За оказанное высокое доверие я выражаю свою сердечную благодарность ЦК, Политбюро и Генеральному секретарю, но в настоящее время мое здоровье и возраст не позволяют мне плодотворно трудиться на этом посту, поэтому прошу рассмотреть вопрос о моем уходе на пенсию.
Горбачев, на мой взгляд, к такому разговору был достаточно уже подготовлен и сказал, что он поддерживает мое предложение и заявление мое вынесет на рассмотрение Политбюро. Далее он сказал, что большая занятость не позволит ему принять участие в работе пленума ЦК КПК, а потому в Алма-Ату прибудет Разумовский.
Признаюсь, что в душе я надеялся, что Генсек спросит меня, кого бы я хотел рекомендовать на свое место. Он не спросил. Тогда я сам задал ему вопрос. Горбачев довольно сухо сказал: «Решение этого вопроса оставь нам. В республику будет рекомендован и направлен хороший коммунист».
Перед моим уходом он сказал, что обеспечит жильем в Москве. Я поблагодарил его за заботу и ответил, что не собираюсь никуда переезжать и буду жить в своем родном городе. Тепло прощаясь со мной, Горбачев сказал: «Будете в Москве, обязательно заходите». На том и расстались. Вечером я вылетел в Алма-Ату.
В кабинете, который я занимал в ЦК, собрал подаренные мне книги от писателей, деятелей науки и культуры и отправил их домой. Из Москвы никто не тревожил, да и в Алма-Ате, по всему чувствовалось, ждали перемен, и потому напряжение последних лет резко поубавилось. На заседание Политбюро меня не вызывали, но просьбу удовлетворили. После получения решения я собрал бюро ЦК КПК и сообщил товарищам об уходе на пенсию. От имени бюро выступил С. Мукашев и поблагодарил за совместную работу. Ну, а 16 декабря состоялся пленум ЦК. О его работе, его последствиях читатели узнают в одной из заключительных глав“.
A rough translation of the above excerpt reads:
“Fulfilling the instructions of the Central Committee and the Presidium of the Supreme Council, I traveled to a number of socialist and capitalist countries, headed party and parliamentary delegations. I had the great fortune to work, to meet, to listen to prominent figures of our party and state, of the international workers’ and communist movement. I had to talk with major state and party leaders of the capitalist countries.
I want to say right away that it is impossible to tell about large-scale changes in the economic and cultural life of the republic during the specified period within the limits of this book.
Therefore, I set as my goal to try to tell about the main events that took place in the life of the republic and the country in a general form, without going into a description of individual details. I also want to say that I am not a writer or a historian, and my work does not pretend to be some kind of artistic narrative or historical chronicle.
I decided to systematize and generalize my more than fifty years of experience in party, government, economic and scientific activities. I hope that my notes will remind my comrades and friends of our joint work, of the unforgettable time of socialist construction in Kazakhstan. The memory carefully preserves those turning points that occurred in the history of the republic, which determined and became the decisive basis for its further development.
Every political figure has a moment in his life when he must make the most responsible and, I will not hide, very difficult decision for himself: it’s time to resign.
I had no doubt that my application for retirement would be accepted, and there were many different and good reasons for this. I will probably tell about the nuances later, but then, in December, my experience told me: I need to fly to Moscow and meet with M. S. Gorbachev.
And here I am in Moscow. I stayed at the hotel “Kazakhstan”, which, by the way, was built by the forces of our republic next to the Kazakh representative office at Chistye Prudy, opposite the monument to Griboyedov and the metro station “Kirovskaya”. The next morning at the Kuntsevo hospital I visited my wife, Zukhra Sharipovna. From the hospital I came to Staraya Square to the Central Committee and went up to the fifth floor, where the office of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU was located. I walked along the familiar corridor to the General Secretary’s office, well known to me. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko worked here at one time. There was a time when, in this cabinet, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, with my participation, made many decisions about helping Kazakhstan, concerning the development of its economy, culture and science. I remembered how at the beginning of 1955, N. S. Khrushchev blessed me here for the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR.
But this time I went to the General Secretary with a personal question. Gorbachev got up from the table, as he always did during our meetings, and greeted us warmly. We then sat down at the long table where those present at meetings usually sit. After mutual greetings, without dragging out the conversation, I put my statement on his desk. The statement said that for several decades now the Central Committee of the CPSU has given me great confidence, entrusting me with a very responsible and honorable job. For the high trust placed in me, I express my heartfelt gratitude to the Central Committee, the Politburo and the General Secretary, but at present my health and age do not allow me to work fruitfully in this post, so I ask you to consider my retirement.
Gorbachev, in my opinion, was already sufficiently prepared for such a conversation and said that he supported my proposal and that he would submit my application to the Politburo for consideration. Further, he said that, being very busy, he would not allow him to take part in the work of the plenum of the Kazakh Communist Party Central Committee, and therefore Razumovsky would arrive in Alma-Ata.
I confess that in my heart I hoped that the General Secretary would ask me whom I would like to recommend for my position. He didn’t ask. Then I asked him a question myself. Gorbachev said rather dryly: “Leave this issue to us. A good communist will be recommended and sent to the republic”.
Before I left, he said that he would provide housing in Moscow. I thanked him for his concern and replied that I was not going to move anywhere and would live in my hometown. Warmly saying goodbye to me, Gorbachev said: “If you are in Moscow, be sure to come”. On that we parted. In the evening I flew to Alma-Ata.
In the office that I occupied in the Central Committee, I collected the books presented to me from writers, scientists and cultural figures and sent them home. No one from Moscow disturbed, and in Alma-Ata, by all accounts, it was felt that they were waiting for changes, and therefore the tension of recent years has sharply decreased. I was not summoned to a meeting of the Politburo, but the request was granted. After receiving the decision, I called the bureau of the CCP Central Committee and informed my comrades about my retirement. S. Mukashev spoke on behalf of the bureau and thanked for the joint work. Well, on December 16, a plenum of the Central Committee was held. Readers will learn about his work, his consequences in one of the final chapters“.
This was the historical reality; there was no conspiracy; there was no animosity between Kunaev and Nazarbayev, and there was no inter-ethnic conflict in the December 1986 riots. And this can be easily understood, if we take into consideration the very numerous occasions on which Nazarbayev honored the memory of Kunaev. Today’s Kazakhstan is filled with streets, avenues, squares, institutes, colleges, academies named after Kunaev; this would have never been the case, had the West-masterminded conspiracy been true.
Kolbin was indeed a very good Soviet apparatchik; he was few years older than Gorbachev, he had served in Sverdlovsk (Second Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee of the CPSU), in Georgia (Second Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party), and in Ulyanovsk (First Secretary of the Ulyanovsk Regional Committee of the CPSU), being Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR (1971-1975), Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (1979-1989), and Member of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (1987-1989); he was an experienced technocrat known for his commitment to infrastructure modernization. But for Kunaev’s position, he was the wrong choice – at least psychologically.
Snapshots from the Jeltoqsan events
The December 1986 events, which became known as Jeltoqsan, were in reality an explosion of the feelings of few radical students, who perceived Kunaev’s tenure in their own, wrong, inaccurate, and ‘nationalistic’ manner. Consequently, the appointment of Gennady Kolbin was an occasion for them and others to express their anger for the growing economic malaise, their fears for the unknown (as represented by Gorbachev’s erroneous choice), and their resentment of an eventual Russification (which did not take place). There were certainly several problems in the Kazakh society, and at the level of the local administration, in spite of several decades of implemented korenizatsiya, the Russian language was still at a more advantageous position than Kazakh. Russian was a mandatory requirement for all people willing to be appointed at the highest positions in the administration and the Communist Party of the Kazakh SSR; however, this did not apply in the case of the Kazakh language. This meant that, in the Kazakh SSR, local Russians could hold a leadership position without knowing Kazakh, but local Kazakhs could not hold a leadership position without speaking Russian. It is normal that ‘details’ like this count more than expected by the cool-minded bureaucrats and the rationalistic apparatchiks, who cannot feel the pulse of average people.
In fact, fear existed from both sides, but this is not enough to characterize the Jeltoqsan riots as inter-ethnic conflict. In fact, even among the top positions in the Kazakh SSR, Kazakh natives feared that any partisan attempt against what was described as Kazakh nationalism (which was viewed as a deviation by the standard communists) would be tantamount to (or excuse for) return to the Great Russian Imperialism; and Russian natives viewed things the other way round.
In fact, the existence of governmental plans providing for the prevention of ‘group violations of public order’, like План «Метель-1986» (Plan “Metel-1986”) which was prepared in 1985 by the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, demonstrates that riots were expected in fact anywhere, not only in Alma-Ata (Almaty). The plan was surely implemented during the December 1986 riots (Jeltoqsan), but this shows that the reasons anticipated were basically economic and not inter-ethnic of nature.
There are several indications demonstrating that Kolbin’s appointment merely offered the opportunity that for a protracted period the protesting students were searching for; according to several testimonies, students started to agitate in the dormitories already on 14th December 1986, i.e. already two days before Kolbin’s appointment was announced. According to reports of other insiders, the banners that the students showed in the streets on 17th December 1986 were prepared several months in advance.
On the first day of the riots (16th December), the protesters were few, namely around 200 students; they shouted demanding the cancellation of Kolbin’s appointment. The governmental reaction was very fast indeed; the Ministry of Internal Affairs was immediately instructed to disperse the rally. Throughout the city, all telephone communications were turned off; the groups of students were dispersed by the police. Special Forces detachments from the Siberian military school were assembled, as well as cadets from the local border school.
On the second day, there were more protesters, more violence, banners with extremist demands, and grave deterioration. Nursultan Nazarbayev, along with other officials, spoke to the raging crowd, urging young people to return to their educational institutions and/or workplaces; this bold action unfortunately did not bring results, and -even worse- it was deliberately misinterpreted by few Western conspiracy theorists, who invented a plot as per which Nazarbayev had personally organized the riots (and in such case, he was the true leader of the protesters). When Gen. Vladimir Lobov (Владимир Николаевич Лобов; born in 1935), commander of the Central Asian Military District (and later Chief of the General Staff of the USSR), refused to involve the troops subordinate to him in the dispersal of youth, it became clear that several thousand soldiers had to be airlifted and transferred to Alma-Ata. The first units landed on the same day and attacked the protesters, dispersing them and cleaning the city.
On the same day, the state of emergency was declared in part of the territory of Kazakhstan, but it did not apply to Alma-Ata (Almaty); in the outskirts of the Kazakh capital, an operational camp was established with at least 50000 military personnel from parts of the Central Asia, Moscow, Leningrad (St. Petersburg), and other military districts, the navy, and internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs; this shows that the strength of the protesters was over-estimated by the Soviet authorities. As part of the state of emergency, all approaches to Aktau (the main harbor of the Kazakh SSR in the Caspian Sea) were blocked by the Caspian military flotilla of the Soviet Union.
On the night of December 17th, work teams were formed in factories and industrial plants in Alma-Ata; it was planned to use them on the next day in order to disperse the demonstrators.
On the third day (December 18th), the demonstrators were more numerous (perhaps around 20000 or 25000 students and youngsters), but the number of the participants was still insignificant, if we take into consideration the size of a city like Alma-Ata (ca. 1100000 inhabitants at the time). The security forces used the same tactics as on the previous day. Early in the morning, a limited number of policemen were visibly deployed. The protesters were thus entrapped and started clashing with the law enforcement agents; after few hours, the bulk of security forces entered the scene. Around 22:00 (10 pm) the city center was clear and there were no protesters in the streets. This was the end of the riots in Alma-Ata.
Controversial publications (Russkaya Mysl/ Русская мысль) published on the 18th December that “the demonstrators were handed out vodka, hashish and ‘nationalist’ leaflets from trucks”; this assertion, if true, would be an indication of serious foreign involvement, but it cannot be easily crosschecked and confirmed.
It was easy for the TASS (ТАСС) news agency to put the blame on ‘nationalist elements’; quite unfortunately, they did not understand that, by repeating their customary jargon, they simply offered venues to their enemies, i.e. the rascals of the Anglo-Saxon cholera. They failed to understand that the adjective ‘nationalist’ had totally different connotations in their ideological language and in the treacherous, mendacious and filthy language of the criminal diplomats of NATO and EU member states. TASS certainly stated the true nature of the extremist and radical students who were overwhelmingly rejected by the Kazakh society in its entirety: ‘hooligans’, ‘parasites’, ‘antisocial persons’. But the duplicitous news agencies of the Western simply disregarded these terms, did not mention any of them, and focused on the term ‘nationalist’, portraying these rascals as ‘patriots’.
On 18th December 1986, TASS reported the following: “Last night and this afternoon in Alma-Ata, a group of student youth, incited by nationalist elements, took to the streets, expressing disapproval of the decision of the recently held plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. Hooligans, parasitic elements, and other antisocial persons took advantage of the current situation, thus carrying out illegal acts against law enforcement officers, setting fire to a grocery store and severl personal cars, and insulting the citizens of the city. Meetings held at plants, factories, universities, other labor collectives, as well as in the Communist Party and the Komsomol offices of the city and of the surrounding regions, approved the decisions of the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, condemned the unjustified actions of the group of students, and supported decisive measures against the hooligans in order to restore full order in the city. The actions taken in this direction are backed by the workers. They actively participate in the events held by the Soviet and party bodies. All the companies, institutions, educational institutions, shops, public services, and the public transport are working normally”.
The last phase of the Jeltoqsan riots took place in the northeastern Kazakh city of Karaganda. On the 19th December, when everything was calm in Alma-Ata, around 100 people gathered in Gagarin Square (Площадь Гагарина); from there they advanced to Sovetsky Avenue {: Советский проспект, which is currently named Buhar Zhyrau Avenue (проспект Бухар-Жырау), after the great Kazakh poet Bukhar-zhirau Kalmakanov, who lived in the 17th-18th c.} where they were soon dispersed or arrested by the police. On the 20th December, around 300 students gathered in the square near the Communist Party regional committee, but were soon scattered and apprehended by the Cadets of the school of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
In Karaganda, as it happened in Alma-Ata, several students were expelled from the universities or brought to criminal responsibility; in the capital of the Kazakh SSR, there were two dead (a policeman and a student). According to data published in Kazakhstan, more than 1700 people received serious bodily injuries; 99 people were convicted under criminal procedure and many among them were condemned to forced labor; two persons were sentenced to death, and among them the 20-year old student Qairat Ryskulbekov (Кайрат Ногайбаевич Рыскулбеков), who later died in prison only to be posthumously rehabilitated (1992) and also declared a Hero of Kazakhstan (by decree of Nursultan Nazarbayev; 9th December 1996). Furthermore, 8500 people were detained by law enforcement forces, whereas 5324 people were interrogated by the prosecutor’s office, and 850 people by the KGB. Around 900 people were subjected to administrative penalties (arrests, fines), 1400 people were warned, 319 people were dismissed, and 309 students were expelled from various educational institutions. About 1400 people received Komsomol and party penalties.
When it comes to USSR law enforcement agencies and their tactics at the time of perestroika, the Jeltoqsan riots were very useful for the Soviet administrative machine; they served as a pattern for all identical events. Similar tactics applied to every case that would be considered as of the same nature: first, the authorities did nothing for prevention and they allowed the events to grow; then they used only insignificant forces to suppress the protesters. They thus incited passions and then they applied rather severe measures. Over the years, this tactics failed, as they provenly contributed only to an even greater aggravation of the situation.
Imitating the aforementioned report of the TASS news agency, a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU, adopted in early 1987, described the Jeltoqsan riots as “a manifestation of Kazakh nationalism”. Gradually, the Communist jargon fell in desuetude and the derogatory references to nationalism became scarce. Following the appointment of Nazarbayev as First Secretary of the Communist Party (22nd June 1989), a group of deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR, headed by the writer Mukhtar Shakhanov (Мухтар Шаханов; born in 1942), applied (14th November 1989) to the Central Committee of the CPSU with a request to remove the wording “manifestation of Kazakh nationalism”, and the wording was canceled.
It was normal for the Soviet authorities back in 1987 to search for a scapegoat; the December 1986 events were therefore ‘interpreted’ as eventually masterminded by Kunaev or even spearheaded by his followers, and that is why Dinmukhamed Kunaev was removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU; on 26th June 1987, he was also removed from the Central Committee of the CPSU. In a rather theatrical move, Gorbachev initiated an investigation against Kunaev and gave to Vladimir Kalinichenko (Владимир Иванович Калиниченко; born in 1947), the investigator for especially important cases of the USSR General Prosecutor’s Office, the task to find discrediting facts for bringing charges against Kunaev, but this was not possible. These developments played into the game of the Western mainstream media which flooded their uninformed, naive and unsuspicious readers with nonsensical distortions and misinterpretations. In addition, a defamation campaign against Kunaev was launched and he was under unofficial house arrest, which was canceled only in 1990 after the death of his wife Zukhra Sharipovna. But as I already stated, he was widely honored during his last years (1991-1993) and also posthumously.
Exactly five years after these events, on 16th December 1991, Kazakhstan declared its independence, being the last of the Soviet republics to do so. It was normal for the Kazakh statesmen, academics, politicians and intellectuals to contribute to their nation building and to the establishment of their national education by expanding extensively on the History of the Kazakh Nation, highlighting their cultural identity and underscoring every expression of their national integrity. That is why during the 31 years of their existence as a modern state, Kazakhs viewed in the Jeltoqsan riots a latent form of identitarian consciousness. It is within this context that, last December, President Kassym-Jomart Kemeluly Tokayev (Касым-Жомарт Кемелевич Токаев / Қасым-Жомарт Кемелұлы Тоқаев; born in 1953) stated (17th December 2021) the following: “35 years ago, our youth opposed the dictates of the union center. The protests of 1986 demonstrated the desire of the people for freedom and sovereignty. The heroism of the participants in the December events, which became a harbinger of Independence, is forever inscribed in the history of our statehood”. About:
a- The rise of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the greatest Turkic Statesman after Kemal Ataturk
If President Tokayev represents the present and the future of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev is the absolute and unique embodiment of the transition from the Kazakh SSR to the Republic of Kazakhstan. For almost four decades, Independent Kazakhstan’s first president determined almost every single important development that took place in the vast country. The formation of the first modern Kazakh state was not an easy task, as it hinged on many parameters. One must definitely admit that, compared with the other states in the wider region of Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and Central Asia, Kazakhstan effectively outperformed all the neighbors; the Central Asiatic ‘giant’ and Eurasia’s pivotal state, although incomparably less experienced than the Russian Federation in terms of academic, economic and diplomatic elites, state tradition, and imperial governance, eclipsed Moscow. This may eventually sound as an overstatement to some, but the historical truth is that Kazakhstan did not undergo the terribly humiliating decomposition and the existential threat that Yeltsin’s Russia faced in the 1990s.
In spite of several decades of Marxism-Leninism, the Kazakh hordes (or zhuz) survived as a crucial socio-behavioral element of the Kazakh society and played a determinant role in the transition period; to an important degree, they shaped the socio-economic and political developments. For example, investigaring the past and present realities of Kazakhstan, a specialist certainly finds it necessary to take into consideration that Nursultan Nazarbayev and his family belong to the Great Horde (which is also known as the Senior Zhuz/Uly Zhuz; see above part IV), and more specifically to the Shaprashty (Шапрашты) tribe. Among the Kazakhs, this tribe is considered as the richest and the most influential. At this point, one has to add that President Tokayev and his family also belong to the Great Horde, but to a different tribe, namely Zhalayir (Жалайыры), which is also associated with a great historical Mongolian tribe. Specialists of Kazakh History consider however Zhalayir as less influential than Shaprashty among the Kazakhs.
The three Kazakh hordes: the Great Horde (in the South-East), the Middle Horde (in the Center, the North and the North-East), and the Minor Horde (in the West)The divisions of the three hordes in tribes and clans
There is indeed a topographical / geographical factor of the Kazakh hordes, which is directly interconnected with present socioeconomic and political realities. As I stated in part IV, the Great Horde has been known as dwellers of Kazakhstan’s southern provinces, whereas the Middle Horde’s tribes and clans are the inhabitants of the vast Kazakh steppe; last, the Minor Horde occupied the country’s western confines. This historical situation has great consequences on present day issues. But, almost the only fertile lands in Kazakhstan are located in the South, which means that Kazakhs belonging to the Great Horde have traditionally had greater income than the others.
On the other hand, the transfer of capital from Almaty to Akmola-Astana-Nursultan was certainly a most remarkable step taken by former president Nazarbayev and the Supreme Council of the Republic on 6th July 1994; however, with the Kazakh elite overwhelmingly consisting of people of the Uly Zhuz, this major change also took the appearance of an interpolation. In a way, it meant that people of the Great Horde moved to the northernmost part of the Middle Horde’s territory, also bringing the government there. As a matter of fact, the official transfer of the capital took place on 10th December 1997, but the event was not particularly beneficial to the Orta (Middle) Zhuz.
It is also true that the vast lands of the Middle Zhuz were catastrophically misused during the Soviet times, because a significantly large area (18500 km2) around Semipalatinsk (Семипалатинск; currently Semey/ Семей) was selected to be and actually was for several decades the main nuclear test site across the USSR {also known as ‘Dvoika’ (двойка), i.e. ‘deuce’}. This means that shock waves, radiation and sizzling fires generated indeed enormous pollution throughout the country’s eastern territory where ca. two million people lived (mainly Kazakhs from the Middle Horde).
The dominant role played by the Great Horde in Kazakhstan’s economy and politics was reason for resentment by the Kazakhs of the Minor Horde whose ancestral lands encompass the oil-rich provinces of Western Kazakhstan. The Kishi (Minor) Zhuz find it quite unfair that natural resources located in their own traditional lands are more profitable to South Kazakhstan’s Uly Zhuz elites that govern the country than to themselves. These factors play always an important role, when discontent happens to be on the rise for some reason.
Nursultan Nazarbayev (Нурсултан Абишевич Назарбаев; Нұрсұлтан Әбішұлы Назарбаев), son of Alish (1903-1971) and Alzhan (1910-1977) Nazarbayev, was born on 6th July 1940 in the village of Chemolgan (Чемолган) of the Kaskelensky district (Каскеленский район), in the Alma-Ata region. After graduating in 1957 from the Abay Secondary School (in the city of Kaskelen/ Каскелен), he decided to become a metallurgist, because this sector was among the most promising ones during the Khrushchev period. After studying at the Vocational School no 22 at the Dnieper Metallurgical Plant in Dneprodzerzhinsk (Ukraine), he graduated in 1960 and he started working in the construction department of the Kazmetallurgstroy trust in the city of Temirtau (Kazakhstan); he continued at the Karaganda Metallurgical Plant and in 1967, he graduated from the VTUZ (ВТУЗ – Высшее техническое учебное заведение/ Higher technical educational institution) of the said plant. By that time, he had already been married (1962) and he had become the father of two daughters, namely Dariga (1963) and Dinara (1967); the last daughter of the couple, Aliya (the accent is on the last syllable), was born later (1980).
In parallel with his work and studies and after having been a Komsomol (Communist Party youth organization) member since 1962, he was involved in Komsomol work in Temirtau (1969-1973). Subsequently, he was elected as the secretary of the party committee at the Karaganda metallurgical plant (1973-1978); this meant that at the age of 33-38, he was -after the plant director- the no 2 authority in a vast state enterprise that employed more than 30000 workers. In 1978, he was appointed as secretary of the Karaganda regional party committee; one year later, he was elected (at the age of 38) secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. His excellent communication skills, his consummate knowledge of technical and administrative matters, and his fast perception of rising problems were the reasons for which he was selected, although very young, by Dinmukhamed Kunaev for the position of ‘prime minister’ (Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR) as early as 1984.
As a staunch supporter of M. Gorbachev, Nazarbayev remained in his position during Gennady Kolbin’s tenure, and in 1989, he was also appointed as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. During the crucial period 1989-1992, he was also elected People’s Deputy of the USSR. For about three months (February-April 1990), he was simultaneously Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR. In addition, from 14th July 1990 to 23rd August 1991, he was Member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. Nazarbayev was close to both, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who in different moments offered him very top positions in the USSR, but he declined the offers. On 24th April 1990, the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR, in a groundbreaking attempt that could be interpreted as the first stage of secession, created the post of President of the Kazakh SSR, appointing Nazarbayev in the position.
Following the failed coup of 19th-22nd August 1991, at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev announced his withdrawal from the CPSU. Soon after, on 7th September 1991, the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan decided to dissolve the party, but the ‘anti-Gorbachev’ group recreated the Communist Party of Kazakhstan in October 1991 (at the so-called 19th Congress of the party). Few months later, on 1st December 1991, in the first nationwide presidential election of the Kazakh SSR, Nazarbayev was the only candidate and got 98.7% of the votes.
At the apex of the transition events, the Kazakh SSR was renamed the Republic of Kazakhstan on 10th December 1991, thus practically becoming a fully independent state. Few days later, on 16th December 1991, the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR adopted the Law on State Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which was the last SSR to become an independent state. Then automatically, Nursultan Nazarbayev became the first President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In this quality, he signed the Alma-Ata Declaration (Алма-Атинская декларация), which constituted the founding declarations and principles of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), involving the Agreement on Councils of Heads of State and Government, the Agreement on Strategic Forces, and the Agreement on Armed Forces and Border Troops.
The Constitution of Kazakhstan was prepared in the second half of 1992 and adopted on 28th January 1993; although it was a matter of vivid debate and in the process, several opposition parties organized demonstrations, the text was mainly drafted by the ‘old Communist guard’ and that is why it resulted in a formidable executive power and rather weak legislative and judiciary branches, with the government being mainly accountable to the president. Being the last remnant of the old times, the Supreme Soviet voted to dissolve itself on the 10th December 1993. Nationwide parliamentary elections were held in March 1994, although few extremist parties, such as Jeltoqsan and Azat (financed by the notorious gangster George Soros’ outfits / the Soros-Kazakhstan foundation was launched in 1995), boycotted them. Since this repugnant rascal failed to elect his puppets in Kazakhstan’s parliament, the ludicrous OSCE observers attempted shamelessly to discredit the elections as ‘unfair’!
The government of the transition (from 16th December 1991 to 14th October 1994), led by Prime Minister Sergey Tereshchenko (Сергей Александрович Терещенко; of Ukrainian origin; born in 1951 in Primorye, Far Eastern Federal District), was indeed involved in numerous scandals, which -taking into consideration the circumstances- were almost inevitable. Following the mounting pressure during the summer 1994, Nazarbayev (after supporting him for some time) was finally obliged to dismiss him for a much poorer choice, namely Akezhan Kazhegeldin (Акежан Магжанович Кажегельдин; born in 1952 to parents belonging to the Middle Horde), who -after staying in power for three years (October 1994 – October 1997)- decided (or rather was incited by Western diplomats) to challenge Nazarbayev.
For this purpose, he was persistently supported by Western institutions amd mass media; following a systematic bribing of many Kazakh businessmen, Kazhegeldin was ‘voted’ (1998) president of the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. As his plot was uncovered, Kazhegeldin had to flee abroad, even more so because he was accused of extraordinary scandals and audacious embezzlement of public money; he tried to found a party and return to Kazakhstan in order to participate in the 1999 elections, but he was barred from entering the country and permanently banned to exile. It was also in the summer 1994 that Nazarbayev suggested the transfer of the capital city to Akmola (in Kazakhstan’s northernmost confines), which then was entirely rebuilt and renamed Astana (currently Nursultan).
As the corruption spread fast, in March 1995, the Constitutional Court ‘decided’ that the previous year’s parliementary elections were carried out in unlawful manner and should therefore be considered as unconstitutional. This was one of the earliest achievements of the Soros Kazakhstan Foundation. President Nazarbayev had to react fast, firmly and effectively; it was only normal that he promptly dissolved the Supreme Council and started ruling by means of presidential decrees. When enemies of the Kazakh historical tradition, national identity, and cultural integrity intend to bribe morally weak and politically dishonest persons, who do not anymore present and defend their free opinion and standpoint, but -as slaves- function disastrously for their entire nation and country, the form of state is neither republic nor kingdom, but thralldom.
On 29th April 1995, following the cancellation of the 1996 presidential elections by the Parliament (General Assembly), a special referendum was held in which the Kazakhs agreed with overwhelming majority (95.5%) to extend Nazarbayev’s presidential powers until 2000. After a few months, on 30th August 1995, the constitutional referendum was held and the new Constitution {providing for a bicameral system with the Mazhilis (мажилис; Lower House) and the Senate (Сенат парламента Казахстана; Upper House)} was adopted and supported by 90% of voters. It is noteworthy that Nazarbayev’s discourses and speeches of those days contained full evidence of documented knowledge of Western schemes, intrigues, biases, dissimulated plots, and efforts of infiltration; it is not by coincidence that he was recorded stating that “Western schemes do not work in our Eurasiatic expanses”.
Nazarbayev’s dismissal of Kazhegeldin was an early defeat of the obscure Western plotters and conniving businessmen; all the same, this did not mean that they were ‘convinced’ or that they stopped their efforts. As a matter of fact, the new Prime Minister appointed by Kazakhstan’s President was someone who had spent one year as intern student at Chevron (1993-1994); and this is the reason for which he was employed immediately after his return back home, as Minister of Oil and Gas (from October 1994 to March 1997): Nurlan Balgimbayev (Нурлан Утепович Балгимбаев / Нұрлан Өтепұлы Балғымбаев; 1947-2015). Minor Horde member and born in Atyrau (by the Caspian Sea shore at the mouth of Ural River), Balgimbayev was a loyal Prime Minister (1997-1999). He shared indeed with Nazarbayev many identical views; they managed to keep the country far from the notorious IMF and to increase the production of Kazakh Oil. However, he also supported very fervently the sale of 40% of Tengiz oilfields (later known as KazMunayGas / Казмунайгаз) to Chevron. Quite unfortunately, this story cost to Nazarbayev a bad reputation; conventionally known as the ‘Kazakhgate’, this affair had enormous ramifications.
The scandal concerned mainly the US businessman James Giffen (born in 1941), who -back in the 1990s- worked as advisor to the then president Nazarabayev, also having dual citizenship. Giffen had several ties with the USSR and had already tried to penetrate the Soviet Oil market in the 1980s, but at the end, he stood accused for an 80 million US$ bribery assumingly cashed to both, Nazarbayev and Prime Minister Nurlan Balgimbayev. The story started in 2003, when Giffen was arrested, but in the trial he stated that he was acting with the approval of the CIA, which however did not allow anyone to explore the related documentation; that’s why at the end, the adventurous businessman-spy was acquitted. All the same, the event would tarnish the image of the newly established independent state, and that is why the Kazakh authorities reacted officially, overwhelmingly denying all allegations.
To ensure stability and guarantee continuity in development, several amendments to the constitution were suggested and ratified on the 7th October 1998; following this development, Nazarbayev issued a decree fixing the presidential election date on 10th January 1999. An old Soviet apparatchik and pro-Communist statesman, who harshly criticized Nazarbayev’s shift to free market economy, stood against him: Serikbolsyn Abdildin (Серикболсын Абдильдаевич Абдильдин / Серікболсын Әбділдаұлы Әбділдин; 1937-2019). Nazarbayev was reelected with ca. 80% of the vote. Abdildin, who had held important ministerial and partisan positions in the USSR during the 1980s, used to see in every inadequacy, malfunction, failure and wrongdoing during the implementation of free market economy in Kazakhstan an opportunity for a Communist comeback. He started his opposition in 1994, and as early as 1996 he was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party. It is however noteworthy that he never allowed his opposition to become a matter of national ordeal and descent to chaos. In the 1999 presidential elections, he openly supported a mixed-economic system after the Chinese model, thus shifting from his earlier positions. All the same, after he retired from politics (2010), he continued his criticism of Nazarbayev.
A new political party was established as political platform for Nazarbayev; it was named Nur Otan {Нур Отан/ Нұр Отан, i.e. ‘Light of the Ancestors’; also known as Amanat (Аманат, i.e. ‘Ancestral Will’)}. Otan participated in the 1999 legislative elections (10 and 24 October 1999), won 23 seats in the parliament (out of 77), and proved to be ever since Kazakhstan’s central political force. An important change occurred few days before the elections; following Nurlan Balgimbayev’s resignation (1 October 1999), the former Minister of Foreign Affairs (1994-1999) Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who had served as Deputy Prime Minister for 7 months (since March 1999), was appointed as Prime Minister by the President and endorsed (12 October 1999) by the Parliament. Notably, after the end of his tenure as prime minister (1 October 1999), Nurlan Balgimbayev continued to hold high positions, notably as president of state-owned Oil companies, CEO of joint ventures, and adviser to Nazarbayev.
Kassym-Jomart TokayevKassym-Jomart TokayevTokayev as Foreign Minister with Sergei Lavrov
With Tokayev’s appointment as Prime Minister, we are ushered into the present; this is not so because the incumbent President of Kazakhstan served continually as Prime Minister before being appointed first and then elected in his current position. He actually did not; after resigning from his position of Prime Minister (28 January 2002), Tokayev was appointed as Foreign Minister and State Secretary (2002-2007), Chairman of the Senate (2007-2011 and 2013-2019), and Under Secretary-General, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva (2011-2013), thus acquiring a hitherto unknown to any Kazakh statesman experience. The same is also valid for Nazarbayev’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th terms; today, they still constitute an inalienable part of Kazakhstan’s present, not past. About:
b- Nursultan Nazarbayev: major achievements and oversights
Nazarbayev’s presidential tenure spans over almost 30 years (1990-2019; he was first elected as President of the SSR of Kazakhstan on 24th April 1990); when it comes to the Republic of Kazakhstan, his five terms proved to often be of different duration each (first term: 1991–1999; second term: 1999–2006; third term: 2006–2011; fourth term: 2011–2015; fifth term: 2015–2019). It goes without saying that Nazarbayev’s first term was the most critical one; this is so for various reasons and not only because, truly speaking, those were the formative years of the newly-established republic. First of all, a possible decomposition or disorder (as it happened in Yeltsin’s Russia) had to be averted; and Nazarbayev marked a real success in this regard. Even more importantly, he managed to outperform all the other formerly Soviet officials, who ensured the transition period in their respective states.
Second, an important vision for the future of the modern nation had to be invented and formulated; in addition, it had to be at the same time, daring and realistic. In this regard, the capital transfer and the construction of one of the world’s most dazzling cities was a very wise measure. With the transfer of capital from Almaty to Astana, Nazarbayev made a great shift in the History of the Kazakhs; it was for the first time that the capital of a major (and not tributary or peripheral) Kazakh state was located in the territory of the Middle Horde (see above, part IV). Consequently, this would offer the chance for social emancipation, tribal blending, mixed marriages, and enlargement of the social basis of the new establishment.
At the same time, with the futurist-symbolist architecture that the new capital so aesthetically and majestically featured, with the vicinity to Russian Siberia, with the cardinal significance of its geopolitical-geostrategic location, Astana is de facto the epicenter of the New Silk Road and the pinnacle of the New Multipolar World Order. Astana has nothing in common with modern commercial cities like Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Singapore, Dubai, Doha or Nairobi; surpassing what Istakhr, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ctesiphon, Constantinople, Baghdad, Samarqand, Chang’an (Xi’an), Bukhara, Shiraz, Delhi, Khanbaliq (Beijing), Venice, Isfahan, Genoa and Istanbul may have been in the past, eclipsing what Tokyo, Washington D.C., Paris and London may be in the present, bridging Moscow, Berlin, Ankara and Tehran with Delhi and Beijing, Astana is by definition the correct place for the headquarters of the new international body that will replace the ill-conceived, encumbered and unrepresentative UN.
Astana is Nursultan Nazarbayev’s most outstanding achievement -not in the sense of an administrative act or an architectural masterpiece but- as a formidable effort to open the Kazakh nation to the rest of the world. Still this world class capital conceals ancient secrets, encapsulates paramount symbolism, and heralds a universal dream come true. Identifying analogies with Ancient Egyptian Arcitecture and Ancient Babylonian Mysteries, Dr. Frank Albo, in his remarkable presentation Astana – Architecture, Myth, and Destiny, provides an outstanding perspective on how the foundation of Kazakhstan’s new capital effectively addresses the three most important issues of our time: environmental pollution, religious extremism, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Rightfully named after Independent Kazakhstan’s first President’s first name Nursultan (since 23 March 2019; Нурсултан – Нұр-Сұлтан), Astana is one of the world’s rare cities that have had so many different names throughout their History. Without counting the period of the remarkable Bozok settlement (12th-14th c.), a nearby archaeological place without epigraphic documentation, Astana has been successively named Akmolinsk (Акмолинск /’white grave’ in russified Kazakh; 1830-1961), Tselinograd (i.e. the city of the Virgin Lands/ Целиноград; 1961-1992), and Akmola (Акмола/’white grave’; 1992-1998), before becoming the capital city of Kazakhstan (on the 10th December 1997; Астана, i.e. ‘capital’) and being later renamed Nur-Sultan.
In this regard, the dates in the correct sequence were:
6 July 1994: the Supreme Council of Kazakhstan issued the decree “On the transfer of the capital of Kazakhstan”.
8 November 1997: the state symbols of Kazakhstan were delivered to Akmola.
10 December 1997: the Kazakh capital was moved to Akmola.
6 May 1998: Akmola was renamed into Astana, following a Presidential Decree.
10 June 1998: Astana was presented as the capital of Kazakhstan internationally.
16 July 1999: Astana was awarded the medal and title “City of Peace” by UNESCO.
In the competition for construction of Asia’s northernmost capital city, fifty (50) participants from foreign countries and Commonwealth of Independent States countries showed interest. In total, 40 applications were sent. Of these, nine were from Kazakhstan, five from Russia, three from the Czech Republic, two from Belarus, and one from Ukraine, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Italy, and Bulgaria respectively. Teams sent one application from Japan, Latvia, Australia, Uzbekistan, Germany, France, South Korea, USA, Great Britain, Poland and the UAE.
The following task was set before the contest participants: “In search of the image of the new center of the city of Akmola, it is necessary to find a solution corresponding to the status of the capital of the Republic of Kazakhstan, taking into account natural and climatic factors and national peculiarities“. The winner of the competition was the project of the outstanding Japanese architect Kise Kurokawa (Kisho Kurokawa/see links below), who started the construction of the capital in the style of “Hi-tech”.
The new capital very organically blended into the vast expanses of the steppe space, thus embodying the philosophical concept of the Master Plan, as a symbiotic and metabolic city: “Synthesis of the old city of Akmola and new development of the capital of Astana“. Consummate commentators thoughtfully opined about the design that “the methodological inversion of such metabolic architects as Kendzo Tange and Kisyo Kurokawa is to call to realize that there are no ‘eternal cities’ and therefore it is necessary to concentrate on adapting to changes, and not to try to preserve the ‘eternal’ samples of urban planning stories”.
In spite of such outstanding and impressive achievements, several critics have repeatedly attempted to tarnish Nazarbayev’s tenure – but only in vain. It goes without saying that no human is perfect and all make mistakes. There were certainly some mistakes that could not be avoided in the formation years of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and this is so because, if these ‘errors’ did not occur, more catastrophic events could eventually take place. Taking into account the terms of good governance, one has to always keep in mind that sometimes a minor error is made deliberately – only to avoid a worse mistake. In addition, as it is said, “the experience which one gains in making a slight mistake will enable one to avoid a worse mistake”.
Several people raise the topic of NE Kazakhstan’s nuclear pollution, which still puts in jeopardy the life and the health of many people living in parts of the province of Semipalatinsk (currently Semey) and elsewhere. There was located the so-called Dvoika, USSR’s main nuclear test site. The first atomic explosion took place on 29th August 1949, whereas the last one occurred on 19th October 1989. For 40 years, 486 tests were carried out and 616 nuclear and thermonuclear charges were blown up; on the other hand, it is true that super-powerful explosions, like those carried out in Novaya Zemlya, did never become a matter of test in Semipalatinsk. All the same, one has to also take into consideration that no less than 224 explosions were officially registered as having caused radioactive clouds that went beyond the boundaries of the test site, throughout the eastern territory of Kazakhstan. The tests stopped, the test site was completely closed (1991), but the problem stays; and the various administrations did not do all that they could have over the past 33 years.
The troublesome governmental oversight in this regard has to do with the fact that, during the Soviet times, the area was said to be militarily controlled, but this was not the case. The Soviet state did not use the necessary resources to prevent anyone, who would risk his life by frequenting the radioactively polluted area, from entering the vast (18500 km2) nuclear test site; but this was the mistake of the Soviets. On the contrary, in Independent Kazakhstan, the enduring prevalence of the same mentality and attitude in this regard consisted in a serious disregard for the public health and in a grave governmental omission. Certainly, it would be costly to put barbed wire and construct military watchtowers around an area 600 km long in diameter; but this is what the health of the Kazakhs imposes.
The reason for which the entire area must be sealed off to all is purely socioeconomic; poor people make a business out of the radioactive waste, thus endangering their lives and those of many other people. They customarily drive their pick-up cars or trucks deep into this area and pour into the landfill; they extract mined non-ferrous metal from the metal scrap, they dig out launch shafts covered only with earth and they cut out all the available metal from them. In this rather macabre business, some entrepreneurs bring entire teams of hard workers who dig deep in the underground to cut metal there, while inhaling dangerous dust.
An entirely different dimension of the problem hinges on the totally unknown diffusion of this disastrous radioactive material: where it was transported, stored and remelted. The problem was first identified by the Kazakh government in 1997; some measures were taken, but it was very late. It is only in the period 2000-2010 that a huge amount of work was systematically carried out at the site for the conservation of galleries and the launch shafts, as well as for the disposal of hazardous waste and the decontamination of the territory.
Last, an even more appalling dimension of the problem is that, in spite of the evident danger, there are still some people living there; actually, they deliberately opted for that! As they failed to benefit from the shameful business, they made themselves available as local labor force always ready to saw out the metal in the adits dug there. It may sound as a crazy joke, but it is true: in the immediate vicinity of the landfill, there are about 600 small villages or hamlets, of which many are located on its border or even inside! To add insult to injury, the inhabitants of these settlements have been left to believe that it is ‘normal’ to graze their cattle directly on the landfill. Furthermore, there are even about a hundred nomadic winter quarters in the area.
According to various estimates, the territory of the Semipalatinsk test site has background radiation levels 10 times higher than normal; it is also reported that more than 30000 sheep and 5000 heads of milk-producing cattle are constantly grazing there. Even worse, local sources of water for drinking and household purposes are still in use, whereas vegetables and cereals are cultivated in the wider region. Last, around 8000 people still live in Kurchatov (Курчатов), a town formerly established as a secret Soviet city (variably named as Moscow-400, Semipalatinsk-21 or Terminal Station at the time) to accommodate the military and the scientists serving the test site. Surely Kazakhstan will still pay in the future the presence and function of Soviet Union’s main nuclear test site for 40 years on the NE confines of the country.
Another effort to tarnish Nazarbayev’s tenure has taken the form of constant accusations of nepotism; there has been a long discussion about this undeniable trait of the Nazarbayev years. However, throughout the vast existing documentation about nepotism in Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev’s family and its involvement in the socio-economic and political process, also including scandals, mysteries, plots, marriages, offshore businesses, unlawful behavior, and eventually illegal acts, it is difficult to draw a line and separate constructive criticism from vicous lies; it is harsh to discern where trustworthy judgement ends and pernicious propaganda starts out.
Viewing things retrospectively, one may come to the conclusion that nepotism was inevitable in the difficult transition years. Many historians, political scientists, and commentators fail to understand that, in reality, Kazakhstan’s 1990s correspond to Russia’s 2000s – not Russia’s 1990s. As I have already pointed out, thanks to the experience, the foresightedness and the dexterity of Independent Kazakhstan’s first president, the country did not undergo the traumatic experience that Russians encountered in the 1990s. In this regard, nepotism served Nazarbayev in the 1990s as much as Putin’s alliance with the Russian oligarchs served the Russian President in the early 2000s. There were certainly several negative side-effects, but one must also discern that, perhaps without those early stages of Kazakh nepotism, things could have gone out of control at the time and corruption could have permeated nearly every aspect of life and every social stratum in Kazakhstan.
For the largest part of the population, it was a period of delusion during which everyone ran after money, whereas many naïve people believed that the mere shift of the national economic setup from a centrally-planned system to a market-based one would make all the people rich. That is why all those austere, self-styled connoiseurs and arbiters, who so eloquently denounce nepotism in Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan, have to imperatively respond to the following question:
– What difference at this point does it make whether a relative of the president or a simple employee of a ministry is bribed?
In terms of impartial and fair judgment, it is actually better that the relative of the president is the recipient of the bribe, because in this case, the establishment and the president will surely be aware of the foreign lobbies, governments and organizations that intend to destroy and dismantle the country by means of infiltration, corruption, and subversion (and they are therefore able to prevent this development), whereas in the case of an average local public servant’s or businessman’s bribery, the pernicious Western (Western European or North American) infiltration attempts go often undetected; in fact, the second occasion is the worst case scenario.
There are two realistic remarks one can make as far as nepotism in Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan is concerned; first, the real problem is not that nepotism existed in the 1990s, but that it became totally unrestrained in the 2000s. In fact, during the 1990s, the entire world was geostrategically unstable and unbalanced; but after August 1999, the crucial developments that took place in Russia offered Kazakhstan a very important, reliable and trustworthy -although at times encumbering- friend and ally: President Putin.
For Kazakhstan, it is of paramount importance to know that stability prevails in the country with which Central Asia’s pivot shares the longest continuous international border in the world and the second longest by total length, after the Canada–United States border. In fact, the rise of Putin in Russia was a blessing for Kazakhstan, and this is so because this occurred at a moment China did not weigh much in the world affairs. This means that Kazakhstan could not rely on China in the 1990s as much as it can now, balancing between the main two Euro-Asiatic powerhouses. This highly positive change means that Nazarabayev found himself -in the mddle 2000s- in a different environment, which could offer him the chance to ponder over different ways to curb nepotism; and this is what one could certainly reproach him for not doing.
An even more important event took place in 2001 with only positive repercussions on Kazakhstan: the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), with China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan founding a new organisation with deep, mutual security, military, socio-economic, cultural, educational and political cooperation targets on 15th June 2001. This development, viewed retrospectively, was truly the historically most important fact of the year; it was a spectacular reset of the organization Shanghai Five (in which Uzbekistan did not participate), which was launched earlier, in 1996. The SCO Charter was signed on 7th July 2002 (entering in force on 19th September 2003). This crucial event fully demonstrates that Nursultan Nazarbayev always perceived correctly and effectively the chances of Kazakhstan’s further improvement and geopolitical-geostrategic upgrade as always depending on the rise and worldwide preponderance of the wider Afro-Eurasiatic landmass.
Шанхайская организация сотрудничества -上海合作組織 – Shanghai Cooperation Organization This is how the SCO started.And this is how it is. This handout picture released by the Russian Foreign Minister on July 14, 2021 shows (L-R) Tajikistan’s Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin, SCO Secretary General Vladimir Norov, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Uzbekistan’s Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Kamilov, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister Mukhtar Tleuberdi, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Kyrgyzstan’s deputy Foreign Minister Nuran Niyazaliyev and Director of the Executive Committee of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) of the SCO Jumakhon Giyosov posing for a picture during a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting in Dushanbe. Iran in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization About: http://eng.sectsco.org/ https://www.academia.edu/53029736/From_the_Great_Game_to_the_Final_Game_Iran_Full_Member_State_of_the_SCO_as_the_Greatest_Event_of_the_21st_Century_text_pictures_and_legends_ https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234399.shtml
On the face of these developments, one can understand to what reason Nazarbayev’s oversight is due; he most probably did not bother to restrict nepotism and limit the negative side-effects, because the system -generally speaking- was rather functioning profitably, and the various cases of apparent dysfunction seemed easy to address. When the weaknesses of the system were exposed, all the Kazakh came to learn in January 2022 about the former premier (2007-2012 – 2014-2016), former chief of staff of the presidential office (2012-2014) and then acting head of Kazakhstan’s National Security Committee (since 2016) Karim Massimov (born to a family of ethnic Uighurs in 1965; Кәрім Қажымқанұлы Мәсімов / Карим Кажимканович Масимов) that he was a dishonest enemy of the Kazakh nation, a shameless agent of the Jesuit-Zionist US establishment, and a criminal traitor. Then, President Tokayev took the proper measures to address the issue at all levels, namely a) the termination of the riots and the restoration of the public order, b) the correct identification and the well-deserved punishment of the connivers, and c) the elimination of the root causes which offered to Western diplomats, lobbies, and secret services’ agents, as well as to their local stooges the chance to prepare their schemes and kick off the stage-managed unrest.
It is perhaps inappropriate for a historian to offer a long-term perspective to an event that took place before just 6-7 months, but I will now venture a prediction in this regard; the evil enemies of Kazakhstan, by launching their well-scheduled scheme against the greatest nation of Central Asia, offered President Tokayev a wonderful opportunity to hit two targets with one arrow, namely to address current issues, after the restoration of the order, and to solve chronic problems, i.e. the truly exorbitant nepotism that had grown up over the past three decades. Kazakhstan’s courageous and determined President proved to be very successful in this regard.
All the same, older Kazakhs were able to then remember that, the previous time Kazakhstan had embarrassing troubles, it was again with a Uighur statesman, namely Ismail Yusupov (1962-1964; see above part XVIII unit c).
It is however worthwhile to add here that, after 27 years in leading positions (Prime Minister already in 1984) Nazarbayev failed indeed to timely realize the true, deep meaning of the Mangystau protests in 2011. The facts that followed the strike of some workers in the Ozenmunaigas (Озенмунайгаз/Өзенмұнайгаз) Oil field in the city of Zhanaozen (Жанаозен/Жаңаөзен) in the Western Kazakh region of Mangystau (Мангистау/Маңғыстау) should have been more accurately perceived, thoroughly investigated, and duly comprehended by the Nazarbayev administration (at the very beginning the president’s fourth term); it was a meaningful coincidence. Only few months after Nazarbayev triumphant reelection (3rd April 2011), when Tokayev was not in Kazakhstan but in Geneva (Director-General of the U.N. Office) and Massimov was still prime minister, few hundreds of workers protested (16th-17th December 2011) demanding unpaid hazard pay, better working conditions, and salary increase. How dangerous could this situation have possibly been for the country’s national security and the stability of the establishment? And yet someone sent policemen who without any reason killed around 15 peaceful workers. If you don’t straightforwardly call this absurd act ‘sheer stage-management’, where do you think you are going to attend the Theatre of the Absurd?
The second realistic remark one can make with respect to nepotism in Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan has to do with the very identity of the critics, the detractors and the adamant defenders of the so-called ‘Western values’, who incessantly accused Nazarbayev of nepotism; one can shape an accurate and comprehensive opinion, if one spends some time to go through the voluminous literature that filthy Western money produced and circulated worldwide in order to systematically promote premeditated conclusions, biased approaches, bogus researches, historical distortions, systematic disregard of cultural realities, disrespect of every nation’s right to self-determination, intentional lies, methodic denigration of targeted statesmen, misinterpretation of all the facts, and falsification of every single incident.
The anti-Kazakh hysteria of numerous leading institutions of Western countries is paradigmatically revealed in the following nine cases; everything you can read in the links below is a sophisticated lie that serves an evil purpose:
One could set up the Complete Encyclopedia of Western anti-Kazakh Defamation in one hundred volumes of 1000 pages each; however, the refutation of this excremental production is unnecessary, because similar material has also been produced against all the allies of Kazakhstan, namely Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Pakistan, India, etc. Every nation, every country and every state that is not as corrupt, as villainous, as devious, as criminal and as deranged as the leading states of the West gets denigrated in extremis. Then, all that matters in this regard is good and effective insulation against Western infiltrators, embassies, consulates, NGOs, institutes, foundations, so-called ‘think-tanks’ (i.e. ‘jerk tanks’), and any other insidiously instrumental organization.
– So, after all, who are these critics of nepotism in Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan and adamant defenders of the so-called ‘Western values’?
– Most of those shameful service providers, bogus journalists, pseudo-intellectuals, and disreputable academics happen to be the good friends, the trusted associates, the fine partners, and the secret colleagues of those Western diplomats, agents, businessmen and other potentates who constantly met with, and tried to corrupt, members of Nazarbayev’s larger circle of family.
There is no such thing as good-will criticism or good intentions critique in the West; everything is adjusted to the criminal and murderous agenda of world dominance and the plan providing for the enslavement of all humans in the immoral, inhuman and evil Western World Order. The sole conclusion is therefore that, during the Nazarbayev years, the only true ‘mistake’ made was the tolerant attitude toward the Western infiltrators and the naivety towards their intentions. Part of the murderous agenda of the racist West is the diffusion of a fake historical dogma that depicts the West as ‘civilized’ and the rest of the world as ‘barbarian’, ‘ignorant’, ‘backward’, ‘imbecile’ or even ‘bestial’. The disreputable universities of Western Europe and North America promote historical forgery and systematic falsification against Asia, Africa and Latin America; the mass media denigrate Central, South and Southeast Asia, whereas the cinema industry shamelessly ridicules other cultures and nations.
When it comes to Kazakhs, the disreputable Borat TV serial (Borat’s Television Programme; English television station Channel 4, aired in August 2004 and repeated in November 2006) and the subsequent movie (Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan; a mockumentary black comedy film directed by Larry Charles and starring Sacha Baron Cohen), which was released in 2006, should have been considered very seriously as authentic examples of the Western perception of Kazakhstan and then conclusively identified as a paroxysm of the Western anti-Kazakh racism. Even more so because this ridiculous caricature of character that the Western cinema and television industry preposterously presented as a Kazakh has an absolutely impossible Kazakh name: Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Борат Маргарет Сагдиев); a matronym (Margaret) is a shame, because it means that the person’s mother was a prostitute.
Shamelessly, the English version of Neo-Nazi Wikipedia does not use the proper term ‘reactions’, but the Satanic substitute ‘reception’, which is a lie. The movie was not ‘received’ but rejected in Kazakhstan and throughout the civilized world of which the West failed to become a part.
From Borat 2The filthy Ashkenazi Khazarian bogus-Jewish Zionist paranoia unleashed again the Kazakhs, their traditions, cultural heritage, and heroic nature; the most disreputable, sick and evil plan of misrepresentation and defamation of a civilized country and nation by the Anglo-Saxon syphilis of the small and big screens. Repugnantly rotten, execrably heinous (due to their acknowledged inferiority) and racist, the Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi minds devised a nonsensical story of a supposedly ignorant and rural, old-fashioned and naïve Kazakh, who travels to America to seemingly discover the ‘benefits’ of the mentally defective and criminal indigenous people who think they can live without God, faith, religion and moral, being based on their bogus-science and the sexual anomalies of their schools, universities, and lawless administration. From: https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/art/pr/5781/ https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/movieimage.php?imageId=646125040
Certainly, there were many correct initial reactions from the entire Kazakh society, but the disastrous willingness of part of Kazakhstan’s establishment to ‘close the affair’ fast did not bode well for the interests of the country; it was an impermissible compromise which only emboldened the enemies of the Kazakh nation. Countries that compromise on such issues are states that are customarily exposed to stage-managed events like the Mangystau protests in 2011 and the January 2022 riots in Almaty. The reason for this conclusion is the fact that a nationally uncompromising stance and the subsequent massive close down of NGOs and institutes associated with countries tolerating anti-Kazakh propaganda would make it far more difficult for Western embassies’, NGOs’ and secret services’ stooges (like Massimov) to act unrestrained. The correct official response in this case should be an enduring severance of diplomatic and consular relations with many Western countries.
Another example of Western (mainly Anglo-Saxon) contempt addressed to all the states of Central Asia, and not only Kazakhstan, is the derogatory collective term “the stans” for Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, as well as for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Indicatively:
Some people start realizing that the use of the racist, pejorative term must stop being used, but it would be wiser that the concerned states, supported by China, India, Russia, Iran and other countries, issue an ultimatum before severing ties with the Western world.
In fact, what is concealed behind the viciously discriminatory term “the -stans”, which has been introduced by the mentally defective, racist, Anglo-Saxon and Zionist parasites, is the fragmentation of Asia (Russia, China, India, Iran, Turkey, etc.) into a multitude of petty pseudo-states (like Afghanistan or ‘Kurdistan’) engulfed into endless wars for the benefit of the aforementioned inhuman and criminal parasites that must be soon annihilated for the benefit of the entire mankind. About: https://www.kickassfacts.com/legend-of-the-stans/ https://brilliantmaps.com/united-states-stan/
In fact, the Western countries must come to terms with the fact that Kazakhstan did not become independent from the USSR in order to be enslaved by Western states or accept their paranoid dictates. Kazakhstan will not accept the inhuman hysteria of the so-called ‘woke ideology’, the absurdity of homosexual marriages, the Western moral deviance and socio-behavioral collapse. In this regard, Nur-sultan is at the same wavelength with Beijing, Delhi, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran, Karachi, Tashkent and numerous other Asiatic and African capitals that remain healthy and unaffected by the Jesuit-Zionist contamination of the West.
It will take years to uncover the true extent of nepotism in Kazakhstan; I am not quite sure that this will solve the major problems of the Kazakh economy. It is not certain that any state free of nepotism can also escape from corruption. One has therefore to pinpoint that the problem is not whether Dariga Nursultanovna Nazarbayeva (born in 1963; Дарига Нурсултановна Назарбаева/Дариға Нұрсұлтанқызы Назарбаева), Dinara Nursultanovna Kulibaeva (born in 1967; Динара Нурсултановна Кулибаева/Динара Нұрсұлтанқызы Құлыбаева) and Aliya Nursultanovna Nazarbayeva (born in 1980; Алия Нурсултановна Назарбаева/ Әлия Нұрсұлтанқызы Назарбаева) with their respective husbands have accumulated an enormous number of companies and wealth. No one can guarantee that, if all these companies were to be managed by totally unrelated CEOs and directed by fully independent boards of directions, corruption in Kazakhstan would disappear and the productivity would increase.
Nepotism, corruption and wealth concentration are only parts of Kazakh economy’s problems; one can even describe them as rather peripheral. The country needs a real restructuring of the economy; in this regard, it will be essential for the country to duly leverage its economic potential in order to transform the structure of the economy. Job creation should not be concentrated in low-productivity nontradable services sectors. State-owned enterprises still dominate the economy; this cannot continue. When it comes to economic models, Kazakhstan is nowadays in a far better position than in 1991 or 2001. It is clear that Nur-sultan must follow Beijing’s successful model and has to attract a higher volume of foreign direct investment (FDI); in joint ventures with Chinese and Indian businesses, Kazakh companies will be able to better integrate into the regional and wider Asiatic markets. Furthermore, trade relationships outside Central Asia should be actively established and further expanded, notably in South and Southeast Asia. Also, Kazakhstan has to invest more in educational development, technical skills upgrade, human capital enhancement, and poverty reduction, thus enlarging the middle class share of the population.
Last, the Kazakh administration and elite must show increased ecological sensitivity in the planning process of economic restructuring; the terrible occurrences that every now and then have been attested in Kazakhstan bear witness to the urgent need of an enormous, social and governmental, task to improve the environmental conditions of the country. One example of such occurrences is the infernal environment in which the inhabitants of Temirtau (180 km SE of Nur-sultan; Темиртау/Теміртау) found themselves on 13th February 2018, in the aftermath of a strong snowfall. Within few hours, a nightmarish coating of black dust settled on the snow, turning it from white to dark gray. It was dangerous to live and impossible to enjoy life there; having had a so long and so glorious past, the Kazakhs do not deserve these conditions of physical existence.
And this is what the paranoid, racist and extremist Australian rascals wrote about Astana, feeling rancor and hysteria, as their otherwise useless city of Sidney was sidestepped by Astana:
Three centuries of Kazakh-Russian alliance will soon be celebrated, ever since Abul Khair Khan (Хан Абулхаир/ ميرزا أبو الخير محمد خان بن حاجي عبد الله سلطان/Әбілқайыр Мұхаммед Қазы баһадүр хан; also known as ‘Shah-i Turan, i.e. Emperor of Turan) dispatched a letter to the Russian Empress Anna Ioannovna (Анна Иоанновна) to ask her protection against the Dzungars. History is not only what happened (i.e. the past); History is also how you perceive the facts and what wisdom you make of your past. About: https://atamekenmap.kz/en/2018/01/04/spirit-of-the-great-abul-khair-khan/ https://www.studocu.com/row/document/nazarbaev-universiteti/history-of-kazakhstan/submission-of-abul-khayr-khan-to-the-russian-empire/18334514 https://web.archive.org/web/20060222230414/http://www.kazakhstanembassy.be/DisplayPage.asp?PageId=98From 19th c. huts to 21st c. cities, the Kazakh Nation crossed a greatly difficult path.TarasAralskThe multi-religious, multicultural, secular character of the Kazakh Nation will not be challenged by evil ideologies and pseudo-theological systems composed -under MI6 supervision and guidance- by ignorant Muslim sheikhs falsely educated in England: The Mosque of Zharkent (Жаркент) built after the Chinese Islamic architectural style Ahmed Yasavi Mosque in Turkestan: built by Timur (Tamerlane) in honor of the greatest mystic of Central Asia and TuranThe Shymkent (Шымкент) Monument of the legendary Kazakh Baidibek Karashauly (Байдибек Карашаулы), who lived in the 14th-15th c.; without their heroic khans, their legendary fighters, their traditions, values and virtues, the Kazakhs will surely disintegrate and look like all the rotten and useless nations of the West.
Postface
The History of Kazakhstan, as material for education, topic for research, and effort of reconstitution, is not identical with the Kazakh History, i.e. the past of the Kazakhs. The facts and the processes of intellectual, cultural, military and royal assertion are the result of their constituent elements, i.e. the Kazakhs of all three hordes and their royal, spiritual and military leadership throughout the ages. How today’s Kazakhs will use the wealth of their National Heritage and how they will continue respecting, preserving and cherishing the values of the Kazakh Genius is a matter of accurate perception, comprehensive conceptualization, exhaustive contextualization and ultimate reconstruction.
This topic has been studied to some extent; in his ‘Rehabilitation of the Basmachi – a form of the national liberation movement’ (Реабилитация басмачества-форма национально-освободительного движения), V. Levitsky (В. Левицкий) writes (in the chapter ‘Rehabilitation of the Basmachi in the Central Asian states: ideological conjuncture and political realities’/’Реабилитация басмачества в центральноазиатских государствах: идеологическая конъюнктура и политические реалии’) the following (the English translation is mine):
“It seems that the modern elites of Kazakhstan, striving to implement the project of national modernization and maintain ties with Russia, hardly need the rehabilitation of the Basmachi as an additional basis for the “state project”. For the rehabilitation of the Basmachi is unlikely to contribute to the strengthening of interethnic peace and harmony, which is so necessary for the country today. On the contrary, the ‘spirits of the past’, being invoked today, are unlikely to help the movement into the future”.
Very important remark from an astute scholar, and -at the same time- very correct choice for the Kazakh academic, intellectual and political establishment! Kazakhstan does not need today the Basmachi turmoil (see above: part XV) nor the Enver Pasha’s paranoia. The Ottoman Empire is irrevocably defunct and the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti/Единение и прогресс/Бірлік және прогресс комитеті) is invariably obsolete. But the Jadid intellectuals (Жәдидшілдік) and their foresightedness have always been prevalent among the Kazakhs.
Great nations disappeared from History when they lost the vision that their creative forces pulled together; that is why it is of critical importance that the Kazakh elites, academics, intellectuals and statesmen alike, see the past of their nation is its entirety and perceive the value of their land in its true dimensions. If the Kazakh National Heritage is disregarded for the sake of ideological chimeras or theological delusions of ignorant sheikhs, the Kazakhs will have denied their own identity. Then, it will not take long until Kazakhstan becomes the next Afghanistan; this is exactly what Kazakhstan’s worst enemies, i.e. England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US, plan to bring about (not only in Kazakhstan but in many other countries of the region). This is necessary in their struggle for survival. It is however clear that not a single Kazakh finds the need to destroy his fatherland for the sake of the colonial powers which caused disasters, wars and genocides all over the world, having always been at the antipodes of civilization.
Melting pot of Tengrism, Shamanism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Manichaeism, Nestorian Christianity and Islam, passageway for merchants, mystics, conquerors, erudite scholars and interminable nomads, the Land of Kazakhstan brought together China and Iran, Mongolia and India, Germany and Tibet, Russia and the Pamirs. For two millennia located at the epicenter of the Silk Roads, for many centuries situated at the crossroads of conquerors, for several decades accepted as the litmus paper for the test of all Soviet leaders, Kazakhstan is by definition Oriental, multicultural and secular.
Land of tolerance and integrity and not of religious sectarianism, territory of compassion and bravery, and homeland to great Jadid intellectuals like Khalil Dosmukhamedov, Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin, Saken Seifullin and Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov, Kazakhstan is at the same time a miniature of the vastness and an expanse of the yurt. By selecting the proper elements from their past, by forging the correct strategic alliances for their future, by eliminating all destabilizing forces, dogmas and theories, and by closing down all channels of insidious infiltration, today’s Kazakhs have all that it takes to fully justify former President Nazarbayev’s vision, validate President Tokayev’s aspirations, and bring to the world a hitherto missing example: the Kazakh magnanimity.
– Is that too much for today’s Kazakhs?
– I don’t think so; ‘magnanimity’ in Kazakh is ‘жомарттық’ (jomartik).
And the Kazakh President’s personal name is ‘ Жомарт’, i.e. ‘magnanimous’ or ‘generous’ (Jomart; Kassym-Jomart Tokayev/ Касым-Жомарт Токаев).
This means that he is the correct man in the correct place; in the correct moment.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
About:
И. А. Носков & А. М. Маратова, Духовно-творческое наследие Абая Кунанбаева и развитие академической мобильности студенческой молодежи республики казахстан
Shoqan Walikhan remains the best embodiment of the transcendental Kazakh and the permanent example of reference, when it comes to Kazakh identity, history, ethnography, Orinetalism and governance; his conscious commitment to Kazakh-Russian synergy and unshakable alliance did not bring to him the reciprocal spiritual love of Fyodor Dostoyesvky, but it also placed him in the firmament of the Kazakh national integrity and cultural self-awareness.
In striking contrast with several Kazakh academics, who are nowadays manipulated, cheated or bribed by vicious Western propaganda outfits, like the infamous Oxus Society, Valikhanov understood very well the evil nature of the Anglo-Saxon bogus-academic ‘interest’ for Asia and, more particularly, Central Asia. Shokan Shyngysuly Valikhanov (1845-1865; Чокан Чингисович Валиханов/ Шоқан Шыңғысұлы Уәлихан; born Muhammed Qanafiya / Мұхаммед-Қанафия / Shokan was initially his pen name before it became official) wrote extensively highlighting the Tengrist-Shamanist roots and nature of the Kazakh Nation, supporting the modernization of the Kazakh education and society (60 years before Kemal Ataturk’s ground-breaking changes), exploring the folklore, the literature, and the culture of many nations and ethnic groups in the region, and documenting the Russian advance in Central Asia.
Similarly with all measures implemented in Turkey by Kemal Ataturk, Valikhanov’s support for a New Era of Enlightenment throughout all the Muslim societies does not constitute an approval of Westernization, as many Western historical forgers pretend. The current Russian rejection of the Western perfidy and putrefaction illustrates the unity of the Kazakh and Russian nations against the Anglo-Saxon decay and evilness.
———————————————–
Download the book in Word doc.: / Скачать книгу в формате Word: / Кітапты жүктеп алыңыз:
Download the illustrated edition (with 555 pictures & legends): / Скачать иллюстрированное издание (с 555 картинками и легендами): / Суреттелген басылымды жүктеп алыңыз (555 сурет пен аңыздар бар):
Back in the middle 1980s, Hossein Ali Zadeh’s Neynava was, first and foremost, my constant music accompaniment from Nineveh, Assyria, Kalhu (Nimrud), Arbil and Kirkuk to Cizre, Hakkari, Van, Urmia, Tekab, Hamadan and Kermanshah throughout all the valleys of the Anti-Taurus and Zagros.
In summer, spring, winter and autumn, in Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey or Western Iran, when I entered a bus, a minibus or a taxi, after resuming my seat, I always put the cassette in my tape recorder (Sony Walkman) and started playing the music. I saw interminable landscapes, traveling on the Neynava sound waves.
Sharrukin of Assyria (Sargon II; 722-705 BCE)Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad): the Palace of Sargon II – Reconstruction drawingThe Walls of NinevehAshur – Assyria (Qalaat Sherqat)Kalhu (Nimrud), the capital of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE): the temple of NabuMosul (the modern city west of Tigris), opposite the remains of NinevehArbilKirkukAround Dohuk: Zagros Mountains, the largest mountain range in Iran and Iraq.DohukLalish, the Yazidi capital, 40 km east of DohukZakho Cizre, Tukey: ca. 55 km NW of ZakhoAround Cizre
The years passed, the techniques changed, the exercises became more difficult, the explorations went back and forth, and the speed became comparable to the tempo of Ferdowsi’s narratives. My inclination to these transcendental Russian Mountains, the constant roller coaster of my life, took me to different places in variable times.
Moving from Sargon of Akkad to Tamerlane, exploring the tellurian matter, discovering the aquatic undulations, and traveling on the aerial trajectories, I arrived in the Invisible Palace of Nezami Ganjavi.
And when the mysterious “Seven” became the ostensible “Eight”, instead of me traveling, the various places and the diverse times came to visit me. Only then I discovered the radiation of the Tears of the Man, the vibration of the Blood of God, the blessings of Ludlul Bel Nemeqi, and the Truth of the Hidden Quran.
– Was I a soldier in the Battle?
– Where are the Mountains of the Ultimate Limit?
– What makes the inexorable strength of the Soft Waters?
– How long can an Army endure when crossing the sand of the desert, which is the Entrance to the Netherworld?
– Whom does the Sperm of God heal?
– Is the Fight of the Man always meant to entertain the Soul of a Mountain and the Heart of a River?
– Are all these inimical reflections truly real beings or did we all create them because of our fears?
– Will the 600 Anunnaki rise at last to greet us in a sign of approbation?
After I stayed long at the very bottom of the cylinders of these hitherto unanswered questions, I decided to rise and come back to my daily occupations. Through the myriad of corridors, across the innumerable pathways of atemporal existence, thanks to the absolute control of ethereal particles and to the balance of electromagnetic vibrations, when the velocity becomes infinite and the oscillation none, by means of spiritual anxiety, pulmonary benediction, mental supplication, cordial empathy and intestinal nihility, I crossed the nonexistent space of time and appeared at the peak of a mountain.
The Ardalani shepherd who was in the near slopes had two dogs, one male and one female. The male dog started to rub against my right leg, and the female against my left leg. The shepherd asked me how many years we were left with and I said how many millennia had passed.
The affinity of numbers is a joyful experience. Delighted because of our mutual nutritional abstinence, vitalized due to our reciprocal celibacy, electrified thanks to our mental chastity, empty of thoughts, free of desires, and clear of feelings, we embraced one another, heart on heart, as it happened since the times of Sargon of Akkad, paid tribute to one another, and returned to our respective times.
The number of affinities is a distressing experience. And the sole solace for me now is my Ardalani friend whom I so unexpectedly encountered and from whom I so much learned. I feel that you may perhaps wish to ask me why, willing to come back to my daily occupations, I inadvertently met the Ardalani shepherd. I thought you knew; sometimes, I make mistakes.
An echo was coming from the four corners of the Universe; it was an incredible resonance within the cylinders of these hitherto unanswered questions. The myriad of corridors only reinforced this echo; the innumerable pathways made it impossible for me to escape the enchanting echo. Then, when the velocity becomes finite and the oscillation begins, first the cordial empathy is held captive. With your feelings captive, you stop at an earlier moment. There I met the Ardalani shepherd.
He was not Ardalani or, if you prefer, he was as Ardalani as I am. We both had simply stopped at the time of the Ardalan Khan Helo. Enchanted by the same echo, we both made a mistake. The Ardalani shepherd was returning to his time, which has not yet come. To reach the antediluvian times that he wanted to explore he came out of the Sea of Glass. We spoke about our experience and he asked me whether I know the sublime echo. I replied positively; I knew the echo only too well. It was Neynava, my constant music accompaniment.
The Ardalani shepherd found it blissful and as ecstatic as every ascetic sound is. That’s why finally my mistake was beneficial. Thanks to my sentimental ineptitude, I came to learn so much about the shepherds of the future, namely an epoch which is very close to us. In this forthcoming epoch, the Earth will be different, free of cities and villages, empty of buildings, and clean of things. The turquoise color of the sky will be due to the total absence of sea and salt waters. The few worthwhile men and women, who will survive, will not eat anything and will not copulate. It will be a free world with no thoughts, no feelings, and no desires; that’s why there will be no wars, no killings, and no sicknesses.
Immaculate conception will be the majestic manner by which the life of forthcoming generations will be starting, and luminescent birth will the royal manner by which the activity of forthcoming generations will be beginning on the surface of the Earth, where there will be no more deserts.
My Ardalani friend travels always with his sheep and the two dogs; in his perfect, imperial world, all people are nomads. Their vestibular abilities are superior; their tactile functions are as subtle as the underlying force of Ether demands; their auditory duties are as harmonious as the Crystal Firmament; and their olfactory purposes are as angelic as the Frankincense of Punt-Somalia. Their formidable visual capabilities, as consequence of their luminescent birth, are unfathomable as they are able to turn their eyes into a Lighthouse of their bodies. And their Light is not darkness, as it happens in our ending times.
And despite the incessant echo of Neynava, I still remember the last reassuring and comforting words of my Ardalani friend. In the critical years of upheaval, when all the rulers of today’s world and most of the worthless populations will perish in eternal fire, during the 1335 days of the darkness, two unexpected, divine presents will be offered to the worthwhile, moral and ascetic survivors:
– the invisible conduit -within which the Sun sails for all- will not be affected but perfectly protected, and
– the Moon will be the only luminary to shed ample light on a limited part of the Earth from where Life will restart. This will be the location where Gishgida, the Tree of Life, will appear among the Chosen People whom the Savior will drive back to their land.
East of Tigris River and around the Tree of Life a Luminous Cylinder will be the Sign of God’s Everlasting Love – to the very few and most worthwhile ones.
These were the benefits of my attunement with Neynava.
———————————————-
Hakkari, SE TurkeyHakkariHakkari Geliye QevaleZab River near ÇukurcaVan Castle and Urartu monumentsYüksekovaUrmia LakeUrmia cityUrmia, Se Gonbad (‘three vaults’) TowerUrmia Museum, Bilingual (Assyrian-Babylonian Cuneiform & Urartu Cuneiform) Inscription of کلهشین/Kaleshin (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A8le_de_Kaleshin)Urmia
Нейнава: современное музыкальное сопровождение или диахроническое эхо Востока?
Еще в середине 1980-х Нейнава Хоссейна Али Заде была, прежде всего, моим постоянным музыкальным сопровождением от Ниневии, Ассирии, Калху (Нимруд), Арбиля и Киркука до Джизре, Хаккари, Вана, Урмии, Текаб, Хамадана и Керманшаха на протяжении всего долины Анти-Тавра и Загроса.
Летом, весной, зимой и осенью, в Северном Ираке, Восточной Турции или Западном Иране, когда я садился в автобус, микроавтобус или такси, после того, как занял свое место, я всегда вставлял кассету в свой магнитофон (Sony Walkman) и начал играть музыку. Я видел бесконечные пейзажи, путешествуя по звуковым волнам Нейнавы.
Шли годы, менялись техники, упражнения усложнялись, исследования шли вперед и назад, а скорость становилась сравнимой с темпом повествований Фирдоуси. Моя тяга к этим заоблачным русским горам, постоянным американским горкам моей жизни, приводила меня в разные места в разное время.
Двигаясь от Саргона Аккадского к Тамерлану, исследуя теллурическую материю, открывая водные волны и путешествуя по воздушным траекториям, я прибыл в Незримый Дворец Незами Гянджеви.
И когда таинственная «Семерка» стала мнимой «Восьмеркой», вместо меня в путешествии ко мне стали приходить разные места и переменные времена. Только тогда я обнаружил излучение Слез Человека, вибрацию Крови Бога, благословения Лудлул Бел Немеки и Истину Сокровенного Корана.
– Был ли я солдатом в битве?
– Где Горы Предельного Предела?
– В чем неумолимая сила Мягких Вод?
– Как долго может продержаться Армия, пересекая песок пустыни, являющейся Входом в Преисподнюю?
– Кого исцеляет Сперма Бога?
– Всегда ли Борьба Человека предназначена для того, чтобы развлечь Душу Горы и Сердце Реки?
– Действительно ли все эти враждебные отражения являются реальными существами или мы все создали их из-за наших страхов?
– Поднимутся ли, наконец, 600 аннунаков, чтобы поприветствовать нас в знак одобрения?
После того, как я долго пробыл на самом дне цилиндров этих до сих пор остававшихся без ответа вопросов, я решил встать и вернуться к своим повседневным занятиям. Мириадами коридоров, бесчисленными путями вневременного существования, благодаря абсолютному контролю над эфирными частицами и равновесию электромагнитных вибраций, когда скорость становится бесконечной, а колебание нет, посредством духовного беспокойства, легочного благословения, ментального мольбой, сердечным сочувствием и внутренним ничтожеством я пересек несуществующее пространство времени и оказался на вершине горы.
У пастуха Ардалани, который был на близлежащих склонах, было две собаки, самец и самка. Кобель начал тереться о мою правую ногу, а самка — о левую. Пастух спросил меня, сколько лет нам осталось, и я сказал, сколько тысячелетий прошло.
Близость чисел – это радостное переживание. Обрадованные нашим взаимным воздержанием от пищи, оживлённые нашим взаимным безбрачием, наэлектризованные благодаря нашему душевному целомудрию, пустые от мыслей, свободные от желаний и ясные от чувств, мы обнялись сердцем к сердцу, как это бывало издревле. Саргона Аккадского, отдали дань уважения друг другу и вернулись в наше время.
Количество сродств — удручающий опыт. И единственным утешением для меня теперь является мой друг Ардалани, с которым я так неожиданно столкнулся и от которого так многому научился. Я чувствую, что вы, возможно, захотите спросить меня, почему, желая вернуться к своим повседневным занятиям, я случайно встретил ардаланского пастуха. Я думал, вы знали; иногда я ошибаюсь.
Эхо шло из четырех уголков Вселенной; это был невероятный резонанс в цилиндрах этих до сих пор остававшихся без ответа вопросов. Мириада коридоров только усиливала это эхо; бесчисленные пути сделали невозможным для меня избежать чарующего эха. Затем, когда скорость становится конечной и начинается колебание, сначала пленяется сердечное сопереживание. Когда ваши чувства находятся в плену, вы останавливаетесь в более ранний момент. Там я встретил ардаланского пастуха.
Он не был Ардалани, или, если хотите, он был таким же Ардалани, как я.
Мы оба просто остановились во время Ардаланского хана Хело. Очарованные одним и тем же эхом, мы оба совершили ошибку. Пастух Арделани возвращался в свое время, которое еще не пришло. Чтобы достичь допотопных времен, которые он хотел исследовать, он вышел из Стеклянного Моря. Мы говорили о нашем опыте, и он спросил меня, знаю ли я возвышенное эхо. я ответил положительно; Я слишком хорошо знал эхо. Это была Нейнава, мое постоянное музыкальное сопровождение.
Пастух Ардалани находил его блаженным и таким же восторженным, как и каждый аскетический звук. Вот почему, наконец, моя ошибка пошла на пользу. Благодаря моей сентиментальной неумелости я так много узнал о пастухах будущего, именно об очень близкой нам эпохе. В эту грядущую эпоху Земля будет другой, свободной от городов и деревень, пустой от зданий и чистой от вещей. Бирюзовый цвет неба будет обусловлен полным отсутствием морской и соленой воды. Те немногие достойные мужчины и женщины, которые выживут, ничего не будут есть и не будут совокупляться. Это будет свободный мир без мыслей, без чувств и без желаний; поэтому не будет ни войн, ни убийств, ни болезней.
Непорочное зачатие будет величественным образом, которым будет начинаться жизнь грядущих поколений, а светоносное рождение будет царским образом, которым начнется деятельность грядущих поколений на поверхности Земли, где не будет больше пустынь.
Мой друг Ардалани всегда путешествует со своими овцами и двумя собаками; в его совершенном имперском мире все люди — кочевники. Их вестибулярные способности превосходны, их тактильные функции столь же тонки, как и основная сила эфира; их слуховые обязанности так же гармоничны, как Хрустальный Небесный свод; и их обонятельные цели столь же ангельские, как ладан Пунт-Сомали. Их огромные визуальные способности, как следствие их светящегося рождения, непостижимы, поскольку они способны превратить свои глаза в Маяк своих тел. И их Свет не тьма, как это бывает в наши последние времена.
И несмотря на непрекращающееся эхо Нейнавы, я до сих пор помню последние ободряющие и утешительные слова моего ардаланского друга. В критические годы потрясений, когда все правители сегодняшнего мира и большая часть никчемного населения погибнут в вечном огне, в течение 1335 дней мрака, два неожиданных божественных подарка будут предложены достойным, нравственным и аскетически уцелевшим:
– невидимый канал, по которому плывет Солнце для всех, не будет затронут, но полностью защищен, и
– Луна будет единственным светилом, проливающим достаточно света на ограниченную часть Земли, откуда возобновится Жизнь. Это будет место, где Гишгида, Древо Жизни, появится среди Избранного Народа, которого Спаситель вернет на свою землю.
К востоку от реки Тигр и вокруг Древа Жизни Светящийся Цилиндр будет Знаком Вечной Любви Бога – для очень немногих и самых достойных.
Таковы были преимущества моей настройки на Нейнаву.
=====================
Hasanlu (SW of Urmia Lake’s confines, near Naqadeh; the remains of the capital city of the kingdom of Musasir, which was incorporated into Assyria by Sargon II at the end of the 8th c. BCEFakhrigah, Median tomb; near MiandoabFrom Urmia to Tekab southeastwardsFrom Tekab to Takht-e Sulayman (Adur Gushnasp / Praaspa)Takht-e SuleymanHamadan / EkbatanaGanj-e Nameh, Hamadan: the Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions of Darius the Great and Xerxes the GreatBehistun / BisotunInscriptions and reliefs of Darius the GreatKangavar, Temple of AnahitaAchaemenid tombs in Sahneh Bisotun, Kangavar and Sahneh are on the way from Hamadan to KermanshahTaq-e Bostan, 5 km before Kermanshah; Sassanid and Islamic times reliefs and inscriptions in front of the sacred lake which was part of an earlier established Achaemenid Paradise (imperial garden)
About the composer and the concert: / О композиторе и концерте:
Download the spiritual itinerary in Word doc. (text and pictures with titles): / Скачать духовный маршрут в формате Word (текст и картинки с заголовками):
Megalommatis's Blog 
